Which Civil War general was the best, Lee or Grant?
2007-09-22 06:54:39 · 8 answers · asked by Cody 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Grant AND Lee.
"Grant was not only a great general, but an honest man, a somewhat rare combination in the history of war, which should teach us not only how to conquer our enemies, but how to master ourselves. It is in this respect, I feel, that military history has been squandered; it has led us into realms of romance, or has pointed the way to future slaughter; yet seldom has it shown us how the greatness of war can be built into the goodness of peace. It is here that men like Alexander and Napoleon fail us, and others like Lee and Grant help us. The genius of the former is too distant from us; the greatness of the latter sufficiently far and yet sufficiently near to make it at once attractive and graspable."
J.F.C. Fuller, May 5, 1929
2007-09-22 08:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose in many minds, Grant was the better general because as they say, "To the victor goes the spoils". However, I can't immediately agree that he made a better general merely because he won. A stronger, better equipped army doesn't mean it has a better general than a weaker, ill-equipped army with a brilliant general.
Consider this... Grant knew his army outnumbered Lee's by Lord only knows how many troops. So if he lost 5,000 troops and Lee lost 5,000 troops, well, that puts Lee more in a scrape than Grant. And so they fought, on and on and on, all the while Grant knew that it was only a matter of time before Lee's army simply lost everybody it had.
This is not to say he wasn't a smarter general than that, he was indeed a great general. But Lee wasn't as outgeneraled as he was lacking in an army that could match Grant's own.
If I were to choose the better general, it'd be Lee. He made a lot of daring risks that paid off, he was a very calculating general, always a step ahead, he seemed to know what his enemies were literally thinking, he made due with what he had and he lasted that way for more years than I think Grant could have. He was a master general.
2007-09-22 07:33:53 · answer #2 · answered by Russell 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Yankee, but Lee was better. If Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the Union troops, the war would have been over in 2 months. The Confederacy was able to prolong the war due his generalship. Grant had the luxury of an abundance of forces, which he was not afraid to use.
2007-09-22 07:05:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would say Grant because he never really lost a battle or anything...just kept it steady in the Western Theater...while Lee lost this one little battle, I don' know if you've ever heard of it, but it's called GETTYSBURG. Plus, it was Lee that surrendered his troops to Grant at Appomatox Court House.
2007-09-22 07:03:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There's not much strategy in fighting a war of attrition. Sledgehammer tactics might win when you have overwhelming resources in men and material, but history always sheds a better light on the daring generals....which is where Lee is placed on america's psyche....
2007-09-22 08:07:41 · answer #5 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Grant won the war. By that measure, he was the better general.
2007-09-22 07:01:58 · answer #6 · answered by livemoreamply 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lee was better. Grant was a drunk but he had a better army (better supplies, weapons, funds, etc) so he won by the people who supported him. Lee just didn't have a chance with the army he had.
2007-09-22 07:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by lantern1701 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Lee hands down Grant was a drunken fool.
2007-09-22 06:58:12 · answer #8 · answered by harlin42 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