 |
Kentucky_Orphan
Member
|
Ole-
but it is profitable only in that it stimulates thinking and discussion. There is no conclusion.
Of course, there is no way to definitively say which was the better (as I said in my first post on this subject as well, LOL), but debating subjects that have no apparent definitve answer are the only subjecs that can be debated intelligently. I've enjoyed reading other posters opinions on this subject, ESPECIALLY those that disagree with me. If everyone had said Lee was the superior General, I probably would have played the "devils advocate" and chosen Grant as the better of the two.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 05:43 pm |
|
42nd Post |
| Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
43rd Post |
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Both Generals were absolutely brilliant; giants among men when compared to most of their contemporaries.
Just to brush the surface.
Lee @ 2nd Manasas... as brilliant as they get. Chanclorsville; while succesful I believe Luck was on his side. Hooker blinked and lost. Antietum & Gettysburg... not his finest hours by any means. 1864... whooo boy, everything that could go wrong did and he still did his best to work his magic. I believe his greatest contribution to the survival of the ANV was the denial to the US Arty suitable terrain to bring to bear their overwhelming arty superiority.
Grant @ Henry Donelson... knew what need to be done and did it scooping up a CS Army in the process. Shiloh... stood his ground and luck saved his keester. Vicksburg campaign.. the most decisive of the War IMHO Brilliant from start to finish. Stiemied, blocked etc but never stopped in the end the CS was split in two. 1864... stiemied repeatedly and he never took his eyes off the prize. Brilliant strategy in that he never took his eyes off the prize.
In the end it was a beautiful CHess match w/ Lee blocking several attacks but never evading that checkmate.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11th, 2007 01:17 pm |
|
44th Post |
Widow
Member
|
Kentucky Orphan, re chess and poker players
Actually, it was Edward G. Longacre's book The Commanders of Chancellorsville: The Gentleman versus the Rogue in which Longacre created an analogy to compare the two personalities. Longacre asserted that Robert E. Lee's thinking was like a chess player, while Joseph Hooker was more like a poker player.
It was just an author's device to illustrate the differences between the two men. I don't think Lee ever held a card in his life. And Grant wasn't mentioned in Longacre's book.
Patty
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12th, 2007 04:52 am |
|
45th Post |
Kentucky_Orphan
Member
|
Widow-
I realize it is just an illustration by the author, my post was simply that I believe that the illustration should be reversed in regards to their conducting of battles and campaigns. I did, however, mistake in my post Grant for Hooker. Sorry about that. I just glanced at your statement and it inspired me to write what I did regarding Grant and Lee, I guess.
I still stand by my statement regarding Grant and Lee, however. While both illustrations could be applied to Lee and Grant, I believe that if poker and chess (with only one attached to each man) must be used as descriptions for their command styles, then poker should be attached to Lee and chess to Grant.
Maybe I misunderstand still though, and it is meant to be entirely a description of their personalities and not so much their command styles?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12th, 2007 03:48 pm |
|
46th Post |
ole
Member
|
Orphan:
I'll mostly go along with your observation that Grant was the chess player and Lee was the poker player, but not in relation to their personalities. From the beginning, Grant was focused on the moves (and countermoves) leading to the end game: capitulation of CSA armies. Lee played his hands skillfully (sometimes betting more than he could afford) and won more than a few pots, but he didn't have the wherewithall to compete in the no-limit game.
Ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15th, 2007 03:38 am |
|
47th Post |
JDC Duncan
Guest
|
Friends:
I've been away from this board for a few days, I've been feverishly tracing down a collateral relative, William Stroud of the 6th Alabama; I have discovered proof that he did not return from Gettysburg. I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
Ole: Texas, sir, in my belief, was settled and built by Southern men who became arrogant and drunk on the size and power of this land. They have lost many of the things that I hold to be "Southern" in manner and tradition, but there is still a very deep Southern undercurrent, even way out here on the Staked Plains. (My biggest complaint, which I will continue to voice until my dying day, is that Texas men will not remove their hats (or John Deere caps) inside; even in church. In Arkansas, eventually, someone, most likely a lady, would say "You gonna wear that in here ?")
