From the earliest postwar days, Robert E. Lee was praised as a military genius. The cult of Lee worshipers began with former Civil War generals who had fought ineffectively under him. They sought to polish their own tarnished reputations and restore Southern pride by deliberately distorting the historical record and creating the myth of the flawless Robert E. Although Lee was generally worshipped for the first hundred years after the Civil War, there were exceptions.
|Published (Last):||15 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||7.86 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From the earliest postwar days, Robert E. Lee was praised as a military genius. The cult of Lee worshipers began with former Civil War generals who had fought ineffectively under him. They sought to polish their own tarnished reputations and restore Southern pride by deliberately distorting the historical record and creating the myth of the flawless Robert E.
Although Lee was generally worshipped for the first hundred years after the Civil War, there were exceptions. In and , British Major General J.
Fuller criticized Lee while praising Grant. The works of T. Harry Williams and Thomas L. A classic reevaluation of Lee was Alan T. Lee and Civil War History Currently, the reappraisal of Lee continues, and, as J.
With us, now twenty years after the close of the most stupendous war ever known, we have writers—who profess devotion to the nation—engaged in trying to prove that the Union forces were not victorious; practically, they say, we were slashed around from Donelson to Vicksburg and to Chattanooga; and in the East from Gettysburg to Appomattox, when the physical rebellion gave out from sheer exhaustion. In fact, several pro-Confederate writers attacked Grant as soon as the shooting stopped.
Even Northern historians criticized Grant. In doing so, they felt compelled to belittle the accomplishments of Grant. As well compare the great pyramid which rears it majestic proportions in the Valley of the Nile, to a pygmy perched on Mount Atlas. For example, Lieutenant General Evander M. It is difficult to overestimate the damage to Grant that these writings caused and the virtual indelibility of the image they created of Grant the Butcher.
In his four-volume treatise, R. Lee, Freeman idolized Lee in describing all the details of his generalship. Lee found few opportunities of attacking the enemy in detail or on the march. And in some subtle fashion General Grant infused into his well-seasoned troops a confidence they had never previously possessed. It has been recently continued in Paul D. Significant praise for Grant, other than from his subordinates and fellow officers, first came from overseas.
British military historian and Major-General J. Fuller concluded that Grant was a superior strategist, possessed common sense, recognized what needed to be done to win the war, and deserved the major credit for doing so.
He compared Grant quite favorably to Lee, found that Lee consistently throughout the war lost a higher percentage of his troops than Grant or other adversaries he faced, and that Lee much more than Grant—and for no good reason—sacrificed his troops in frontal assaults and continued to do so until he had no more to sacrifice.
Another British military historian, John Keegan, also found cause to praise Grant. He did so in The Mask of Command The most comprehensive sympathetic treatment of Grant came with the works of Bruce Catton. He first wrote of Grant in the second and third volumes of the famous Civil War trilogy, Mr. Like Grant himself, said Stephen W. Harry Williams, was a renowned Civil War scholar and a strong proponent of Grant. It was a matter of simple arithmetic. He led his troops into the Wilderness and there produced a nightmare of inhumanity and inept military strategy that ranks with the worst such episodes in the history of warfare.
A return to the Catton sympathetic approach marked the Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity, — by Brooks D. Simpson described a non-idealized Grant and praised his common sense, imagination, and perseverance. He was less successful at shaking the perception that he was a ham-handed tactician who freely wasted the lives of his own men. This reputation was largely based on the pervasive impression of his generalship left by the campaign in Virginia.
He preferred to take prisoners than to slay foes; he emphasized movement and logistics over slugging it out. Even his campaigns in Virginia shows a general who. He contended that Grant was the strategic master of his Confederate counterparts, had a lower casualty rate than Lee, and demonstrated his strategic skills by focusing on enemy armies rather than on mere geographic goals.
Smith not only described the greatness of Grant as a Civil War general but also the many overlooked positive aspects of his eight-year presidency. In summary, Ulysses Grant got off to a bad start among postwar historians, but his military accomplishments have received increasing, if erratic, recognition since about Serious historical reestablishment of his multi-theater, war-winning record continues. With this historical perspective as background, we can now undertake a comparative analysis of Grant and Lee.
Those two generals shared many characteristics, but in many ways, they were quite different. Scott Michael Rank, Ph.
Grant And Lee A Study In Contrasts By Bruce Catton Essay
You search returned over essays for "Grant and Lee a Study in Contrasts". Grant and Lee In my historical career, for a long time teachers and professors have focused on the general Grant's view of killing drunkards. But in the explanation of Fuller's two generals, through data and personal intuition, General Grant is actually a strategist and planner, not only won the war, but also the number of soldiers He said. This article has a different view on Grant and Lee's acting as a civil war general. The grant is a domestic general and is the most successful alliance or warlord general of the war.
Comparing Grant and Lee: A Study In Contrasts
Grant and Robert E. Lee are two of the most effective military leaders in American history. These men have become symbolic of the two nations at conflict during the Civil War. Both had very different backgrounds and personalities that caused them to differ in their military leadership and accomplishments. Even though General Lee would surrender his army to General Grant, Lee throughout the course of the war proved himself. Other countries, in contrast, have experienced difficult times attempting to run such an economy.
Grant and Lee -A Study in Contrasts by Bruce Catton
Grant and Lee