The most overrated General in US history was Robert E. Lee.

[norml]

The most overrated General in US history was Robert E. Lee. The most underrated was Ulysses S. Grant. While Robert E. Lee was seen as some sort of a mythical figure by both sides, Ulysses S. Grant had a keen overview of the war and the very narrow ways in which it could possibly be won. Mainly by cleanly slashing the South in two using the river systems. It worked. Whatever else Grant may have been, he was perhaps the most brilliant strategist of American military history. Gen. Eisenhower followed Gen. Grant's strategies almost exactly. The South did not need to defeat the North to win. All they needed to do was to wear down the will of the North to continue the war. Had Gen. Lee fought a more defensive war for the South, rather than going on the attack, and invading the North, things might have turned out differently.

[imenja]

1. really?

I've never followed military history, but I would think the fact that Grant actually won the war would suggest historians acknowledged his military skills above Lee's. Am I wrong?

[Downtown Hound]

4. Grant is often put down by many historians

because he suffered such heavy casualties in most of his campaigns. But this was part of his strategy. He realized that he had superior numbers and material and that he would have to fight a war of attrition to win. That's exactly what he did.

Lee is often lauded by historians because of his early successes against a superior force and the fact that he put up such a vigorous defense against the invading northern armies in the later years of the war. But the original poster is right. He probably would have had more success if he hadn't tried to invade the north.

[imenja]

6. yes, I have read that

I've often wondered how much of that was the great lost cause filtering into historical interpretation.

[demnan]

2. Yes I believe so

However, Gen. Lee also had to contend with the wishes of President Jeff Davis, who was an ass. I remember seeing pictures of Lee just four years apart where his hair went from black to stark white. I'm not a historian, but I'd be willing to bet the attacks into the North were Davis' idea.

[shraby]

3. The South also lacked the resources it

needed to sustain a war. That could have been a factor in Lee's push to take the war to the enemy.

[imenja]

7. historian that argues poor whites were the key to the Southern campaign

In graduate school, I read an interesting book by J. William Harris, who argues that poor white sustained the greatest burden in supporting the South's war effort and that their withdraw of that support lead to the downfall of the Confederacy.

I think this was the book:
J William Harris, _Plain folk and Gentry in a Slave Society : White Liberty and Black Slavery in Augusta's Hinterlands_ (Harper & Row, 1985).

[pres2032]

55. that's true

Lee went North to give Southern farmers a break and the opportunity to grow their crops.

It was Lee's idea to invade the north, both times.

[youngred]

36. you are correct

Davis pushed Lee to invade the North because he was hoping for a decisive victory on Northern soil to get political recognition from England and France who would then drive the North to the bargaining table (since the North was heavily dependent on European markets for its industry)

[saltpoint]

5. My vote for Most Overrated goes to Tommy Franks.

I hear you on Grant as Most Underrated.

[norml]

45. How can you be overrated when you're not even rated?

He's just another General Westmorland, whom history will barely remember.

[saltpoint]

46. Yep. I think you're right. n/t

[depakid]

8. The battle of Chancellorsville is studied all over the world

in military colleges- though it was only one of Lee's many brilliant uses of manuever against superior forces.

Grant, on the other hand, won his campaigns against the army of Northern Virginia largely through attrition- and many of his contemporaries considered him to be a butcher for his willingness to needlessly sacrifice his own men.

Hardly the stuff of brilliance, Grant was at best a mediocre general who's remembered only because of the sheer incompetence of his predecessors.

I mean, here's a guy who orders repeated charges over and over against heavy fortifications at Cold Harbor- just SLAUGHTERING his men for no strategic purpose whatsoever- and that's somehow the mark of a great general?

I don't think so.

[norml]

10. Wasn't it Lee who ordered Pickett's Charge?

"SLAUGHTERING his men for no strategic purpose whatsoever" Yet another glorious doomed attack by the "Great General". And what was the strategic objective for the South that Lee was going after in Pennsylvania anyway?

[depakid]

11. Lee made a huge mistake even fighting at Gettysburg

No doubt about that... there wasn't any good strategic reason to fight at that particular place and time. Lee was obstinate- possibly even ill. And he is rightly criticised for Picket's charge.

You might say, Gettysburg was his Waterloo- and you have to credit Grant for some of what happened, because Gettyburg may never had been fought, except for the Union victories in the West and the pressure he put on Vicksburg.

The strategic hope for invading the North was to wear down Union morale- and in fact political support for the war was growing tenuous at the time. Wreak some havok in Northern Territory and the Union could have conceivable been pressured into allowing succession.

Had Lee fought on different ground an won a victory in Pennsylvania- withing striking distance of Baltimore, Washington or even New York, and the whole outcome of the war- and all of US history- could have been dramatically altered.

[Blind Tiresias]

14. Grant did not command the Union Army at Gettysburg

Also Grant's seige of Vicksburg, in which he had 4 times the men, but could not take the enemy ground for almost 1 year, forced Lee to take the initiative. Vicksburg was key, because it cut off the key shipping route to supply Confederate armies in the west and east and effectively split the new nation in 2. Lee knew this was going to happen earlier, and invaded the north in 1862, but was beaten back at Antietam, the bloodiest battle in American history.

[depakid]

16. Of course he didn't

But Grant's stranglehold on Vickburg was the impetus for invading the North- and Lee's knowledge of how grave the situtation was quite possibly goaded him into fighting at Gettysburg, despite the fact that the ground conferred few of the advantages that had proven so decisive in his previous victories. JEB Stuart's cavalry hadn't even arrived when the assault began!

Antietam is interesting, because Lee might have been victorious in pressing that first invasion, too, if not for a twist of fate -some errant messenger wrapped cigars in a copy of his battle plans- and lost them by the roadside. A Union soldier picked them up and delivered them to McClellan- who was too lame to exploit the advantage- and allowed Lee's army to get away- just like Meade did at Gettysburg.

