In my opinion, Lees 'greatness' is owed more to the Generals below him, than he himself. His brilliance was in allowing those men to do their job, and not micro-managing them.

@FlemGem: You do realize Lee could not put anyone in command of the western theater, right? He was in command of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was President Davis that chose who commanded each theater of war. And in any case, until the battle of Shiloh, Albert Sidney Johnston was the commander in the west, and he outranked not only Jackson but also (by seniority) Lee. Then they put Joe Johnston in command out west, who was also senior to Lee.

That being said, I vote Lee all the way. Lee was brilliant tactically and strategically. He made mistakes, yes, but he is human. Lee realized what he was up against. He realized he would be outnumbered at every engagement, and would probably face multiple invasions of Virginia at a time. He maneuvered across the state, staving off Union incursions and delivering truly stunning victories, both through his own direction and playing to the strengths of his subordinates. The two ways the South could have won the war would have been to a) make the North sick of the cost in lives and resources and quit, or b) win a victory on Northern soil and demoralize the North, possibly gaining foreign recognition and aid in the process. He invaded the North twice, and came close to winning twice. When it was clear that he no longer had the resources to mount another invasion, he conducted a defensive campaign against a superior foe and held out longer that nearly any other army could.

Yes, Lee owes credit to his subordinates and his men. But he was the one that was able to coordinate them all around his plans, and give his subordinates enough leeway to do what they did best without giving them so much that the army degenerated into a mob. Lee's soldiers would have done anything for him; many were still not ready to give up when he surrendered at Appomattox.

Grant was one of the better Union generals, but far from their best in my opinion. Reynolds and Hancock were both good tacticians and would probably have made better army commanders than even Grant. Reynolds was offered the job and refused before the Gettysburg campaign (where he was killed), and had Burnside listened to Hancock the entire Fredericksburg debacle could have been avoided. Grant's tactics consisted of using the advantages he had: more men and supplies. He pushed and pushed and pushed until Lee could not physically resist anymore. In the process, we ger battles like Cold Harbor, which make the massacre at Fredericksburg look like a pillow fight. Yet Fredericksburg ruined Burnside's career, and Cold Harbor is but a rarely-mentioned footnote on Grant's.

Given an even fight, Lee wins. Given an uneven fight, Lee still wins. Given a lot of uneven fights that Grant can recover from and Lee cannot, and Grant wins. Barely.

Grant reminds me some of Zhuvok in WW2. Everyone thinks ZHukov was a great general, but in reality, he simply used his massive number/supply advantage to push the Germans into 'bleeding white' fights, which the Germans could not afford

rs2excelsior - point well taken about Davis' authority to appoint theater commanders. I stand corrected, though I think Grant doesn't get enough credit for skillfully managing his subordinates.

I would disagree that Cold Harbor is a rarely-mentioned footnote in Grant's career. It's everyone's favorite way to slam Grant. I'm actually surprised that it didn't come up sooner. It's probably the low point of his career, but I'd argue that it wasn't any worse than Pickett's charge at Gettysburg - which of course was much more Lee's fault than Pickett's.

Again, I'm resting much of my case on Grant's campaigns in the western theater, including his sweep of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. In that theater Grant managed brilliant offensive campaigns that Lee could not match. That, to me, is the main issue. In the Civil War the generals were still using Napoleanic tactics, but the advances in weaponry gave the defender a significant advantage. In that context, Grant figured out how to win offensive campaings; Lee didn't. Grant wins.

This myth of Grant the butcher, sprung from political foes and Lost Cause narratives, has got to go. Grant's casualty rates compare favorably with most Civil War generals.

"Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant." from http://www.clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/why_grant_won.htm

@FlemGem: Pickett's charge took a section of the wall. One of the main reasons it didn't succeed was that the arsenal that had been supplying Lee's artillery shells had blown up and the new shells came from a different manufacturer. The fuses were made slightly longer than what Confederate gunners were used to, which resulted in the largest artillery bombardment seen on this continent going over the Northerner's heads. Had that bombardment been on target, the Federals would have been much more shaken and the attack might have succeeded. It was a gamble that didn't happen to pay off. Cold Harbor, on the other hand, was a series of smaller attacks that didn't really have any chance to succeed that were repeatedly thrown at Confederate works and easily repulsed. That being said, I will concede that Grant is more aggressive than Lee and his offensives were more successful, though I still contend it was more due to manpower.

@ckroberts: Keep in mind, though, Grant was in command of smaller forces out west. He did command an army from 1862 on, as did Lee, but it was not until 1863-4 that he took command of the Army of the Potomac. The fighting out west was not in as large a scale as in the east.

