Started By
Message

re: The Ultimate Civil War Debate: Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee?

Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:18 pm to
Posted by Lakeboy7
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2011
28324 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:18 pm to
quote:

Oh come on.


Read Rhea's books about the Overland Campaign. Its not a hit piece on Grant but it lays him bare.
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:26 pm to
quote:

Melt, year 150
152.
Posted by Ham And Glass
Member since Nov 2016
1717 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:34 pm to
This is true. Grant did some other things largely forgotten by history that were tactical away from the battlefield as well. Ex: Dissolution of Dix Hill.
Posted by TheTideMustRoll
Birmingham, AL
Member since Dec 2009
10692 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:35 pm to
If you're going to hold Pickett's charge against Lee, then you have to hold the Union attack at Cold Harbor against Grant. To me, Grant's attack was far more unjustifiable. After the battle lines were drawn on the first day of Gettysburg, Lee attempted to fight the remainder of the battle straight out of the Napoleonic playbook: open with attacks on your opponent's wings to draw away his reserves, then finish him with an all-out attack on his center that breaks his army. It didn't work, but it was an understandable plan. Grant, on the other hand, elected to open Cold Harbor with an attack straight into a heavily prepared position, against the advice of his subordinate field commanders. It was a grievous error, and to his credit, he admitted as much in his memoirs.
Posted by SavageOrangeJug
Member since Oct 2005
19758 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:36 pm to
Give Robert E. Lee the men, equipment, and supplies that Grant had and the Stars and Bars would be flying over DC right now.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71117 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:37 pm to
quote:

Grant wasn't even Lincoln's first choice to lead Union military... He was his 4th


Ever hear of seniority? Grant started the war as a captain in the U.S. Army. Winfield Scott began the war as General-in-Chief of all Union forces but was forced to vacate that title and hand it over to McClellan - who re-joined the army in 1861 as a brigadier general. Halleck was Grant's superior in the Western Theater when he was promoted to the position of General-in-Chief.

Also...Grant had to prove himself. After his narrow victory at the Battle of Shiloh he was seen by many as damaged goods. It wasn't until his victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga that Lincoln was sure Grant was the right man for the job. And he was so confident in Grant's ability to get the job done that he asked Congress to promote him to Lieutenant General - a rank which hadn't been held since George Washington in the Revolutionary War.
Posted by SavageOrangeJug
Member since Oct 2005
19758 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:41 pm to
quote:

If I ever find his grave, I'm shitting on it.


Calvary Cemetery and Mausoleum
Saint Louis
St. Louis City
Missouri, USA
Plot: Section 17, family plot
Posted by X123F45
Member since Apr 2015
29814 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:46 pm to
quote:

Sherman was an American hero.



Sherman was a coward and a piece of shite.

He's burning in fires like the ones he set.

frick him.
Posted by Dick Leverage
In The HizHouse
Member since Nov 2013
9000 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:46 pm to
That is exactly where it is located. I bucked up and talked a bunch of shite at his grave marker. Dressed his arse down real good. Told him I was glad he died.
Posted by tiderider
Member since Nov 2012
7703 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:47 pm to
quote:

quote:
William T. Sherman. Keeping America United and free from oppression one bullet at a time. tGOAT rebel slayer.


He was a piece of shite and a terrorist. If I ever find his grave, I'm shitting on it. One of the worst Americans in history.




self righteous southerner gonna get angry because war is hell ...
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71117 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 7:47 pm to
quote:

To me, Grant's attack was far more unjustifiable.


How so? Lee was outnumbered at Gettysburg and had spent the previous day making unsuccessful attacks against the flanks of Meade's line. He figured Meade for a fool and wagered his center was lightly defended. Meade, however, correctly guessed that if there was to be another Confederate attack, that attack would come on his center. So Union reserves began to shift from the flanks to the center on the morning of July 3.