Hence Grant's reputation- most of the Union generals were bloody incompetent!

[Blind Tiresias]

17. when you are right

you are right! i appreciate your knowledge of american history depakid :toast:

[depakid]

18. I enjoy your takes as well

History seems to be a dying art these days....

[realisticphish]

97. there are still desciples in the next generation

we few, we geeky few :)


:hippie: The Incorrigbile Democrat

[msmcghee]

43. "The strategic hope for invading the North . .

. . . was to wear down Union morale- and in fact political support for the war was growing tenuous at the time. Wreak some havok in Northern Territory and the Union could have conceivable been pressured into allowing succession."

If he'd only succeeded I think we'd be much better off today. I believe we would have reunited eventually, certainly by WWI. But the south would have had to prove themselves morally worthy first.

Our goal should have been to free the slaves and bring them north - and then make them secceed. Unfortunately, racism in the north made that impossible. Just because northerners hated slavery doesn't mean they were not racists.

I know this is probably a naive view and I'm sure some of you historians will explain why, so I offer it somewhat toungue-in-cheek. But I sure am wishing the south was not part of the USA today.

I really enjoy reading these posts from you folks here at DU who have such a great background in these things. I learn so much - even when you disagree with each other. Thanks.

[Elidor]

92. We can thank General Buford for the opening that led to Union success

At Gettysburg. At least in the tactical sense (since you boys are talking more strategic matters). But for his quick and stubborn action, we might have lost that battle before it ever properly started. It took many other men to secure the victory, but he and his men allowed us that hope of victory, and drew in Lee's army piecemeal, against Lee's direct orders to his commanders.

[JVS]

24. Yeah, Gettysburg was a bad showing for Lee

[GarySeven]

34. Lee was going for the White House

and to pull as many federal troops out of Virginia as possible so farmers could harvest and get their food to Confederate suttlers.

Was was Grant's grand strategy for the slaughter at Cold Harbor?

[pres2032]

56. Lee had no intention of going for the White house

it was too well heavily guarded and fortified. he was going to garner support in Maryland and perhaps draw that state into the confederacy. He was also trying to raise hell in PA and perhaps deliever that descisive blow to the North in its own territory. A fact little known is that Jubal Early nearly took Harrisburg. He laid siege to it and they almost surrendered but then he was called away to Gettysburg.

[diamond14]

39. here, the streets are name PICKETT, RIPLEY, LEE.....in Virginia

LEE highway is big and prominent....

it's real sick....somehow, streets got named for failed generals, who are traitors to the United States of America....what sense is that????

It's very weird to have so many monuments and streets named for those who LOST the war....shockingly backward, really....and worse, the glory goes to those who attacked the USA !!!! TRAITORS to America!!! It's sort of like giving glory to those who attacked the pentagon....here, they give glory to those who attacked a UNITED STATES military installation, Ft. Sumtner.....what sense is that????

[Ekirh]

63. I live in VA...

We also have a Robert E. Lee Day.. which "Just happens' To fall on MLK Day.

I live in Mathews, and our elementary school's name is Lee Jackson Elementary School.... so your right tehre is a lot in VA named after them..

There's an High School named after Jeff Davis also. The African American Community I think tried to get the community to change it's name (I apologize, I forgot where in VA this happened)

[jarab]

32. You're right on, depakid.

And the declaration in the OP is pure bullshit by the accounts of history covering well over a century.
...O...

[diamond14]

41. SLAUGHTERING MEN is what all wars are about.....look at D-Day

what a ghastly slaughter....yet the generals told the men to JUST KEEP ON GOING FORWARD.....

there were plenty of slaughters in both WWII and WWI, where OUR generals had NO PROBLEM with just sending OUR soldiers to their deaths...no problem at all.....



it's only been since the grandious idea of BOMBING from the air, and NUCLEAR bombs that OUR fatalities have been lessened, and OUR WARS are basically about KILLING innocent civilians.....with our new TOTAL DEATH appoach, 90 % is KILLING innocent civilians, while only 10 % is soldiers KILLING each other...

for WWI, 90% of the KILLING was between soldiers, with only 10% innocent civilian KILLING...

NOW, 10 % is KILLING between soldiers....90 % is OUR PROUD KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS from the AIR....

and don't ever forget how BRILLIANT that is....we're so proud....

[chunkylover55]

82. "For no strategic purpose whatsoever"???

Grant was trying to break Lee's lines and destroy the Confederate Army. He grossly underestimated the strength of Lee's defensive position. Grant made a terrible mistake and paid for it, he knew it too. It was Grant's greatest strategic blunder in the war.

Give Grant his due -- you can't diminish his successes at Vicksburg and at Chickamauga and the fact that he went on to finally defeat R.E. Lee.

[x-g.o.p.er]

95. Hooker lost that battle more than Lee won it...

Say what you want about Lee's brilliance, but it was Joe Hooker's total ineptitude and blatant disregard of the obvious that lead to the North's defeat in that battle.

[Blind Tiresias]

9. BS

Lee had inferior equipment, inferior supplies, inferior production capacity, less available men, and still was able to consistently defeat the northern army for 4 years! His only failures were his invasions of the North, but you have to look at the logistics. If the Army of Northern Virginia were to have successfully defeated the North on northern territory, the Confederacy would have won the war, marching unopposed into DC. Given that his victories on his land provided him initiative, he had to act given the that the North's industrial might would have eventually triumphed.
Had he stayed entirely on the defensive, as you suggest, the war would have dragged on until 1870 b/c Lee was brilliant enough to consistently defeat Union armies, but didnt have the supplies to continue, while the North had endless factories to produce war materiel, and an endless supply of Irish immigrants willing to join the army for citizenship.
Grant was a racist alcoholic asshole who happily sent THOUSANDS of Irish immigrants to their deaths because he knew he could trade 3 'worthless' Irishmen for 1 Confederate soldier.
If you have any doubt about Lee's magnetism as a soldier and leader, look at how his army followed him untl the end. By April 1865, they were almost completely decimated, starving, without supplies (most fighting barefoot for lack of shoes) and they were still willing to die on his order. For me, Lee is an impeccable character, because he chose defending his home over a cushy commision in the US army. Moreover, he was a liberal!!!

