All of Lee's greatest "achievements" and "successes" (i.e., outright, unambiguous battle victories with inferior troop numbers and artillery where he not only repulsed Union advances, but also forced the Union Army to retreat to the North) were against Union Generals not named Grant. Lee was never able to do this to Grant. To the contrary, Lee was never able stop Grant's advance toward Richmond - he slowed him down a couple times, but was wholly unable to stop Grant, let alone push him backwards out of Southern territory as he had done to other Union Generals during the first 2 1/2 years of the war prior to Gettysburg. How does Lee's victories against other generals count against Grant??? That's what baffles me regarding this logic. Lee's record against Grant head-to-head is quite unambiguous - and it isn't very good at all.
OT: History Channel Miniseries "Grant"
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
All of Lee's greatest "achievements" and "successes" (i.e., outright, unambiguous battle victories with inferior troop numbers and artillery where he not only repulsed Union advances, but also forced the Union Army to retreat to the North) were against Union Generals not named Grant. Lee was never able to do this to Grant. To the contrary, Lee was never able stop Grant's advance toward Richmond - he slowed him down a couple times, but was wholly unable to stop Grant, let alone push him backwards out of Southern territory as he had done to other Union Generals during the first 2 1/2 years of the war prior to Gettysburg. How does Lee's victories against other generals count against Grant??? That's what baffles me regarding this logic. Lee's record against Grant head-to-head is quite unambiguous - and it isn't very good at all.
By the time they faced off the handwriting was on the wall. It was only a matter of time and Grant knew it. He went on the offensive and continued to push the matter to Lee whose supplies and resources were severely reduced. Lee khan he had to win early and he didn’t. It was a war of attrition like most are. Could Grant have done that with Lee in the early years? Pure conjecture. Both brilliant generals. But their forces strength were much different when they finally engaged.
Not really. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia didn't fight a major engagement from after Gettysburg July 3, 1863 until the Battle of the Wilderness, which started May 5, 1864 (i.e., 9 months). After Gettysburg, Lee retreated to the area of Northern VA wedged between the DC Area (Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax), Richmond and the Shenandoah. The Shenandoah Valley was the breadbasket of the Confederacy, so Lee's Army was extremely well supplied and rested after this extremely long 9-month hiatus. Furthermore, Grant is the party who instigated the Battle of the Wilderness directly after being named Commander of all US Forces by Lincoln in April 1864 - the Battle of the Wilderness was the first confrontation of Grant's Overland Campaign and he marched into this area knowing that it was not the most advantageous tactically for his troops (the Union had been defeated at the Battle of Chancellorsville almost exactly 1 year earlier and it neutralized his numerical superiority), but Grant intentionally took this route because it was the straightest, fastest line possible to Richmond and Grant knew it would force Lee to respond and draw him out of hiding.
Last edited:
those other Union Generals did not jave to retreat, Grant understood that Lee could not win a war of attrition, he knew that he had superior numbers so after a defeat he still had more men than Lee. Move by the left flank rinse repeat. Lee knew what he was doing thats how he seemed to always get to the next battle first. He also knew that there was nothing he could do stop it...he tried grant lost about half of the total casualties in the previous 3 years in roughly a month. Spotsylvania and cold harbor aren't as widely known but they were absolute blood baths.
Still better yet then/ (He could have wiped out those small amount of troops then crossing at Harpers Ferry and Shepardstown.
odd how Grant managed to cross the James, then- what with Lee knowing what he was doing and all....
He did.....lee knew once that happened it "would become a siege" that defeat was just a "matter of time" which it did and was.
Had Lee attacked when Grant's army was crossing the river, he had a good chance to destroy the Union force- he didn't, because Grant pulled it off (and at great risk, as he acknowledged) without Lee knowing what he was doing until he had done it.
What? Grant outfoxed the master general in his own home state? You don't say!!
"We must destroy Grants army before it reaches the James. If he gets there it will become a siege. Then it will be a mere question of time"
-Robert E Lee.
