In Defense of Grant and Lee

In Defense of Grant and Lee (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

parusski -> In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 12:21:23 AM)
Another excellent essay by Thomas Owens that examines the strengths and weakness arguments of Lee and Grant. The essay appeared in National Review Online today. Reexamining the conventional wisdom about two great generals: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388383/defense-grant-and-lee-mackubin-thomas-owens

rhondabrwn -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 2:24:20 AM)
Interesting article. One of the possibilities that always intrigues me when evaluating commanders is the relationship between their ability and the forces that they had under their command. For example, German generals Rommel and Manstein both were excellent from positions of strength or weakness as the war progressed. They were brilliant in an offensive role, but equally capable as the tides of war changed and they were forced onto the defensive. George Patton, clearly the right general to push an offensive, but how would he have fared if his name was George Von Patton, commanding on the Eastern Front in late 1943 and 1944? Did he need a well supported and numerically superior army behind him to achieve success? Grant and Lee... swap sides. Could Grant have done as well defensively with inferior forces? How would Lee have run the Union juggernaut (after all, he WAS offered that command, but refused)? It is all speculative, but I do feel that sometimes the greatest generals in history just happen to be the right man, with the right forces, at the right time to be regarded as a great commander. Given a different situation, they might have been history's "also ran" leaders. Grant and Lee were the "right" men to deal with the hand they were dealt. Grant, in particular, had a superior strategic sense regarding the changing nature of warfare. Sherman shared much of that vision. Always interesting to consider this before idolizing any specific general and placing them on that pillar. :)

parusski -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 4:19:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn Interesting article. One of the possibilities that always intrigues me when evaluating commanders is the relationship between their ability and the forces that they had under their command. For example, German generals Rommel and Manstein both were excellent from positions of strength or weakness as the war progressed. They were brilliant in an offensive role, but equally capable as the tides of war changed and they were forced onto the defensive. George Patton, clearly the right general to push an offensive, but how would he have fared if his name was George Von Patton, commanding on the Eastern Front in late 1943 and 1944? Did he need a well supported and numerically superior army behind him to achieve success? Grant and Lee... swap sides. Could Grant have done as well defensively with inferior forces? How would Lee have run the Union juggernaut (after all, he WAS offered that command, but refused)? It is all speculative, but I do feel that sometimes the greatest generals in history just happen to be the right man, with the right forces, at the right time to be regarded as a great commander. Given a different situation, they might have been history's "also ran" leaders. Grant and Lee were the "right" men to deal with the hand they were dealt. Grant, in particular, had a superior strategic sense regarding the changing nature of warfare. Sherman shared much of that vision. Always interesting to consider this before idolizing any specific general and placing them on that pillar. :) Now those are the great discussions I enjoyed in college and relish to this day. If Lee had been in charge of the Union forces I think the rebellion would have been put done much sooner. Grant was unflappable so I think he would have done very well switching places with Lee. Patton was hell on offense, but just how much would have had to work with if he was von Patton? Sherman was a great blitzkrieg general. Things to ponder overnight.

berto -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 10:35:10 AM)
From the article: quote: But if Grant can be dismissed as a butcher for the operational choices he faced as a result of his 1864 strategic framework, Lee is vulnerable to similar charges. I read where, over the course of the entire war, Lee's overall casualty rates were higher than Grant's. quote: Indeed, as we have seen, Lee’s critics charge him with being too sanguinary. If Grant can be criticized for Cold Harbor in 1864, Lee must answer for Malvern Hill and Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg. +1, indeed.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 5:52:53 PM)
quote: I read where, over the course of the entire war, Lee's overall casualty rates were higher than Grant's. That is correct. The casualty rate in the Army of Northern Virginia was higher than in any other army, North or South. (There were individual small units that were virtually wiped out, but I'm talking about forces of 10,000 men or above.) Mind you, the A.N.V. also inflicted more casualties on its opponents than any other army.

Werewolf13 -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 7:42:57 PM)
The author had me right up to the point where he stated the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. He's wrong. It was about states rights and about the economics of agricultural trade with foreign nations that were willing to pay more for southern products than the northern textile mill owners would. Was slavery an issue. Yes - but only so far as it was the emotional cord wrapped around the peoples hearts to make them willing to fight. Every war has an issue like that - the masses won't fight for rational reasons but they will gladly lay down their lives for issues that tug on their heartstrings be they real or just perceived. A good read but in my opinion the author is playing at revisionism and not doing a very good job of it.