[depakid]

13. I agree with most of this, except that

Commander of all Union forces in the field- which Lincoln offered him, is hardly a "cushy commission." Indeed, it's a whole lot better than he ever got from Jefferson Davis!

[apple_ridge]

20. I remember some obscure quote about how it's often the

best people who do the most damage. That quote applies perfectly to Lee, since he was an extremely decent man who abhorred slavery and disagreed with secession, but felt it was his duty to stay with Virginia.

Grant was a hack compared to Lee. Grant was merely relentless on the offense and kept up the pressure until Lee ran out of resources. It was an effective tactic, however it was not an approach anyone would consider brilliant.

[diamond14]

42. "decent men" do NOT hold slaves while writing how 'abhorrent'

slavery is...decent men do NOT fight a war for the right to hold slaves...decent men do NOT turn against their own country as TRAITORS.....


it's very sick to call LEE a 'decent man'....

[apple_ridge]

75. He freed his slaves before the war. Get off your horse and read

some history.

[skygazer]

77. Technically they weren't his slaves

They and Arlington were owned by his father-in-law, grandson to Martha Washington, as a matter of fact. When his father-in-law died, Lee freed those slaves. However, he did fight to retain a system that was abhorrent.

You have to have an understanding of history to realize that to most Americans of the time, their "country" was not the United States but the state in which they lived. The original colonies were entities in themselves and people's allegiances were to those entities. That didn't change until after the Civil War. Prior to the war, people would say, "The United States are..." implying that they were each individual and sovereign entities. After the war, people began to say, "The United States IS..." Big difference.

I've never agreed with the decision to secede or to fight (my ancestors fought for the North and my state was the first to outlaw slavery in its Constitution. I'm no southern apologist) but I do understand the mindset of the time. It is never right to put modern interpretations on historical events - one has to view them in light of the times and the social mileau to understand them properly. Besides, most of those who are considered "great" have some pretty unsavory things in their lives. Kennedy was a philanderer. Washington owned slaves - he freed them upon his death but he waited until he was dead to do so. Does that negate the fact that he won the Revolution and shaped the Presidency?

[diamond14]

37. impeccable character???? a traitor to America and a slave holder

has IMPECCABLE CHARACTER???

[cruadin]

57. I agree with most of what you say about the availability...

of material and the production capacity of the North. But your point about an endless supply of Irish immigrants willing to enlist in the Federal Army is not entirely accurate.
The most violent civil insurrection in American history took place in New York City in July 1863, only days after the Federal victory at Gettysburg. Union troops had to be marched from the battlefield straight into the city to restore order, in what is called the New York City Draft Riot (a little known sideshow of the Civil War) Over 105 people were killed and far more were injured.
The main combatants against authority in the riots were Irish (and some German) immigrants who wanted employment but absolutely NO part of military service. The riots developed an ugly racial tone as well, after several days of lawlessness, at least one orphanage for African-American children was burned by mobs drunk with their own savagery.
One book called, "The New York City Draft Riots" by Iver Bernstein covers the episode in exhaustive detail, but I'm sure the outlines of the insurrection and opposition to military service during the Civil War can be found elsewhere.

[T Town Jake]

68. Lee was "a liberal"??? Did I read that right?....

...you're talking out of your ass - Lee was a "liberal" about like Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott was/is. You're really not fooling anybody with this horseshit.

[Blind Tiresias]

79. its a crying shame you dont know your history

if you knew anything about American history pre-1865, you would know the vast majority of slave owners were agrarians. Unfortunately Lee was not a farmer, he was an employed civil engineer trained at West Point, to work in DC and Baltimore. When he inherited his arlington plantation through marriage, his first act has head of household was to free his newly acquired slaves. He did keep some servants in place who worked in the house, in exchange for room and board as most successful people did at the time. Lee never had any use for slaves, because he never required them for field work.

Furthermore, Lee was a member of the Whig party, which was never really hot on slavery. Most whigs left the party, and joined the newly formed, more ardent abolitionist repulican party (Lincoln was a moderate whig). Lee mainly supported the Whigs because they were big into building infrastructure around growing cities, but he was fairly comfortable with their lukewarm anti-slavery stance, which he knew (as any educated person at the time) was going to end in Civil War.

If you actually read Lee's memoirs, you would know how he agonized over the decision and in the end decided to fight to defend his home state. See back then people were not necessarily patriotic to the national flag, but were often more loyal to their state. Lee makes it very clear in his memoirs that had the South won the war, he would have used his enormous popularity to 'modernize' the south, which he all but states dooms the practice of slavery, which he called "immoral"

[T Town Jake]

84. NO, what's a "crying shame" is that you're...

...trying to peddle horseshit that a ninth grade history student would laugh at.

[Blind Tiresias]

93. Pls do not refer to my opinions as horseshit

I am proud of my liberalism, and I have a complete history of what it is. You havent said anything about how Lee was anything like a corrupt scumbag like Trent Lott, so as far as im concerned you are the one who is 'peddling' something. Ive already explained how he opposed the conservative democratic party (at that time) and simply chose home principles. If all you got is "he fought for the confederacy!! so he must be evil" or falsely claim that "he owned slaves" then I cannot help you. Read primary sources like I have from all perspectives and them come back and try to peddle your narrow view of liberalism that drives so many Americans away from the left (where they belong).