Lee knew exactly where grant was heading. But even after cold harbor grant still had more men than lee....it became the a siege and a question of time just like lee said it would.....that Was the strength of Robert e Lee as Shelby foote put it "he could make himself grant long enough to know what grant was going to do"
he knew where- not when, which is why he didn't move to cut Grant off
Grant send Sheridan off in a diversionary movement, which worked
(and when I say he knew where, that's wrong- he knew Grant would have to cross the James to get to Richmond, not where he would cross)
Last edited:
we know the eye test outweighs head-to-head
You really are quite laughable in your assertions - Lee made this statement to one of his Generals, Jubal Early, well before Petersburg. Statement was claimed to have been made by Early (i.e., it is Early who claims Lee made statement to him recounting events after war was over) just after Battle of North Anna and Lee's Army had failed yet again with an attempted counter-attack against Grant's Army. Lee's Army had set up a huge inverted-V shaped defensive position at an elbow in the river (gee, go figure Grant suffered more casualties having to attack Lee across a river and into fortified positions!). Even still, Grant obliged Lee on the Northwest flank (i.e., upstream side of inverted-V). This drew Lee all-in to the position - Lee attempted to counterattack Grant's Army but was prevented from breaking through. Once it became clear that his counter-attack had failed, Lee fell-back to reinforced fortifications slightly south of his original positions. Grant then masterfully passed without resistance to the southeast of Lee's new defensive position and continued his March on Richmond. Both Spotsylvania and North Anna were clear strategic victories for Grant - he was continuing his advance on Richmond at a very good pace and all counter-attacks by Lee to break his lines, force Grant to retreat and take back lost ground had been repulsed and failed - Lee's statement to Early is very good proof of this FACT, not some brilliant insight (i.e., Lee was lamenting to Early that all of his counter-attacks at The Wilderness, Spotsylvania and North Anna had failed, been defeated and repelled.... and that he was not able to stop Grant's inexorable march on Richmond, let alone defeat him in any of the battles to that point of The Overland Campaign as he had other Union Generals offensives into the South earlier in the war.).
Grant engaged Lee at Cold Harbor to pin him down to his position, Grant then used a feigned counterattack threatening to flank Lee to the west as a ruse to flank him to the SE and cross the James well SE of Richmond at Weyanoke Landing. Lee was so fooled by Grant that he did not arrive in Petersburg until a week after the first shots were fired at Petersburg (a couple days after Grant had crossed the James)... so much for your notion that Lee knew where Grant was crossing the James and did nothing to stop him because he was resigned to defeat. LMAO.
You do realize that Lee had upwards of 75,000 men between his own Army and the Army already defending Richmond and Petersburg (i.e., the Army of Southern VA under the Command of General Beauregard). It is estimated that Lee lost as much as 45% of his Army to surrender after Petersburg and Sailor's Creek (also called Battle of Appamatox) - some 33,000 troops, many of whom simply deserted Lee's Army after the fall of Richmond and Petersburg (estimated at 25,000). IOW, Lee began the defense of Richmond and Petersburg with some 75,000 men and surrendered at Appomattox with only 28,000 troops.... but he clearly was the better General over Grant (eyeroll).
Last edited:
Like I said earlier pure romantic fantasy that Lee was better than Grant!
And Grant lost approximately half of the total losses
To call Cold Harbor "slowing Down" is a bit of an understatement. Even Grant admitted he screwed that one up. What made Grant different was he realized he had a massive advantage in every tangible resource so instead of falling back after a defeat he moved south He commanded the largest most well equipped army ever up to that time period...honestly though I can't even think of an engagement that he won in which he didn't have huge advantages in men weapons provisions etc.
McClellan was notorious for overestimating the number of troops Lee had. (Antietam comes to mind, sadly. This may not be common knowledge, but just prior to Antietam McClellan came into the possession of Lee’s orders to split the AoNVa and reacted maddeningly and crushingly slowly, in part because he had overestimated how large Lee’s army was. And then he failed to attack before Early arrived from Harper’s Ferry. SMH.) So it seems to me that Grant had a much better understanding than did McClellan of what he had in front of him. Anyone could have come up with better estimates than McClellan.
Ok where do I start. First let's get the right figures. Lee had roughly 60 to 65k men more importantly Grant had 110 to 120k (a number you conviently ommited from your post ) He also had massive advantages in weapons provisions equipment medical supplies etc...(which you also ommited) . My point was Lee anticipated Grant which he did. Not only did he anticipate grants moves to Spotsylvania and cold harbor(thats why he got there first) he predicted what would happen if Grant reached the James. What made Grant different is that he knew how to beat Lee he knew that Lee would eventually run out of men which he did. Lees army was starving by the end. Grant won by using superior numbers and stubbornness. Nobody is saying grant wasn't a competent commander, but you can't ignore the massive advantages he had and the masdive disadvantages Lee had as well.
Agreed, that's what made grant different. And yeah it is common knowledge about the orders wrapping a cigar. What isn't is thst McLellan sort of acted.....look into south mountain...its a very interesting story.
You're smoking serious rope that Lee took anywhere near the number of POWs that Grant did during The Overland Campaign. You keep saying Grant had more casualties which is silly given that Grant had to fight at heavily-fortified sites of Lee's choosing (i.e., Grant's Army was forced to charge into Lee's Army who was fighting from behind fortifications. At North Anna River the Union had to fight their way across a River before they could even assault Lee's inverted-V shape barricade which was well back from the flood plain meaning Grant's Army had to charge across open ground - ditto Cold Harbor). After each of these frontal-assaults by the Union who was at the "disadvantage", contrary to your claim, as they were attacking fortified, entrenched Confederate positions not shooting from BEHIND THE PROTECTION of these fortifications and entrenchments - ditto The Wilderness and Spotsylvania - Lee counter-attacked the exhausted Union forces after their Frontal-Assaults failed AND ON EVERY OCCASION, Lee's forces were stopped cold causing them to "fall-back" further South where they could regroup to avoid having to face another Union frontal-assault while they were retreating. On each of these occasions, Grant flanked Lee's Army to the Southeast forcing Lee to scramble South and placing Grant ever closer to Richmond. Your fantasy that Lee inflicted more casualties because he was some brilliant General is nonsense - he had less casualties because his men were fighting from behind bulwarks, fortifications and trenches while the Union Army had only two choices - either try to break their defensive line by assault OR don't fight. Had they choose the later, they never would have been able to flank Lee to the SE (i.e., pin him down to the west) as Lee's fresh Army would have decimated them with an assault while they were unprotected and on the move.
