General Robert E. Lee vs. General Ulysses Grant? Same amount of forces, equipment..everything? Who wins?

Question

What would have been the outcome of the Civil war had these two fought with the same amount of material, support, forces etc?

Answer 1

Having read excerpts of Grant's memoirs, it's actually tough to say. What we're taught in high school level history is that Grant was a bloodthirsty, wreckless, drunkard who didn't care about the loss of life. I can tell you from historical documentation that such blather is patently false.

In reality, drunkeness was a charge leveled against Grant by generals who had been displaced by him (higher in rank, but placed subordinate and therefore disgruntled). In fact, Abraham Lincoln reviewed the charges and dismissed them. President Lincoln was even quoted as asking what whiskey Grant preferred, so that some could be sent to the other (less successful) generals.

Grant was also NOT a bloodthirsty and careless general. He was a ruffian, yes, but VERY strategically minded. At first he had to deal with SOME very incompetant subordinates, but over time was able to replace some of them with betters. Generals like Sherman were also integral to his successes. But in the end, Grant was careful, took calculated risks, and won ground with what (at the time) were reasonable losses compared to the South... not the horrid numbers everyone seems to think.

Couple all that against Lee... General Lee was a great tactical commander. Given an inferior force, Lee could fight a superiorly sized army to a standstill. Large forces, however, seem to be Lee's weak point. By taking a full battle field perspective, Grant forced Lee to play on the large scale as well, foregoing any tactical brilliance Lee might have employed against a singularly focused attack.

In the end, also, one might note that general army instruction teaches that attacking forces need to outnumber their defensive counterparts at least 3 to 1. The north had a SLIGHT edge in army size when Grant took over (an advantage of about 10 to 7-ish), but nothing was ever in proportion to the expected requirement of 3 to 1 odds. As such, the resultant casualties are EXTREMELY light compared to what might be expected for the Union, showing that while Lee inflicted more than he lost, that he was NOT the better general (all statistics would say that if Lee was superior that he should have won stunningly even with his reduced numbers).

Granted equal numbers and supply chains at the start of Grant's tenure as commander, I would say that the war would still have gone to Grant since he had the attacker's advantage, the momentum, and the strategic experience/viewpoint that allowed him to direct his larger forces more effectively.

Answer 2

From day one, stalemate maybe, but with even more loss of life. Just a reminder, if Lee had not ordered Picket's charge and had withdrawn early from Gettysburg, he could have delayed the war a few more months and in that time Lincoln would have let the south go. He was getting so much hate from mothers over the death toll, he was about to give it up.

Really bad part is that Lee attacked Gettysburg cause his troops needed the shoes there, but the Governor of NC had more than enough and just refused to share with anyone but his state soldiers.

Answer 3

Historians mostly from from the South have totally distorted the reputations of these two men. Lee has been elevated to almost mythological heights while Grant was a drunkard butcher who only won because of overwhelming superiority in numbers. The facts tell a different story. Lee never won a battle outside of his home state. That means he had the luxury of in-depth knowledge of the land, roads and rivers. He enjoyed the support of partisan citizens and his troops fought with that extra fervor that comes when fighting on your own soil. Also, he was lucky to initially fight against inferior generals. Lee was defeated every time he fought on union soil. Contrast that with Grant who fought every battle in hostile territory sometimes hundreds of miles from friendly soil. Grant never lost a battle. Grant was considered a butcher but Lee lost a larger percentage of men per battle when compared to Grant. Remember, that Grant was usually on the offense while Lee primarily fought defensively. Typically the offensive side will lose more troops than the defense. We hear how Grant allowed his troops to be slaughtered at Cold Harbor but Lee lost 3 times that number in the misguided Pickett's charge. Even in Lee's much heralded victories in the 7 days and Chancellorsville battles he lost more troops than the North did. There was no way the South could prevail with these kind of results. Lee had absolutely no strategic skills with regard to the war. As a commander of an army it is expected that they should provide some kind of strategy for victory. It appears that Lee's only strategy was to defend VA and hopefully win a few major battles that would bring Lincoln to the bargaining table. Here he terribly misjudged Lincoln. Conversely, Grant understood that victory would come by controlling the west which included the Mississippi and the major railways. Then he could surround the remaining Rebels and tighten the noose while starving them. In my opinion Lee's tactics only hastened the end of the war. He neglected to defend the places that were strategically vital while squandering his forces in meaningless battles.. Generals Beauregard and Joe Johnston were much more conscious of a proper strategy which in my opinion was to drag the war on by denying the North any major victories while conserving troop strength and resources until hopefully the North would tire of the sacrifice and concede to Confederate demands. But Lee's fame grew with his dramatic victories and so he was encouraged to continue that path to defeat.

Answer 4

Grant...he was a more offensive minded general.. Lee was past his prime. he peaked in the mexican war 20 years prior. The Union has great generals as well, but they get a bad rap because lincoln appointed the incompetant ones to lead the army (Mcclellen, Burnside, Hooker) Lee was to cautious and his only advantage was all his battles were fought in Virginia (except 2, Gettysburg and Antietam which he lost by the way)...Grants men would win in a bloodbath

Answer 5

Lee wins as it has never be shown that Grant could win a major battle without overwhelming odds. Vicksburg was a siege. Meantime, Lee won at Chancellorsville against large Union force.

Answer 6

Both were great generals. I'd say Grant. By the time Grant took over Lee was on the way down. History showed Lee lost his edge after Gettysburgh. Let us not forget most of his good officers had been killed. Number of men and guns wouldn't matter.

Answer 7

Probably Lee would have won. As to the history expert saying Grant was just a drunk, he did have some fine qualities. He was very cool headed under fire. He did break down inside his tent upon hearing about a recent battle and the number of men lost. He cried because he cared about them. Also he was I think quite intelligent and had the respect of his men.

Answer 8

Lee. Grant was a drunk and historians that have done your comparison already state that Lee was brilliant, Grant was, well, not that good. Lee and Grant fought together in the war with Mexico. Lee was credited by Grant, who was his C.O in two battles, with making excellent planning and troop deployment when faced with a larger, better equipped Mexican army.

Answer 9

Lee had great subordinate Generals. He was only as good as the Generals below him. They won the battles...his only problem was he did not listen to them all...if he had listen to Longstreet he would have won the battle of Gettysburg...he was really preoccupied with his Virginian generals...if the South had the same amount of supplies, support, and men...they would have won hands down...the North just out lasted them because they were able to replenish their dead and wounded and the South was not and they were able to get the supplies they needed...the South by far had the best leadership...Grant was a drunk, only reason he won was because most of the time he out numbered Lee 4 to 1 and was able to out flank him...same with Sherman in Georgia...if ands and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a happy Christmas...( I really do not like Lee...Longstreet is my favorite General)

Answer 10

Lee, hands down. Grant knew he could win by continually throwing more at the Confederates than they could withstand over the long run. That wasn't so much generalship as it was an ability to disregard casualties.