[T Town Jake]

94. Go cry about it elsewhere, sport...

...I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and will "refer" to your offered opinions any damn way I see fit. And I see fit to call the notion that Robert E. Lee was any sort of a "liberal" exactly what it is: H-O-R-S-E-S-H-I-T.

BTW, this one actually gave me another good laugh: "Ive already explained how he opposed the conservative democratic party (at that time) and simply chose home principles"

Those "home principles" he "chose" included waging bloody war on behalf of the following:
1. Slavery
2. White Supremacy
3. Aristocratic Privilege of a Landed Gentry gussied up as "chivalry"
4. Treason cloaked with the semantic fig leaf of "secession" and "state's rights" as pitiful justification for the unjustifiable
5. Destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America

Yep, Marse Robert sounded just like a regular old bleeding heart lefty there, now didn't he? A regular Gandhi in Grey, Eleanor Roosevelt with a saber, he was... /sarcasm

Please.

[Blind Tiresias]

96. its amazing how well you know what his intentions are

as a hindu, i have to ask, are you him reincarnated? perhaps you should read his actual words (what's left) before you judge.

[NNadir]

102. The definition of Lee as a "liberal" has to be one of the most absurd

comments I have ever heard.

This is a man who killed human beings for an alleged "right" to treat other human beings like farm animals.

You have obviously not read Nolan's "Lee Considered" which explodes once and for all any notion of liberality from Robert E. Lee.

You have also obviously not read the military historian JFC Fuller's "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" (written in the 1930's) wherein the military ability of Lee and Grant are compared. According to Fuller, one of the premier military historians of all time, Grant was an original thinker, whose Vicksburg campaign was seldom equaled before or after. Indeed, as Fuller notes, the Petersburg campaign did not end in a stalemate and a siege because of any ability of Lee's, since Lee was completely outfoxed and had no garrison at Petersburg after Grant crossed the James. It was because Grant's subordinates did not have the aggressiveness to charge into the city as Grant desired. Grant ultimately did the right thing, and replaced men like Butler who lacked aggressiveness. Had Sheridan been Grant's subordinate in that campaign, or Sherman, Lee would have been forced to surrender in 1864.

Lee on the other hand was a dinosaur, who failed to appreciate the effect of modern weaponry.

Lee benefited by incompetent and cowardly generalship in his opponents, to be sure, men like Pope, like Hooker, like McClellan (not incompetent, just cowardly) etc, etc.

Faced with competent and courageous generals like Meade, like Sheridan and above all, like Grant, Lee failed miserably.

As for bloodthirstiness, as Nolan points out, Lee fought on in 1864 even after he knew the war was lost, and had written as much. The idea seemed to have been "honor." It's great to have honor with other people's blood.

As Nolan also notes, Robert E. Lee is one of the least examined figures from the Civil War, since history has taken him at his own duplicitous terms, chiefly with an eye toward putting the Civil War (and civil rights) behind the protagonists of the time. The more one looks at Lee, the smaller he seems.

[devilgrrl]

12. I agree that Lee is overrated...

however, until proven otherwise, Grant wasn't much better in MHO.*


sorry folks... I've got a twoo beer buzz going... d'oh!

[ShaneGR]

15. One thing you're forgetting, Grant has an endless supply train....

Lee didn't, the south was blockaded for the most part. So any conjecture on the greatness or lack thereof of either general is hogwash, it just came down to who had more bullets, cannons, and manpower.

[unblock]

19. the fact that lee was lincoln's first choice

probably has a lot to do with it....

[AP]

25. Having all the factories in the North and a culture of paying people

for their work probably didn't hurt either.

[GarySeven]

30. Lee wasn't Lincoln's first choice - he was the army's first choice.

If the entire officer corps thought Lee was the best soldier, that should account for something.

[chunkylover55]

83. "the fact that lee was lincoln's first choice"

Actually, he was not Lincoln's first choice. He was General-In-Chief Winfield Scott's first choice. Lee served with the general on his staff during the Mexican War and duly impressed Scott. I believe Scott once said about Lee "He is the finest officer I have ever served with". . . or something like that.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. I disagree.

I don't think Lee was the BEST general in US history, but to claim that he was the 'most overrated' does him an extreme disservice. Lee, knowing that the South lacked the resources to win a protracted conflict against the Union, employed the only strategy that that COULD bring a Southern victory--- a relatively fast, decisive win. Any fair review of the historical record will disclose how very, VERY close he came to doing so. The Union largely won the war by sheer volume of materiel, although Grant's generaliship put that factor to good use late in the war.

[youngred]

33. "The Lost Order"

Had the plas for Lee's assault on Gettysburg not fallen into Union hands wrapping some cigars the North likely would have lost the battle by having been out of position. As it was they were more ready for Lee than they would have been. Couple that with the loss of Stonewall Jackson as the only person who could have talked Lee out of Picketts charge and we may have ended up with a divided nation

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[youngred]

38. why the need to add idiot?

was I attacking you?

you are correct, I made a mistake in the first part (which is what lost antietam), but the second part about Jackson is correct.

[HamdenRice]

22. I agree: Grant was brilliant, Lee was not...

Implicit in both the praise and criticism of Grant is his most profound insight: Grant was the first general in history to understand the nature of modern war. Grant understood as no one did that he had to defeat southern society, not just the south's armies. It was the beginning of total war, which became the model for WWI and especially WWII.

Also civil war history from the late 1800s until the 1960s was largely written by southerners or southern sympathizers (like Woodrow Wilson) and was utterly biased. Everything about the northern perspective from emancipation, to military strategy to reconstruction was trashed during the entire era of segregation, and you can assume that conventional wisdom is always wrong. Only in the 1960s did historians begin to set the record straight, and the process is still on going.

