Who was the better general , Grant or Lee

The Satellite
41

Daisy duke

42

image

2 Likes
43

Have you ever seen the bullet holes at the Menger? Huge.

44

Speaking of battlefields, I’ve been to Gettysburg and Petersburg.

Both are worthwhile to visit!

2 Likes
45

I haven’t

46

When you go to Gettysburg and you see how far Picketts charge had to go out in the open
maybe Lee wasn’t that great.

1 Like
47

Yeah that battle was crazy for Lee to attempt going uphill vs a heavy defended union position up top. So it’s like I said maybe Lee wanted it to end regardless. I think Lee arrived too late to get the high ground but went ahead anyway. I could be wrong on when Lee arrived. It was his worst blunder and out character for how he operated.

48

I have been to Gettysburg a few times. When you see the space that Picketts charge traversed or how steep little round top was, you really have admiration for the courage of the combatants in the Civil War.

1 Like
49

https://www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/grant-vs-lee/

50

Actually, that’s a good article, and based on that, Grant was better, and it’s a no brainer.

Here’s why. While I spent about 8 years doing mostly foreign military engagements, my first 12 years in the Army were all in Logistics.

If Grant was the better Quartermaster (logistician), then he is NO DOUBT the better General.

We have a saying: Amateurs talk tactics
PROFESSIONALS talk logistics.

Doesn’t matter that Lee was a better tactician. If he wasn’t a better Logistician, his goose was probably cooked, ESPECIALLY given the obvious logistical advantages that the North enjoyed over the South, as well as the “total war” aspects of the Civil War that involved maximizing advantages in railroads, industrial production, economic/military links, etc.

Napoleon said it best. An Army marches on its stomach.

Of course Grant was also a better strategist, which certainly helped.

But let’s be fair. The North’s “Grand Strategy” to win the war: the so-called “Anaconda Plan” was developed by General Winfield Scott, NOT Grant. Grant’s strategy of staying on the offensive and wearing Lee down was, of course, a no brainer.

51

Logistics matter and USA is the best at it. During the battle of bulge in WW2 in the movie, a German tank commander found a cake destined for USA troops and said they will win the war if they have enough resources to get a cake over here and he was right. Logistics in getting supplies to troops miles away is what we do best.

52

Kinda reminds me of the suicidal charge of the light brigade during the Crimean war.

2 Likes
53

“When Ken Burns asked every living president to recite the Gettysburg Address in 2013, Pres. Carter shared this story about Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and the Camp David Accords. We are thinking about the President and thought all would appreciate this wonderful story.”

https://twitter.com/UNUMKenBurns/status/1641153578919182342?s=20

3 Likes
54

My thoughts exactly.

55

That video from Jimmy Carter was awesome.

People need to hear the Gettysburg address over and over and over.

1 Like
56

I have to admit
I’m a much bigger fan of Prez Jimmy than I was when he held office
upstanding human he is.

2 Likes
57

BTW, did you know that when Fort Moultrie fired upon Fort Sumter, it was the first and only time in history that two forts fired upon each other?

1 Like
58

Okay, visualize Lee leading the North and Grant the South.

59

With Lee commanding Union forces in the East, instead of incompetent fools like Irvin McDowell or Ambrose Burnside, or not bold enough types like George McClellan, Richmond probably gets captured sooner.

If Grant is opposing him as Confederate Commander in the East, even as a better logistician, the South’s logistical/industrial/resource base is probably enough of a disadvantage to make defeat almost inevitable. That said, I’m guessing Grant wouldn’t probably have tried to fight a more defensive war and not attempt to so many “Hail Mary” plays like Gettysburg. Perhaps he could have held out long enough. Who knows?

In the Western theater, with Grant in command of Southern Forces, and Lee in command of the Norther nforces, I would guess that Lee would follow a strategy similar to Grant’s.

Like Johnston, Grant would likely have been bold and surprise attacked Union forces (under Lee) at Shiloh. Unlike Beauregard, he might have been enough of a risk taker not to retreat, assuming, of course, he wasn’t killed, as Johnston was. If Grant was killed, then it’s probably a similar result. In the end though, the result might still be a Confederate defeat, given the South’s disadvantage in numbers at Shiloh, and the lack of reserves available to commit to continue the fight.

Perhaps the rail stations at Corinth might not have been abandoned, and troops could have been assembled for a counter-offensive or counter-maneuver, but it’s iffy at best.

1 Like