Twotribes -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 7:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326 The author had me right up to the point where he stated the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. He's wrong. It was about states rights and about the economics of agricultural trade with foreign nations that were willing to pay more for southern products than the northern textile mill owners would. Was slavery an issue. Yes - but only so far as it was the emotional cord wrapped around the peoples hearts to make them willing to fight. Every war has an issue like that - the masses won't fight for rational reasons but they will gladly lay down their lives for issues that tug on their heartstrings be they real or just perceived. A good read but in my opinion the author is playing at revisionism and not doing a very good job of it. And yet every State put in their declaration for leaving the US as slavery, I guess they misspoke.

Aurelian -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 8:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326 The author had me right up to the point where he stated the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. He's wrong. It was about states rights and about the economics of agricultural trade with foreign nations that were willing to pay more for southern products than the northern textile mill owners would. No. he's right. States rights? Explain the Fugitive Slave Law then. That pesky law that flew in the rights of the free states to not return runaway slaves to their owners.

Twotribes -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 8:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326 The author had me right up to the point where he stated the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. He's wrong. It was about states rights and about the economics of agricultural trade with foreign nations that were willing to pay more for southern products than the northern textile mill owners would. No. he's right. States rights? Explain the Fugitive Slave Law then. That pesky law that flew in the rights of the free states to not return runaway slaves to their owners. First he needs to explain why all the documents submitted for leaving the Union specifically list slavery as the cause.

Yogi the Great -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 9:35:26 PM)
It was about States Rights, but the States Right that most sparked the war was slavery. I believe that if not for slavery, there would have been no war. This argument has gone on since the war and will probably go on perhaps in to eternity. It just makes one feel better to say they were fighting for States Rights. I happen to be a strong believer in States Rights on and do feel it is an important, correct and critical right. I happen to personally dislike the improper reach of fedeeral giovernment into so many decisions. I just don't happen to believe that without slavery the war would have been fought. Whether many or a majority of southerners at the time or thought they were fighting for states rights or to repeal an invader may be arguable, but to argue that slavery was not at the center is to wear a blind fold and ear plugs while looking at and/or listening to the root cause of the war. Feel free to disagree and just look at what you would like to see and hear, it is a human nature to do so.

Aurelian -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 9:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes quote: ORIGINAL: Aurelian quote: ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326 The author had me right up to the point where he stated the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. He's wrong. It was about states rights and about the economics of agricultural trade with foreign nations that were willing to pay more for southern products than the northern textile mill owners would. No. he's right. States rights? Explain the Fugitive Slave Law then. That pesky law that flew in the rights of the free states to not return runaway slaves to their owners. First he needs to explain why all the documents submitted for leaving the Union specifically list slavery as the cause. True. But that isn't going to happen.

ezzler -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/21/2014 10:57:55 PM)
Didn't know there was such a theory of Grant and Lee being overrated. Most books I have read consider them very fine generals. Most lists of 'best generals' have both in the lists in the top 20, if not top 10. Lee's dividing his armies, successfully,and on more than one occasion, in the face of the enemy, is legendary. his use of defensive networks at the seven days surely puts paid to this sole attack theory. Freidricksburg and the Wilderness just reinforce his defensive skills. Grant's Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece of combined arms, strategic thinking, outmaneuver and generalship. What's to argue about? Both were outstanding.

wworld7 -> RE: In Defense of Grant and Lee (9/22/2014 12:16:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ezz Didn't know there was such a theory of Grant and Lee being overrated. Most books I have read consider them very fine generals. Most lists of 'best generals' have both in the lists in the top 20, if not top 10. Lee's dividing his armies, successfully,and on more than one occasion, in the face of the enemy, is legendary. his use of defensive networks at the seven days surely puts paid to this sole attack theory. Freidricksburg and the Wilderness just reinforce his defensive skills. Grant's Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece of combined arms, strategic thinking, outmaneuver and generalship. What's to argue about? Both were outstanding. Both were fine generals IMO.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.65625