@ rs2 - Pickett's charge briefly took a small portion of the wall, but his men were battered and exhausted and Meade had reserves to push into the gap. I must disagree about the reason the charge didn't succeed. The charge didn't succeed because it was a Napoleanic tactic going up against "modern" weaponry. If the Union army had been equipped with flint-lock Brown Bess mustkets and a Napoleonic era ratio of artillery the charge may well have succeeded. Alas for Lee, the Union was better armed, had enfillading artillery fire, a strong position, and reserves. Lee must be blamed for the futile attack.

If the South had a best chance at Gettysburg I'd say it was at Cemetary Ridge on day two. That charge had a real chance of success, thanks again much more to Sickles' blunder than any brilliance of Lee.

@ ckroberts - you wrote "This myth of Grant the butcher, sprung from political foes and Lost Cause narratives, has got to go." +1 for that. I think the myth of Lee's superiority has the same source - political friends and Lost Cause nostalgia.

I think the better question here than what if Lee had commanded the Union forces is what would have happened had Grant commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. I fell like you could count the number of leaders who could have matched Lee on one hand, and Grant wouldn't be one of them.
Even based on weapons, Grant had a massive advantage. By the end of the war, the Union had Henry repeating rifles, Sharps Carbines, and Gatling guns.
I will concede that Lee had three advantages over Grant:
1-Cavalry.
J.E.B Stuart and Turner Ashby were far superior commanders. Secondly, Union cavalry often had little to know experience with horses, especially compared to southerners. And thirdly, the Union Cavalry had an odd obsession with swords.
2-Marksmanship
Southerners had more experience with firearms, and thus were usually better shots.
3-Lee was on the defensive.
That said, the odds were so against Lee and so for Grant, I have to give it to Lee.
As to the Grant the butcher point, what I get from that is that Grant needlessly threw large amounts of troops at the enemy lines. Petersburg was a great example of that. Plus, there was that whole business of rounding up the families of Mosby's raiders and imprisoning them for no reason.

@rs2, the casualty rates slightly favor Lee, but they should, and that's part of the point; with the smaller force, he should have been on the defensive. If anything it should be a much bigger discrepancy.

@flem, I think you're right. A society losing a war that it thinks was just or moral has a strange impact; southerners latched on to Lee as the model of all things virtuous and vilified Grant, Sherman, etc. Because of the way Reconstruction ended and some other things, those views were exported to the rest of the country.

@Jetsfans, do you mean the number of leaders ever? In the Union Army? In American history? I disagree with all three assertions, but I would be interested to know how highly you rate Lee.

lee was not always on the defensive, as the 2 battles in the North obviously showed. Andoften, even in fights in the south, he would attack strongly.

he has far from a 'timid' general, and I would not call him 'defensive' in nature.

One thing you dont want to do, ever, is lose the initiative, and by being defensive, you never have it.

Unfair to discredit Grant's abilities as a general due to the union's advantages in numbers and technology. A good general, utilizes his advantages over his enemy and based on the party they threw at the Appomattox courthouse in Virginia in April, 1865, Grant clearly was the better general. His success on the battlefield goes without question. Lee was good, but he broke the cardinal rule of war when on the offensive. Never over extend your forces and lines of support. After Gettysburg, they had to run all the way back to Richmond taking tremendous losses.

@ Stressed - I think a big part of my point is that while Lee went on the offensive twice, both campaigns ended in near-disaster. Grant was on the offensive the whole war, and his campaign against Vicksburg - despite Pemberton/Johnston having nearly equal numbers and superior supply bases and terrain advantages - ended in a complete and total Union victory. I just don't see anything in Lee's resume to match Grant's Vicksburg campaign.

@ckroberts:
I meant of all time. In the Civil War, I'd say none could have. American history, maybe Patton, but even that's a stretch. Washington wasn't all that great a tactician. All time, I think Alexander could have done it, along with Sun Tzu, maybe Hannibal, and if you really feel like stretching Napoleon.
@terry32smith
The point about Grant's superior firepower isn't to say that his resources made him a bad general; they simply are to say that his accomplishments aren't that impressive in context with his overwhelming resources.
I would also dispute that Lee's invasion of the North was foolish. Yes, he screwed up at Gettysburg, but the invasion itself wasn't really a mistake. It was his only chance at winning the war, since the western generals had proven to be failures.

And one more thing about Grant. I don't think it took much to vilify Grant. The "Total War" policy the Union pursued, along with his ineptitude as a president accomplished that pretty well.

Well, as others pointed out before, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The South was at a SERIOUS disadvantage, and both of those offensives were motivated by the economic/political situation of the South, which was.....not great.

gettysburg especially, was a slim chance, and a real 'all or nothing' event forthem. Win, and you live to fight again, lose, and yes, you will fight more, but you have lost any chance of ending the war on your own terms.

I wont say Grant or Lee are better, but I think if the situations were reversed, things would not have been different, the South would have still lost, adn the North would still one.

one=won

Hypothetically, let's put Grant in command of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1863. He invades Pennsylvania, but instead of letting Stuart run around like a dingbat, Grant sends his cavalry arm all the way to Lake Erie, severing every east-west rail link in the Union. Instead of playing the southern gentleman, he torches the countryside and destorys every industrial facility he can lay his fingers on. Then he crosses the Susquahanna River and destroys Harrisburg before turning south towards Philedelphia, meeting Meade somewhere around the little town of Gettysburg...

In that scenario, even a loss for Grant at Gettysburg gives the war a new complexion. Is the North inflamed by his invasion and given new resolve, or is the destruction Grant leaves in his wake so much that the anti-war party forces Lincoln to sue for peace?

Backing up a little (replying to FlemGem from a while ago), the point is that Lee did manage to take a portion of the wall, even in the face of modern weaponry wielded by a near-unshaken enemy. Had the bombardment been on target, the Union troops would have been shellshocked, disrupted, and in little shape to fight back. The idea was to shatter the Federals on the hill and take the position before reserves came up. As it was, very few Confederates actually made it across and those were too exhausted and disorganized to hold it. Had the line been virtually undefended for a brief time, it still might not have worked, but then again...

And I agree his best chance at Gettysburg was on the second day, but the attacks were too uncoordinated. It even could have been on the first. If Ewell had taken Culp's hill at the end of July 1, the Union never would have been on that ridge in the first place. As it was, Ewell let the Federals entrench during the night, and the second day's assaults there were unsuccessful.

I'd also like to see Grant in command of the ANV in the Gettysburg campaign. What you're talking about for his cavalry is basically what Lee did, except with the benefit of hindsight. Control of detached forces is difficult, and intelligence concerning enemy positions is far from perfect. What if the cavalry got caught by a strong Union force well north of the army and destroyed? In fact, what you're recommending for Grant is to do exactly what people criticize Lee for: not keep his cavalry close and scouting for the enemy.

@jetsfan, that's an, I guess, interesting take. I don't know that I would say Lee is even the best Confederate General, definitely not the best American during the Civil War, and that puts him a long way from the all-time list. It's interesting you mention Washington; he was by no means the tactician Lee was, but he was fighting a similar kind of fight with some similar disadvantages, only Washington won. Lee was really really good at a certain kind of tactical set piece; lots of people have been good at that. If you think Grant only won with superior firepower, you should look at the western theater more closely, as FlemGem ably points out.

@stressed, sometimes being on the defensive is the right solution. It worked for Fabius Maximus. Lee commanded a smaller force, backed up by lesser resources, in a situation that was inherently a defensive battle. Going on the offensive, especially given the technology of the day, was risky. That said, I do agree that a switch of generals would probably not alter the ultimate outcome. Grant would have likely lost in a different way.

Also, there's a lot going on here, but I want to again emphasize one important big picture fact that people are ignoring a bit.

Being a good general is not like being a good fist fighter. The skills of being a general in 600, 1600, and 1860 are all very different. The Civil War is the time when modern total warfare begins. Maybe Lee was better at turning a flank or something like that from the Napoleonic playbook, but that's not what decided things any more. In terms of the abilities of a modern general -- logistics, grand strategy, political considerations, and so on -- Grant clearly bested Lee. That doesn't make one better or worse in a vacuum; it depends on circumstances.

Once again, considering the Union was terrible in the beginning, Lee should have been able to win right then and there. Of course, he didn't, and that alone makes him a bad general. Grant's strategy of bringing the war to the South was brilliant, and we can credit him for an existing United States. And we can thank Lee for lending us Arlington National Cemetery

I was reading up on the Seven Days Battle. There, Lee had a roughly equal number of men to McClellan, and McClellan is almost universaly vilified as the worst Civil War general - timid, arrogant, uninspired, etc. McClellan wasn't even able to beat Lee at Antietam when he had overwhelming numbers *and* Lee's battle plans. How does the Seven Days Battle rate as an example of Lee's prowess? The fighting was on Lee's home turf. Yet Lee merely managed to drive McClellan off the field. Either Seven Days is an early example of the futility of Napoleonic tactics in the face of modern weapons, or it is an exhibition of Lee's incompetence. If it is the former, then it is a lesson that Lee failed to learn, and repeated disastrously at Gettysburg.

This thread is fascinating.

@ General Lee - Sorry to be so hard on you, General, I'm sure you did the best you could under the circumstances. I hope you don't take the thread personally.

The difference between Washington and Lee is that Washington eventually got a foreign power to intercede. Had that happened for the Confederacy, the outcome would have been much different.

@FlemGem: It shows that Lee was an inferior general.

@Dipplayer: Possibly, but the North still had a huge army. And the Europeans coudnt interfere if they wanted to, as they were tied up with Mexico

Just makes me want to learn more about the man who inspired my handle.

Who's that?

The car from dukes of hazard....duh...