On the topic of "marse", I will post a private message to you concerning this term, which, in its usage towards General Lee, which is indeed an honorific. I will not create any more controversy on this thread that I already have.
Also, sir, I have discovered another definition of "clap-trap" : "Cheap, showy sentiment". I would be hard-pressed to defend my previous elocutions on the nobility of the Good General if this definition is allowed. I apologize, sir.
To the Good Doctor: Hurrah for Virginia, sir! I myself have deep roots, as far as I know now to Miss Jane Braswell, born North Carolina, 1650. I have yet to find record of her parents, but God willing ...
I am tempted to post a lenghty reponse, but I will refrain. Perhaps "worshipping at the alter of Robert E. Lee" is a bit strong language, "clap-trap", if you will. Again, my apologies, and you are quite correct, sir, I should never presume to speak for all Southerners. (I hear some even opposed secession.) However, as I am sure you know, several Southern States, including my previous home of Arkansas, will tomorrow celebrate a State Holiday legally known as "Martin Luther King / Robert E. Lee Birthday(s)"
Even out here on the uncivilized Frontier, there are a number of elementary and secondary schools with the name "Robert E. Lee" in San Angelo and Midland-Odessa. The county seat of Coke county, to the north, is Robert Lee. This part of Texas honored the General for his service to Texas at Fort Mason, to the east of here, before the War.
On the general topic, I stand by my statement - I believe that Grant was the better general. Perhaps instead of "Better Man", I will say that General Lee was the better soldier, in conduct and decorum.
And Mr. Ole, sir, I ask you - who you would more wish a daughter to marry ?
yr obt svt,
JDC Duncan
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15th, 2007 01:14 pm |
|
48th Post |
Regina
Member
|
I'm responding to the original question on this thread. I think that when you measure both Lee's and Grant's strengths and weaknesses as Generals, they truly are matched and it is not possible to say one was better than the other. Grant won a surrender from Lee because of the unbalanced amount of men, provisions, money, etc. Well, if not for that, would the war have ever ended? I don't think there would have been a civilized country left !
And JDC Duncan said "who would you rather have your daughter date?" implying Lee would be the better choice. From the letters each man wrote to their wives, and the wives to them, Grant had a better marriage and was more in love with his wife, at least in my opinion. I was surprised to find this out while reading biographies on them.
Also, Lee was born into wealth and privilege, and Grant quite the opposite. Makes the story very interesting. Makes me wonder a little if things would have been different at all if they had more similar upbringings.
Fascinating men and a fascinating time, to say the least.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15th, 2007 02:52 pm |
|
49th Post |
David White
Member
|
If marrying your daughter is the criteria of a great general than Nathan Bedford Forrest and Dan Sickles would be horrible generals... Well maybe he is on to something with Sickles  .
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15th, 2007 03:46 pm |
|
50th Post |
ole
Member
|
As my daughter has no inherited wealth, I'm not sure Lee would be interested. I much appreciated Regina's post -- Grant was the hands-on husband and father.
I cheerfully accept JDC's position of better general (as opposed to better man). I can disagree, but must give way to an honestly dissenting opinion.
Regina: I may be incorrect here, but it was my understanding that Lee inherited a highly regarded name and his father's debts.
Ole
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 16th, 2007 03:22 am |
|
51st Post |
JDC Duncan
Guest
|
Ole -
Please again, sir, do not misunderstand me. I hold that General Grant was a better GENERAL, in strategic thinking and execution. As has been pointed out in this thread, General Grant saw the War as a whole, while General Lee concerned himself first and foremost with the defense of Virginia.
regards,
JDC Duncan
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19th, 2007 03:02 pm |
|
52nd Post |
Widow
Member
|
JDC,
Can you imagine Lee with a cigar, sitting on a tree stump, whittling stick after stick?
Can you imagine Grant handling all the paperwork that Lee had to do for lack of adequate staff?
Differences in personalities and styles. Results similar.
Patty
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28th, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
53rd Post |
cody6397
Yankee
|
It depends, if Grant was drunk then he wouldnt stand a chance LOL, But if they had the same number of troops i think Grant would win, He was such a relentless general and i think Lee would retreat
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 04:12 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|
|
