Better General: Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee

[First1There]

For me, the answer is Grant, but I am looking forward to all your analysis.

P.S. Mods move to normal history board.

[brucejoel99]

Comparing Grant & Lee is like comparing apples & oranges: both of them played to their own skills & their unique approach to warfare. From a certain point of view, they can both be the best generals, just of 2 completely different eras of warfare. Personally, though, I'd argue that Grant was the better general: after all, the goal of war is to win, & it's Grant who did so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lee was probably the better tactical general, but Grant was definitely the better strategic general. As I've said before, Lee's reputation is greater than it ought to be because of him facing McClellan early on.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Grant doesn't get nearly enough credit. Part of this is because for decades, the Lost Cause actively set out to demean his accomplishments and skills and engage in reductionism that attributed Northern success to various material advantages, painted Grant as a drunk and a butcher and Lee as this divinely endowed General who was facing impossible odds from the start.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To be fair, the South was facing impossible odds. Their only hope was that the North would let them go. Lee's delusion was that annihilating the Army of the Potomac would achieve that goal. It's what compelled him to wait an extra day in Sharpsburg after the bloody events along Antietam Creek in hopes McClellan would attack him in place. (Which goes to show that even as late as September 1862, Lee didn't really understand McClellan.) It's what caused him to engage in the Battle of Gettysburg.  If Lee had avoided battle whenever possible and simply led the Army of Northern Virginia in large scale foraging raids through the North, he could have both devastated Union morale and preserved his strength.

For Lee to have won the war using the strategy he followed, he would have had to face an opponent as reckless as John Bell Hood.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To be fair, the South was facing impossible odds. Their only hope was that the North would let them go. Lee's delusion was that annihilating the Army of the Potomac would achieve that goal. It's what compelled him to wait an extra day in Sharpsburg after the bloody events along Antietam Creek in hopes McClellan would attack him in place. (Which goes to show that even as late as September 1862, Lee didn't really understand McClellan.) It's what caused him to engage in the Battle of Gettysburg.  If Lee had avoided battle whenever possible and simply led the Army of Northern Virginia in large scale foraging raids through the North, he could have both devastated Union morale and preserved his strength.

For Lee to have won the war using the strategy he followed, he would have had to face an opponent as reckless as John Bell Hood.

Many revolutions have succeeded against impossible odds at the same time. This gets back to the point that I was making about how the Lost Cause has warped the view of Grant and Lee as well. By putting down Grant's accomplishments (particularly out west) and glossing over Lee's mistakes, they were able to deify Lee at Grant's expense.

It also doesn't help that Grant's Presidency was marred by corruption and so forth, which further harms his reputation as this chain cigar smoking drunk.

[Mr. Smith]

Grant, objectively.

The evidence is right here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I like generals who win wars

[The Mikado]

Lee was probably the better tactical general, but Grant was definitely the better strategic general. As I've said before, Lee's reputation is greater than it ought to be because of him facing McClellan early on.

Grant had the key strategic insight that none of the Union Army of the Potomac commanders before him had had: once the Army of Northern Virginia was eradicated, the war was won, and the North could replace lost men, weapons, and supplies but the South couldn't. 1864 in Virginia was a brutal, slow campaign but Grant could replace his losses and Lee couldn't. McClellan and Hooker and Burnside didn't have the stomach to do what was needed to destroy the CSA. Grant did.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Grant, of course. While Lee was a good tactician, Grant had the advantage when it came to overall strategy and visionary leadership. Not to mention that Grant had an intellectual prowess and ability to see the battlefield. He had a topographic memory which made him an incredible asset.

On the Confederate lines, while they were scrambling to move maps around for the field commanders, Grant had the picture of the battle lines in his mind. That's pretty hard to beat. I also liked Grant's character too for going easy on the defeated Confederates. Being vindictive surely would have capsized the nation and further embattled a divided country.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I like generals who win wars

Yeah. MR. U.S. GRANT would be the objectively correct answer even if Robert E. "I'm not one of those insecure generals who has to win a lot of battles" Lee hadn't been fighting for, you know, the Slave Power.