[apple_ridge]

28. You have confused Grant with Sherman. It was Sherman

who first came up with the practice of destroying the supply side of an army and did just that on his march through the south.

[GarySeven]

29. You are absolutely right. It was Sherman's idea; Grant took the credit.

And the practice of people idolizing Lee began during the civil war - and it was people like Grant and Sherman (who was at heart a racist and a Southerner) who were among the main worshippers. They must have had a reason to admire him and they are in a better position than Lee's modern critics to assess Lee's military abilities.

Antietam, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg were not accidents.

[Blind Tiresias]

80. If Sheman was a US General today

almost everyone on this board would assail his tactics as war crimes, and with good cause.

[shleonny]

23. patton or eisenhower are better picks

[orpupilofnature57]

26. No shit, did more with less, against more than any other conflict in

History.

[youngred]

27. The defensive path was Lee's original plan

But pressure from Davis to end the war quickly and get recognition for the south drove him to invade the North.

Grant was a very good general, but there is no doubt that Lee was better in battlefield strategy

[Cuban_Liberal]

31. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

Good answer!

:thumbsup:

[JohnKleeb]

72. Yeah I agree with that

Another thing you gotta consider is that Lee was constantly outnumbered by a ratio of 1.5-1, 2:1, he did an amazing job given the circumances.

[NNguyenMD]

40. In the West, our A-Team played their B-Team, vice versa out East

The battles in the more Western parts of America, in the Mississippi Valleys and in places like Tennessee, our military leadership was solid and consistently won. We had Generals, Grant, Sheridan, Thomas, and Sherman out there kicking Confederate ass with a vengeance.

In the east in places like Virginia, it was a flipped over situation, and Robert E. Lee was the man who represented the Confederate "A-Team" so to speak. Its been awhile since I've taken my college Civil War History course, but my history professor thought that Grant has been grossly underrated and agreed that Lee gets too much credit for being this God like figure of the Civil War.

According to Shelby Foote if you watch Ken Burns's KICK ASS documentary series played on PBS "The Civil War", the most domineering figures in the North and South were Abraham Lincoln, and Nathaniel Bedford Forrest respectively.

Ulyssess S. Grant was a great fighter, tactician, and from what I thought from reading his memoirs I'm convinced that he was a good and decent man as well who put loyalty above all else.

He's gotten an unfair shake among many historians, maybe so much so because the Historian community finds that its easier to appease nutcase Southerners than to defend a man who fought gallantly for his country. I'm sure they'll skewer Clinton not long after he passes on.

[apple_ridge]

48. An excellent synopsis.

The Army of the Potomac was run by one idiot after another until Lincoln finally put Grant in command. I still think Lee was an absolutely brilliant general, but it certainly helped that he was facing mediocre generals who were still fighting with antiquated battlefield tactics.

IMHO, "The Civil War" documentary is the finest tv production ever made.

[theboss]

52. Foote believes that Forrest is one of the few military "geniuses" ever

And you are correct in noting that the Union had its best leaders out West while the Confederacy had its best in Virginia.

[jpgray]

64. Johnston wasn't too bad as a general

That Davis hated and constantly undermined him probably wasn't too conducive to his strategic planning. Look what happened when Hood took over.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

44. george washington was the greatest american general

lee's success was due in large part to a string of incompetent union generals. meade should have followed up with a counter attack and never permitted lee to go back to virgina after gettysburg. i think lee wanted to end it all in gettysburg in a glorious charge. meade declined to follow up.

sarah vowell was on c-span a few years ago and she was talking to a group in minnesota (i think). she was talking about gettysburg and she said that lincoln, while giving his address, must have been thinking, "goddamn, fucking meade."

[theboss]

47. That's a pretty naive assessment of the war and of Lee

Lee did nothing but fight a defensive war for the first three years of the war. The reasons for the invasion of the north:

a. crush Northern resolve
b. take back the advantage after the disasters in the West
c. get the French and British to recognize the Confederacy
d. take some pressure off Virginia which was being ravaged

He got drawn into a battle at Gettysburg which he never should have fought because he found himself on the low ground while the Union occupied the high ground. But if Jackson had still been alive, the battle may have gone differently.

Lee understand his objective better than anyone in the South, particularly Jeff Davis. He never sought to "defeat" the north. His job was to destroy the Army of the Potomac and he damn near did it. All this despite fewer troops and less equipment.

Anyhoo, Grant deserves more credit than he gets but at the same time, his strategies are hardly anything to praise as little more than simple mathematics. He was the only general to recognize his numerical advantages and use them. The 1964 campaign was a preview of WWI and was just bloody and brutal.

If you want to study real military genius, study Sherman's march TO Atlanta against Joe Johnston. The two danced from Chattanooga to Atlanta in just a brilliant display of flanking and tactical retreating.

[apple_ridge]

49. Lee wouldn't listen to Longstreet who pleaded with him to

resist the urge to attack and instead take up a defensive position on the hills between Gettysburg and Washington. Jackson would probably have met the same resistance. Lee was intent on ending it right there.

[theboss]

50. Lee made a huge mistake at Gettysburg, no doubt

But I think he knew better than most that he couldn't stay in a defensive posture forever. He wanted a fight where he could deliver a crushing blow and simply chose the wrong time and place to do it.

I don't think Jackson would have made a difference in planning Gettysburg. I think he would have made a difference during the fight itself. Pickett was useless.

[apple_ridge]

51. Pickett didn't plan the attack. Lee did. He was just following

orders and was totally wiped out as a result.

[theboss]

53. I know

But I think Jackson would have made a difference in the first two days of battle.

[Bok_Tukalo]

69. How would Jackson had made a difference?

His troops would not have even been in position the first day.

