Jump to content

The Legacy of Generals Grant and Lee


Maithanet

Recommended Posts

I didn't want to derail the South Carolina politics thread with a discussion of generalship, so I'm starting a new thread.



I remember Slate had an interesting piece a couple months ago on the anniversary of Appomattox on how the legacies of Grant and Lee. The article argues that the reason for Grant's vilification and Lee's celebration is an offshoot of Lost Cause politics:


The answer begins with Reconstruction. As best as possible, President Grant was a firm leader of Reconstruction America. Faced with the titanic challenge of integrating freedmen into American politics, he attacked the problem with characteristic clarity and flexibility. He proposed civil rights legislation (and would be the last president to do so until Dwight D. Eisenhower, nearly a century later) and deployed troops to hot spots across the South, to defend black Americans from white supremacist violence.* And while there were failures—at times he was too passive in the face of white violence, too paralyzed by petty politics—there were real victories too. After Congress passed the Enforcement Acts—criminal codes that protected blacks’ 14th and 15th Amendment rights to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws—Grant authorized federal troops to confront the Ku Klux Klan and other groups of anti-black terrorists. Declaring them “insurgents … in rebellion against the authority of the United States,” Grant and his subordinates—most notably Attorney General Amos Ackerman and the newly formed Department of Justice—broke the Klan and restored some peace to the Republican South.

Which brings us to Lee, who—in his surrender at Appomattox—gave raw materials to the Lost Cause. “After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources,”


Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Robert E. Lee was a great commander, given the realities he had to face. Of course he made some crucial mistakes but most of them are only mistakes in hindsight.

But Lee suffers under the post-war mystification. He was no magician who could turn shit to gold. In that regard I see quite a lot of similarities with Rommel (who also was put on a podest after the war, as commander and as moral character).

But there is not doubt that Lee was a great commander. Grant and Sherman had their clear strengths (mainly: the will to fight the war in a pre-modern "total war" style to crush the CSA) but neither of them can be considered great from a purely military pov. The reasons are obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answering posts from the other thread:

Maithanet,

Grant is impressive because he figured out how to beat Lee. He stopped trying to "out-general" him and just kept the Army of the Potomac moving toward Richmond and Petersburg regardless of the results of a particular day's fight. Lee could push them back but lacked the troops to actualy defeat the AoP.

I disagree. No general can stop trying to "out-general" the other guy, and Grant certainly did not. However, he recognized that win or lose the Confederacy could not sustain a war of attrition with the Union, and thus pursued his campaign in earnest rather than turning back after a single defeat as his predecessors had done. This indicates his superior understanding of the strategic situation compared to the previous Army of the Potomac commanders, but isn't exactly a stroke of genius, Lincoln had been advocating a sustained simultaneous campaign for over a year.

If you compare the actual performance of Lee and Grant's armies in their primary clashes in spring and summer 1864, Lee generally outgeneraled Grant, although not decisively enough to force a retreat, and thus eventually Grant was able to set up a siege of Petersburg, which Lee could not sustain.

I suppose. Throughout my own schooling and now teaching history, I was never all that impressed with the Army of Northern Virginia or Lee as a commander, so I never understood his deification by Southerners. Most modern scholarship seems to be condemnatory of Lee and more celebratory of his lesser commanders (Longstreet, Jackson, et al). As DG has stated, I think this is just another case of revisionism: The noble hero Robert E. Lee could have carried us to victory had it not been for the "weakness" (read: foresight) of commanders and politicians like Longstreet.

Generals like Sherman, Albert Sidney Johnston, or Cooper were always more interesting to me.

There were plenty of strong generals under Lee's command, Longstreet and Jackson certainly among them. But I don't think you can attribute all of the successes of the Army of Northern Virginia to this alone. Subordinates or no, Lee's record as a commander is impressive, defeating a numerically superior army several times, when a single decisive defeat would mean the capture of Richmond and (likely) a swift end to the war. I would be interested to hear why you discount him to the point that you don't consider him at least above average.

Not that Lee was some sort of wizard of generaling, others during the war had a more impressive record (such as Forrest) or more far-reaching innovations (such as Sherman). His tactical aggressiveness was not useful in a strategic sense, and this led to the two failed campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania. But his flaws have never been sufficient to make me think that another general could have been expected to perform better in his shoes, and most would do much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant is vilified among some Southern circles. Without justification in my opinion. He was the General who stopped attempting to beat Lee at manuver. That is how, up to that point, Lee had been able to beat the numerically and materially superior Army of the Potomac (AoP). Grant recongzed that he might lose a particular day but that Lee lacked the ability to stop a determined drive on Richmond. McClellan's fault was that he refused to do the same years earlier and retreated in the face of Lee's aggressive tactics during the "Seven Days" during the Peninsular campaign. Had McClellan stood firm the seige of Richmond/Petersburg could have started in 1862 rather than 1864.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant is vilified among some Southern circles. Without justification in my opinion. He was the General who stopped attempting to beat Lee at manuver. That is how, up to that point, Lee had been able to beat the numerically and materially superior Army of the Potomac (AoP). Grant recongzed that he might lose a particular day but that Lee lacked the ability to stop a determined drive on Richmond. McClellan's fault was that he refused to do the same years earlier and retreated in the face of Lee's aggressive tactics during the "Seven Days" during the Peninsular campaign. Had McClellan stood firm the seige of Richmond/Petersburg could have started in 1862 rather than 1864.

Yes, but McClellan's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is pretty well documented. He was only a good general until it was time for the fighting to start.

Declaring Grant superior to McClellan is damning with faint praise. Grant's record in the Western theater was IMO, far more impressive than what he achieved against Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maithanet,

Grant knew how to fight to win. Capturing Vicksburg, in my opinion, should have ended the war. The CSA was cut in two with no hope or reuninting its divided halves. The outcome should have been obvious to anyone at that point, yet the South continued to fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not just Grant and Lee, the military reputation for example of Longstreet was eviscerated by the Lost Cause writers because of his post-war politics - he accepted Reconstruction and worked with it rather than becoming a Grand High Dragon or whatever they were called of the KKK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant is vilified among some Southern circles. Without justification in my opinion. He was the General who stopped attempting to beat Lee at manuver. That is how, up to that point, Lee had been able to beat the numerically and materially superior Army of the Potomac (AoP). Grant recongzed that he might lose a particular day but that Lee lacked the ability to stop a determined drive on Richmond. McClellan's fault was that he refused to do the same years earlier and retreated in the face of Lee's aggressive tactics during the "Seven Days" during the Peninsular campaign. Had McClellan stood firm the seige of Richmond/Petersburg could have started in 1862 rather than 1864.

My opinion is McClellan never truly wished to engage with Confederates. Rather, he was posturing and biding his time hoping to win support for a Democratic Party nomination and a challenge to Lincoln's presidency.

Shelby Foote had an interesting and, I feel, correct opinion of Lee:(paraphrasing) Lee took risks because he had to take risks for victory and those risks made him brilliant. His nickname was the King of Spades at the start of the war because he had a fondness for entrenchment. However, those tactics were not feasible since the Union had all of the advantages in a war of attrition. He had to adapt his tactics to win. Chancellorsville was probably his most stunning victory as he divided his much smaller force against Hooker and thrashed him, but Hooker also hesitated to attack Lee's smaller force. There are a number of instances where you can attribute Lee's victories to mistakes of his opponent on the field, as is often the case in battles. That is not to diminish his tactical brilliance. Also, Lee's staff is more highly regarded that Grant's: Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, etc. Until Lincoln got Grant, the Union army's leadership was a revolving door.

Grant was tailor-made to countering the Confederacy's strengths. He was the perfect general for a war of attrition with Lee. Again as Shelby Foote stated, "He knew how to whoop him and he did." He was the first general to advance after a defeat and that really did work wonders for the morale of the Union army facing Lee. As one soldier stated, "General Grant don't scare worth a damn." Grant simply had to be stubborn and tenacious. He had all of the advantages of men, materiel and supplies. All he had to do was keep chipping away at the Army of Northern Virginia which had finite resources. Even more so with Sherman's March to the Sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that Lee was some sort of wizard of generaling, others during the war had a more impressive record (such as Forrest) or more far-reaching innovations (such as Sherman). His tactical aggressiveness was not useful in a strategic sense, and this led to the two failed campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania. But his flaws have never been sufficient to make me think that another general could have been expected to perform better in his shoes, and most would do much worse.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was arguably the best general on either side of the conflict. Putting aside his personal beliefs, his exploits during the war were nothing short of brilliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much sooner would the war have been over had Lee led the U.S. army instead of the Confederate rebels? Had he not cared whether Southerners thought him dishonorable, the whole thing could have been settled with a lot less blood. So Lee's choice to make the Civil War more horrible is part of his legacy.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maithanet,

Grant knew how to fight to win. Capturing Vicksburg, in my opinion, should have ended the war. The CSA was cut in two with no hope or reuninting its divided halves. The outcome should have been obvious to anyone at that point, yet the South continued to fight.

This is hindsight. Even before Gettysburg, it was clear (to people like Lee) that the CSA had no chance to win the war militarily. Only chance was to make it as costly and bloody as possible for the Union so that the North loses the will to fight and the South achieves a political win. Sometimes it works (Vietnam, Afghanistan), sometimes not.

But who knows what happens if Sherman doesnt take Atlanta in time and McClellan gets elected. Or Lee wins at Gettysburg...which wouldnt have changed anything from a military pov but maybe from a political pov.

Grant "deserves" respect because he didnt hold back anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lazarova,

I've wondered about that myself. Suppose Virginia votes against Secession and a successful coup takes place in Richmond lead by pro-secession fire eaters. Would Lee have still followed his State or would he then have accepted command of the Federal Army being marshalled in Washington DC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much sooner would the war have been over had Lee led the U.S. army instead of the Confederate rebels? Had he not cared whether Southerners thought him dishonorable, the whole thing could have been settled with a lot less blood. So Lee's choice to make the Civil War more horrible is part of his legacy.

Lee was invited to have a command in the union forces, but turned it down.

Had he taken it I doubt the duration of the war would have altered, one effect of his success with the Army of Northern Virginia was that the western theatres were relatively neglected. A more balanced strategy by the confederacy might have paid them political dividends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee comes off more as a Louis-Alexandre Berthier than a Napoleon. Undoubtedly a gifted administrator who was extremely capable in using limited resources to their maximum potential. He was likewise fairly adept at conforming his military strategy to political necessity, such as his desperate struggle to survive up to the election of 1864 in the hopes of the election of a more conciliatory POTUS. His leadership at Chancellorsville/Second Bull Run was good, but hardly equal to the cult of personality he commands today in the South.



Lee was way too committed to Jomini's analysis of war, when the future was with Clausewitz. Even outside of horrific blunders like Pickett's Charge, the insistence on bringing the fight to the North, whether farmers needed to gather their crops or not, was ill-advised and poorly orchestrated. Let's not even get in to his blunders at Malvern Hill or elsewhere.



Long story short, Lee wasn't the best general in the Civil War, let alone in American (or even "Confederate") history. That distinction should probably go to someone more seminal, such as Sherman.



Edit: I would add that way too much credit is given to Grant, as well. His "Get at him as soon as you can" approach was effective, but hardly strategic brilliance. Hence why I stated Sherman above, who despite bouts of mania and a legacy of genocide post-Civil War, contributed far more in the way of a military theory.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gramsci,

I've heard it argued that much of Lee's genuis was really Jackson's ablity to execut tactically. I've frequently heard it argued that had Jackson had command of Ewell's Corp on the First day the AoP could have been rolled up piece by piece as it came up the Baltimore pike by corps because Jackson would never have stopped with the town of Gettysburg. He would have moved to take Cemetary Hill and Culp's Hill giving them tactical dominance of the surrounding area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant was clearly the superior strategist (to be fair, a lot of credit also goes to Winfield Scott) He knew what his objectives were and pursued them until he succeeded in getting them. Lee being fairly good tactically but had no really consistent idea of how to win the war other than "keep beating the yankees".



I think it's very interesting how strategically superior the North was, very early on they were doing all sorts of multi-pronged naval and land cooperation, etc, while the confederacy largely seems to have had a bunch of uncoordinated field armies each trying to do as best as it could.



The Union was fighting a single war with a coherent strategy, the confederacy at least four, only vaguely connected in strategy.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...