It must also be noted that Lee made the attack against the advice of his subordinate commanders, just like Grant at Cold Harbor. Except Grant at Cold Harbor had a more valid excuse to assault Lee's entrenchments - he had the superior force. And for the last four weeks had had been constantly engaged with Lee's army in brutal combat. He figured that Lee's shrunken force was too exhausted and ill-equipped to withstand an attack against the balance of his force. It was a calculated risk that failed, but a calculated risk that made more sense than Lee's July 3 assault at Gettysburg.

If Grant's assault had succeeded the war would have likely been over in a matter of days. If Lee's assault had succeeded at Gettysburg, he likely would have ended up having to fall back to Virginia because he would have lacked the numbers to exploit the victory.





Posted by heartbreakTiger
grinding for my grinders
Member since Jan 2008
138974 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:01 pm to
Stonewall takes both. Lee made a mistake in 1. Not having New Orleans properly defended and 2. Fighting the war as gentlemen.
Posted by TheTideMustRoll
Birmingham, AL
Member since Dec 2009
10692 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:04 pm to
I'm not saying Lee's decision at Gettysburg was a good one. I'm merely saying that he had at least tried to set up his attack on the center in classic Napoleonic fashion. Grant chose to attack a heavily prepared position at Cold Harbor in the most clumsy way possible. He obviously thought the potential ends justified the very egregious means, but I don't think that decision is very defensible in retrospect, and neither did he, for that matter.
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:09 pm to
Lee would have won Gettysburg if his subordinates would've taken the high ground like he said.
Posted by Overbrook
Member since May 2013
6405 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:26 pm to
Lee, the nation's all-time leading general in terms of casualties of his own troops (incredible when he was primarily playing defense, or he should have been) botched Gettysburg and consistently took vital resources from the western front. His attempted invasion into Maryland was a disaster. Both of these were his ideas....both disasters.
Grant won battle after battle in Confederate territory playing offense.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71117 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:34 pm to
quote:

I'm merely saying that he had at least tried to set up his attack on the center in classic Napoleonic fashion.


Which is even more reprehensible when you consider his attack on Malvern Hill just one year earlier. He attacked an entrenched foe with superior numbers on high ground, in classic Napoleonic fashion, and lost 4,000 men in the process. You think he would have learned his lesson the first time.

quote:

Grant chose to attack a heavily prepared position at Cold Harbor in the most clumsy way possible.


Gordon S. Rhea, a preeminent and more modern day historian of the Overland Campaign, believes that Grant's casualties weren't as heavy as earlier historians have approximated. He holds that Grant's losses for the June 3 assault on Lee's works were around 3,500 to 4,000. And estimates 1,000 to 1,500 casualties for Lee. While that is an enormous loss, it is very comparable to Lee's minor setback at Malvern Hill.
Posted by Mo Jeaux
Member since Aug 2008
63574 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:38 pm to
quote:

Sherman was a coward and a piece of shite.

He's burning in fires like the ones he set.

frick him.


Nah. He's in Valhalla with other righteous warriors, telling tales of laying waste to your traitorous ancestors.
Posted by RollTide1987
Baltimore, MD
Member since Nov 2009
71117 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:40 pm to
quote:

Lee would have won Gettysburg if his subordinates would've taken the high ground like he said.



Lee's command to take Cemetery Hill on the evening of July 1 was more of a suggestion than an order. He told Richard Ewell, the commander of his Second Corps, to take the hill if deemed practicable. This gave Ewell some leeway. And Ewell had many good reasons NOT to attack the hill. His forces were scattered all over Gettysburg town, many of them rounding up Union prisoners and taking them back to the rear, while an entire division of his force (roughly 7,000 men) had yet to arrive on the field. It would have been dark before he was able to mount a major assault, and by that time Union reinforcements would have been arriving to take up the fight their comrades in the 1st and 11th Corps had begun earlier in the day.
Posted by Jcorye1
Tom Brady = GoAT
Member since Dec 2007
76373 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:42 pm to
Lee did more with less.
Posted by lsucoonass
shreveport and east texas
Member since Nov 2003
69999 posts
Posted on 4/23/17 at 8:47 pm to
I'll take Lee
well id prefer stonewall Jackson.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram