Comparison of American Civil War generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant

¶ … American Army Generals-Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant

Comparison and Contrast: Robert E. Lee vs. Ulysses S. Grant

Ironically, for a man whose name is synonymous with the Confederate cause, Robert E. Lee was not a passionate defender of slavery or secession

Although he blamed the political squabbles over states rights on northern agitators, he thought slavery was immoral, at least in the abstract. Yet Lee was a proud southerner, although politically, he was a Whig.

"When Virginia withdrew from the Union, Lee resigned his commission rather than assist in suppressing the insurrection.

" Then, Lee soon accepted the offer of "Commander-in-Chief of the military and naval forces of Virginia. When these forces joined Confederate services, he was appointed Brig. Gen. In the Regular Confederate States.

Ulysses S. Grant was not a principled man like Lee, or a blind patriot who would support his nation or his leaders whether they were right or wrong. Grant entered the service reluctantly, because of familial pressure, and graduated near the bottom of his class at West Point.

He intended to leave the army after doing his tour of duty, although like Lee, he served bravely in the Mexican War. But Grant called the Mexican War "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation," even though he fought on the U.S. side as part of his terms of service.

Lee served as a captain in the Mexican War and never questioned the cause.

Lee, in contrast, to Grant, was second in his class at West Point and became a career soldier. The only break in his service in the armed forces took place after resigning from the U.S. army to avoid fighting against the forces of Virginia. Then Lee quickly took command of the Confederate forces. After a brief tenure as field commander Lee "returned to Richmond in March of 1862 to become military advisor to President Davis.

" Lee's command at the forefront of the Confederate forces was sustained; for Grant, his leadership only came to the forefront during the ending years of the Civil War. "Shortly after the Civil War started in 1861, Grant once again became a soldier. As a battlefield commander, he won the Union's first major victory, capturing Fort Donelson in Tennessee and demanding the rebels' unconditional surrender. He successfully turned back a surprise Confederate attack at the Battle of Shiloh in Tennessee. His capture of the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi on July 4, 1863, after a drawn-out siege, broke the Confederate stranglehold on the Mississippi. Grant had finally found an arena where he could shine: the battlefield.

" as a result of his success at Shiloh, he was appointed commander of U.S. forces. Only a few years ago he was a failed businessman and farmer, and a West Point graduate with poor marks in almost everything but horsemanship and mathematics -- now he was one of the most powerful men in America.

Despite being outnumbered by the Union forces, Lee won many notable victories as a general. However, "skilled as he was in repelling Union offensives and outfoxing his Northern counterparts, Lee's preference for battle cost his army dearly. By the time he confronted Ulysses S. Grant in 1864, the drain upon his manpower was noticeable. Despite waging an adroit defensive campaign, he was unable to halt Grant's drive southward or to prevent him from laying siege to Richmond and Petersburg by the summer of 1864.

" the common contrast between the two men's fighting styles is usually painted as follows: Grant was a stalwart, determined general, willing to grit his teeth and sacrifice members of his superior forces to win victories; Lee was the more brilliant, daring and erratic of the two commanders, and as befitting a rebel force, far more willing to take a risk. Lee was the gentleman, born to an impoverished but aristocratic southern family: "often feckless during a battlefield crisis, bound by his innate good manners and relying far too heavily on suggestion and persuasion. In short, he was altogether too much of a gentleman to be regarded as one of the world's great captains.

However, even Lee's most ardent apologists cannot ignore the very simple fact that Grant emerged the victor, Lee the loser in the great, final battle. The war was always the Union's to lose, and according to one historian "once the timid McClellan, the clumsy Hooker and Burnsides, and the dilatory Meade had passed," from command of the Union Army, the Confederacy "found itself up against Ulysses S. Grant, and its ultimate destruction was only a matter of time. 'Unconditional Surrender' Grant was both fearless and tenacious, and was the first Union commander to match his tactics with his opportunities. Once engaged by this dour mastermind, Lee's army could do little against his bulldog grip.

" the influx of new men, including African-American forces after the Emancipation Proclamation (as chronicled in the film Glory) sealed the Confederacy's doom.

However, to call Grant 'dour' is to deny his brilliance -- although less apt to seek conflict in battle than Lee, when taking Vicksburg "Grant ferried men and supplies across the river. In a risky move he had learned from Winfield Scott in the Mexican War, Grant cut himself off from his supply lines except for ammunition and medical supplies. He battled his way to Vicksburg and attacked the city, but was unable to break the Confederate line around it. Still, he had his enemy completely surrounded. Grant ordered his men to dig in, and after a two-month siege, the starving Confederates surrendered.