[Hubert Flottz]

70. If Jackson had commanded Second Corps of the Army of ...

Northern Virginia instead of Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell the battle of Gettysburg would have gone far differently IMHO! Ewell had a chance on the first day of the battle to take the high ground and failed to do so! Lee did not want to fight at Gettysburg to begin with! Lee did not know where the Army of the Potomac was because JEB Stewart was busy stealing and bringing in a northern supply train instead of doing the recon he was supposed to do! The battle of Gettysburg was an accident to begin with!

Braxton Bragg was the Idiot!

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. Yeah...

and if Nathan Bedford Forrest had been in the East and commanding the Confederate cavalry instead of Jeb Stuart, Gettysburg would've gone differently, too...Lee's loss at Gettysburg is mainly due to Stuart's failure to fulfil his mission of providing reconnaissance. Had Stuart scouted properly instead of wandering too far away from the main body of Lee's force AND away from the main body of Meade's troops, then Lee would likely have won.

[Hubert Flottz]

86. General Forrest turned out to be a great Cav officer!

Stewart was a great Cav officer but he blew it on Lee's second invasion of the North! The Reb Cav in Virginia kicked some serious butt until the North gained the upper hand in the last two years of the war due to superior arms,(repeating rifles) an endless supply of fresh horses, endless supplies of fresh troopers and the fine West Point trained cav leaders! The first three years of the war Stewart and Forrest were feared almost as much the devil himself! Stewarts rides around the Army of the Potomac were some truly amazing raids!

Stewart and Lee were the two officers who captured John Brown at Harper's Ferry! Nathan Bedford Forrest was a natural leader without a military education! Forrest and his brother were in the business of selling slaves in Memphis before the war! I've read that Forrest was the first 'Grand Dragon' of the KKK! I also read that long after the war ended Forrest challenged Union Maj. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick(Kilcavalry)to a duel but that the duel never took place!

Both sides produced some good, even great officers! You can argue about the reasons they fought, but it all boils down to the same thing American soldiers are still fighting and dying for today! They always believe(for whatever reason)they are on the right side!(Gawd's Side)

Maj. Gen. George S Patton's grandfather fought in one of the first battles of the civil war(Scary Creek)and lost an arm! The battle took place about five miles down the road from here! Brig. Gen. Patton was a confederate officer! Where would America have been without George S Patton's grandson Georgie? Robert E. Lee was the son of a distinguished cavalry commander in the American Revolution!(Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee) Lt. Col Lee's capture of Paulus Hook (now Jersey City), New Jersey, which he took in a surprise raid on August 19, 1779, is regarded as one of the most brilliant exploits of the war. Lee was rewarded for this coup by promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Congress awarded him a gold medal.

The American Civil War was a sad sad time indeed! Still, I never get tired of reading about it! The Mosbys the Ashbys the Forrests, the Custers and the Sheridans of those dark days make for some great reading!

[Bok_Tukalo]

67. Jackson is the most overrated general in American History

<<But if Jackson had still been alive, the battle may have gone differently.>>

Doubtful.

If he had listened to Longstreet (America's most underrated, and vilified, general) on the other had, the battle would have DEFINITELY gone differently.

[DrGonzoLives]

54. Grant? No

Grant was a butcher with superior numbers and equipment, whose strategy was basically to overwhelm the other guys with his, regardless of how many died. He was alo corrupt and a roaring drunk who should have never set foot in the White House.

[apple_ridge]

59. Corrupt and a roaring drunk? Are you saying he's W?

[jpgray]

60. Grant trusted the wrong people in his presidency

You don't get to be friends with Mark Twain if you're a corrupt, butcher asshole.

[apple_ridge]

62. Good point. Grant was a decent man and a great soldier, but

he was not an administrator. Hell, he failed at absolutely everything except being a soldier.

[Zomby Woof]

58. Washington was

He was the master of retreat. He got lucky at Yorktown due to the French helping us, and Trenton because of drunken Hessians being caught offguard.

But he was terribly overrated as a general and as a president.

[jpgray]

61. But he was really tall (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

65. No, the most overrated general in history...

is Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery. He got lucky at El Alamein, because Rommel stretched his supply lines too far; what happened at Arnhem was a bit more indicative of his skill as a general.


EDIT: whoops, you said US history. Never mind.

As to Lee, he managed to put up a good showing against an enemy superior in numbers for several years, but he was entirely too rigid and stuck in the Napoleonic mindset (Longstreet tried to convince him that purely defensive warfare would be a much better strategy, but Lee rejected fighting from entrenched positions as "cowardice").

[norml]

66. You should start a thread on the most overrated General in World history.

You could even make it a poll. I'm sure that Monty would get many votes. But remember the overrated part. If the General in question is generally seen as a putz, they aren't overrated.

[RoyGBiv]

81. Defensive Warfare

Longstreet did not try to convince Lee that purely defensive warfare would be a much better strategy. That is a myth, a myth that is actually a part of the similar myth that Longstreet couldn't/wouldn't fight or that Longstreet was a traitor to the South after the war for daring to suggest freedmen be granted the right to vote.

As to entrenched positions, Lee began using these before most others. Prior to his unnatural elevation to godlike status, he was in fact known, among other things, as the King of Spades.

[Bok_Tukalo]

71. I'm surprized no one has nominated MacArthur for most overrated

Or even Washington who blundered the world into the 7 Years War.

[eyepaddle]

73. While I am an history

enthusiast, Civil War history is not my area of focus (I'm more of a Naval WWII guy for some unknown reason) on a certain level should we not evaluate Commanders on their ability to fight their kind of fight and NOT the enemy's? In this view Grant's strategy of an unrelenting slug-fest took full advantage of his army's and nation's strengths; those being ability to absorb losses and not necessarily dazzle the enemy with your fancy footwork. Having said that, I clearly am thankful that I am not an infantryman under Grant's command.