BTW genius, Lee's Armies suffered ~28,000 casualties at Petersburg (the Siege lasted 9 months 6/15/1864 - 4/2/1865). After the fall of Petersburg and Richmond on April 2, 1865, Lee suffered 25,000 surrendered via desertion! 3 days later at the Battle of Sailor's Creek, Lee's Army suffered heavy casualties (several thousand) and another 8,000 prisoners of war including 8 of Lee's Generals! Lee then surrendered with just over 28,000 men. Those numbers clearly indicate that Lee had more than 60,000 combined Armies at Petersburg and Richmond (Lee had his own men, the Army of Northern Virginia, as well as Beauregards Army, the Army of Southern Virginia and all of the Richmond Garrison forces that had been stationed at Richmond the entire war to protect the Capital of the Confederacy). Lee's Army was barely functional at the end as half his men and all top field-commanders had been taken prisoner. Just laughable to claim that Lee took anywhere remotely close to the number of POWs that Grant did during The Overland Campaign. Don't believe me? Read the facts as to the condition of Lee's Army prior to his surrender: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/10-facts-sailors-creek
Last edited:
You may have been thinking exclusively about his battles in the East, but there was nothing easy about his conquest of Vicksburg, for example.
Grant, Too?
So much for the idea that “Confederate monuments” are under attack. Last night in San Francisco, left-wingers pulled down a statue of Ulysses Grant, the man who did more than anyone except Lincoln to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. Grant also, as President, did all he could to enforce Reconstruction and protect blacks in the South. He sent the military after the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina, worked to ensure passage of the 15th Amendment, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Of course, the Left knows little and cares less about any of this. Leftists hate the Union and hate men like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan for preserving it. Slavery is only a pretext. The United States and our constitutional democracy are the targets.
...quote from Frederick Douglass about Grant:
“To him, more than to any other man, the Negro owes his enfranchisement,” Douglass said. Douglass eulogized Grant as “a man too broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to be small at any point. In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/grant-too.php
So much for the idea that “Confederate monuments” are under attack. Last night in San Francisco, left-wingers pulled down a statue of Ulysses Grant, the man who did more than anyone except Lincoln to preserve the Union and abolish slavery. Grant also, as President, did all he could to enforce Reconstruction and protect blacks in the South. He sent the military after the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina, worked to ensure passage of the 15th Amendment, and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Of course, the Left knows little and cares less about any of this. Leftists hate the Union and hate men like Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan for preserving it. Slavery is only a pretext. The United States and our constitutional democracy are the targets.
...quote from Frederick Douglass about Grant:
“To him, more than to any other man, the Negro owes his enfranchisement,” Douglass said. Douglass eulogized Grant as “a man too broad for prejudice, too humane to despise the humblest, too great to be small at any point. In him the Negro found a protector, the Indian a friend, a vanquished foe a brother, an imperiled nation a savior.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/grant-too.php
reminds you some of communtist revolution. essentially any history is bad history.
Has anyone seen LaJolla? That is California, but far from Frisco. Maybe he took the California bullet train?
And you do realize that the Civil War started because the Southern states wanted to secede from the Union.
Exactly. Being behind prepared defenses and controlling interior lines of communication and movement are huge advantages that Lee (and the South) had.
In fact, the Confederacy had almost more innate advantages than any rebellion in history and still got rolled. Ironically their “slavish” (irony again) devotion to states rights hampered a more cohesive defense when the North finally got serious and put adults in charge
Wow what a debate. It reminds me of a special, probably on ESPN, about who was the NFL team of the 70s. Lots of this and that but it was best summarized by Franco Harris at the end (paraphrased), ".....when we played them, we kicked their ass". Sort of like Grant and Lee, don't you think?
My new copy of Battle Cry of Freedom arrived the other day. Sixty-five pages in and it’s still 1850. Incredible story; puts history into clear perspective.
Page 85. Uncle Tom’s Cabin made an impact. Zachary Taylor surprised everyone (me included) and was Lincoln before Lincoln. Taylor dies and Fillmore is an 180 degree turn. Fugitive Slave Act brought scenes reminiscent of Elian Gonzalez. Southern surrogates twice try to invade Cuba, and attempt a coup in Nicaragua.
Last edited:
If you missed this, or just wanted to see it again, it's rerunning starting tonight on History
it would be 10pm, I believe- if I remember my time zones that is- 6pm EDST