It isn't a histroy book but James Dunnigan's "How to Make War" really helps put things in a useful perspective.

[skygazer]

76. That's a very simplistic explanation of a complicated matter

Lee made mistakes in the war, as did Grant (and every other general that ever was). I don't necessarily think Lee was the greatest general that ever lived but I think you do him a disservice.

Lee was a shrewd tactician and a great judge of his opponent which counts for a lot. Few generals would have fought the Seven Days as he did, dividing his army, which was well outnumbered by McClellan's and pretty well chasing them all the way back down the peninsula. It was a ballsy and audacious thing to do but it worked because he had the measure of the man he was fighting and McClellan, though a great organizer, was not a battlefield general (and would be my pick for an overrated general).

He fought Antietam masterfully - though it was a draw, it should have been a rout for the Confederates who had their backs to a river and were once again greatly outnumbered, as well as having the disadvantage of the enemy having their movements (because they had intercepted Lee's orders to his Corps commanders).

Second Manassas was another example. In addition, the reasons for Lee taking the fight into the north made perfect sense at the time. The hope was not so much to fight a pitched battle to end the war, but to do a number of things - get the armies out of Virginia where they'd been fighting for so long that provisions and forage were harder and harder to find. This would also allow crucial farming to go on. Also, to give the northern civilians a taste of war in the hope that they'd push for peace. And to threaten Washington, which would also, they hoped, make the people less ardent about the war. Then Gettysburg happened and Lee made some fateful mistakes. He deserves to bear the responsibility for that defeat but it doesn't lessen his other achievements.

I agree Grant should get far more credit than he does but that doesn't mean that credit should be taken from Lee. Lee lost the war but the war, IMO, was not winnable by the south - not without some sort of foreign intervention and that was not going to happen.

I've been studying this stuff for many years - you can't just throw out blanket statements like that - it's far more complex.

[norml]

78. General McClellan is commonly seen as a great organizer, and driller

of troops, but McClellan is also commonly seen as a putz as a General. Had McClellan won the Presidency, the war would've ended, and the South would've been allowed to leave the Union. Anymore all of my threads are simplistic explanations of complicated matters. I've learned that if you get too wordy, nobody wants to read through all that. I've learned that it's best to either link to the details, or to let the details be fleshed out in the responses to your thread.

[bluestateguy]

85. Lee had the advantage of many inept generals opposing him.

It's not that Lee never made mistakes. He did, sometimes very revealing mistakes, but too often McLellan (twice), Pope, Hooker, Burnside and even Meade failed to take advantage of them.

I have found that Lee was actually a rather cautious general in most cases and that that caution often gave the Union Army many opportunities to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia.

Pickett's Charge was a foolish move, though Pickett's men fought valiantly, and one regiment even broke through to the Union lines, but the rest were sitting ducks.

[Parche]

87. over rated

I think in US History it was Eisenhower



Who was the most over rated Admiral?

[Lexingtonian]

88. Lee is grossly overrated

I can't believe half the things I'm reading in this thread. The literature, I agree, is horribly biased to the Lost Cause mythology, badly written (where do Southerners get opposite reputation), and the historians rarely assess the politics and realities of the North with any understanding.

Lee was the best pre-War general. He also had a far better trained army for most of the War- because the South spent a lot of the prewar years preparing for it. He didn't do so well on offense, but the technology of the time gave defenders a pretty large advantage, and his reputation is ultimately based on using that advantage well. Sherman and Sheridan figured out the converse- how to win on offense, based on the technology of the time- which was: outmanouver, don't engage on the offensive in set piece battles involving fortifications at anywhere near equal strength. Grant also did that with his 'stolen march' on Petersburg after Cold Harbor, then the Five Forks-to-Appomattox campaign. But he let Spottsylvania drag on too long and then wrongly imagined/heard of Lee's army being demoralized and ordered the Cold Harbor assault.

Lee killed an awful lot of his best infantry at Gettysburg and The Wilderness and Spottsylvania, and Grant succeeded remarkably at destroying his middle officer corps at at the latter. (The Darbytown Road fights reflect that Lee was low on or out of brigade level commanders.) Pleasonton ruined Jeb Stuart's advantage in cavalry morale and training/discipline, and Sheridan ran a war of attrition in cavalry throughout the Overland Campaign which also led to Stuart getting killed. Both armies were horribly gutted by the Overland Campaign- the Union army took longer to recover, though, because of the disproportionate bloodletting in the massive assault at Petersburg that Burnside bungled.

Lee could very easily have lost the war for the South at Antietam, at Sharpsburg if Meade had effectively pursued him, on the first day at Spottsylvania if Hancock had pressed his caving and unsupported left flank hard enough, and he got lucky at the initial assault on Petersburg. He got lucky at The Crater. He got lucky that Ord got wounded just after taking Fort Harrison. If he had been so superior as a general, how to explain that he lost the battle at Globe Tavern and then couldn't win back the Weldon railroad despite Second Reams Station?

Grant was under an awful lot of pressure for about half a year- Lincoln saw the alternatives in early 1864 as going right at the Confederacy comprehensively or giving up the war. And there was the state of the armies to consider- the Transmississippi armies were the lowest priority and kept minimal, the armies Grant and Rosencrans took to Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Chickamauga were battlehardened veteran forces and used to success. The Army of the Potomac was an incredibly bled by Gettysburg and variously led force with lots of green units, but it hadn't done much for over half a year- even if things were getting better briefly, around the Mine Run campaign and forcing. The AotP infantry thought things were pretty hopeless. And in the winter of 1864 the Confederate armies realized they could well win the war and a lot of effort was made for the next set of campaigns. They were about as well trained and disciplined and determined and properly supplied as they ever were during the war.

And, to be blunt, the Confederate high command decided to not give Johnston the troops he kept on telling them he needed, throughout the late winter of 1864, and gave them to Lee- essentially Longstreet's corps. So Sherman faced less opposition in return for Grant facing more in 1864.

There's all kinds of pretending that Lee's motives for fighting for the Confederacy are somehow neutral or respectable. But what does "fighting for Virginia" really mean- what did Virginia stand for in American society that Lee considered worth defending, and was that a reality? It's hard to look at it and not see that it's the 'planter-ocracy', the same people who largely insisted that slaves were too valuable as property to be given up. So to be Lee, you have decide that a kind of American aristocracy is what matters, and its predicate and fatal flaw is somehow not that important. So Lee is, at best, fighting essentially for an aristocracy some 80 years after Americans have abolished monarchy. Grant later said that he considered Lee a good person but the cause he defended unconscionable. It's easy to see Lee as a tragic figure- but for whatever it was he was fighting for, he sent 120,000 Southerners or more to their deaths. A lot of them Virginians.

[Jesus H. Christ]

99. Best post of the thread.

nt

[lpbk2713]

89. MacArthur was the most overrated General in US history.

That pompous megalomaniac was the biggest and most troublesome single personality issue FDR and HST had to contend with. MacArthur was ignored enough in his empire building efforts so that he was allowed to establish a rapport with governments ib the Western Pacific. This rapport is the only thing that gave him any value to the administrations he worked under.

[orpupilofnature57]

91. More prophetic than Sherman,far ahead of the rest on asia.

[AlFrankenFan]

90. No

It's Grant. I won't say anymore.

[Jesus H. Christ]

98. Agreed. Post Civil war revisionism.

And when I say post, I'm talking 1920's. Elevated Lee to demi-godhood. Along with "it wasn't about slavery" yada yada yada. Just a bunch of Birth of a Nation bullshit.

The only reason Lee looks so good is because his opponents, mostly McClellan, were so terrible.

Don't know if Grant is the most underrated. But his victory at Vicksburn is probably the most underrated of the Civil War. And Grant's strategy in the Wilderness campaign which I think somebody said was "pointless", is exactly what pounded Lee's defensive strategy into the ground.

[necso]

100. I disagree.

General Lee made both strategic (holding the lines defending Richmond too long -- and certainly, at least, the second major invasion of the north) and tactical (Pickett's charge) mistakes. But he had the ability to get into the minds of his opponents, and to attack these minds directly. I seem to remember General Pope saying something to the effect of "I lost faith in John Pope", at the time of 2nd Bull Run. (I can't seem to find the quote online though). And yes, these were Jackson's and Longstreet's troops, but Lee was commanding.

Lee, I believe, was a transitional figure, spanning from the days when capturing the opponent's capitol normally spelled an end to war, to the days of the Blitzkrieg, where the enemy's mind is as much of a target as anything material.

And the most (commonly) underrated General may be Benedict Arnold, whose achievements have been long obscured by his treason. In Civil war terms, I suggest George H Thomas (Pap), who was both a builder of armies and a successful battlefield commander, in both defensive and offensive roles.

[norml]

101. I'm not saying that Robert E. Lee was without skills as a General.

He was better at Generaling than many of the Generals in US history. However the God like status to which Lee has been elevated, and the extent to which Grant has been denigrated are undeserved, for the reasons given at the top of this thread. People can talk about how much more powerful the North was than the South, however there have been weaker powers who have been able to gain their independence from stronger powers. They mainly did it by wearing down the stronger power, not by trying to invade the stronger power. Had the armies of the Confederacy stayed in the South, and concentrated on defense, they might've been able to deny Grant his victory at Vicksburg, McClellan would've become President, and the South would've gained independence.

[necso]

103. And I am not disagreeing

with all of your points. But, again, calling Lee the most overrated General goes too far. And Jefferson Davis was much more at fault for the strategic failures of the South than Lee ever was. (True, Lee should have been more insistent about military necessities.) Moreover, the concept of having the Confederate Capitol at Richmond was badly flawed, particularly in the days when capitols were considered so important to warfare.

And I think that perhaps you are missing an important point. To no small degree Lee symbolized the Rebellion (to the rebels) just like Washington symbolized the Revolution (to many of the colonists). -- One must consider that this is responsible for a significant part of the reverence in which Lee was and is held. In addition, it is much to Lee's credit that when he was at last brought to bay, he did not opt for (indeed he discouraged) continuing the fight as a guerrilla war.

Nor can one be entirely confident that strictly defensive tactics would have won the war for the South. But this is a rather involved discussion with a great many if's.

Personally, I find much about Lee that I like. One story in particular sticks in my mind. In this story, a grizzled old noncom finds his way to Lee's command tent. When being asked what he wanted by Lee, the man explained that he was looking for some chewing tobacco. Lee courteously explained to the man, that he, Lee, did not indulge and referred the man to one of his staff officers.

I recall no similar stories being told about Grant. And while I can appreciate Grant's accomplishments, skills and realism, he was not without his flaws. At his (perhaps) worst, when ordering repeated attacks against well-fortified, heavily defended, virtually impregnable positions, his actions are an eerie portent of the hopeless slaughter that took place in WWI.

Personally, I am curious about what actions would have been taken in Grant's place by Lee's fellow Virginian, Union General George H Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga. But Old Pap was never a member of the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan "clique" and his reputation has suffered for it (such politics is a curse of the military). Indeed, General Thomas was nearly relieved from his command before his splendid victory at Nashville, on what would have been quite improper grounds.

...

I should make it clear that Lee was not the first commander to attack his opponents' minds or to make plans based on a realistic appraisal of how his opponents thought and would act and respond. But Lee intimidated the senior officers (at least) of the eastern Union Armies to a degree that was notable -- and that brought forth considerable anger from Grant.