Comparing the Military Legacy of Grant and Lee

Hrozek 1 Jared Hrozek Dr. Alexander Bielakowski HIST 3314 15 May 2023 The Genius and the Butcher The lives of Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, two of the most notable military leaders of the Civil War, are linked in American history. The military approaches, leadership philosophies, and overall contributions of Lee, the Confederacy's general, and Grant, the Union's general, are frequently contrasted. Grant has been dubbed a butcher because of his ruthless strategies, whereas Lee is frequently recognized as a genius. This essay will explore the accuracy of these labels, compare the military successes and legacies of the two men, and dive into their personal histories and professional histories. On April 27, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio, Hiram Ulysses Grant was born (Chernow, 4). He was the oldest of six children born to Jesse Root Grant and Hannah Simpson Grant (Chernow, 6). Jesse Root Grant was a tanner and merchant (Chernow, 6). Grant's father participated in politics and held office as a Whig Party representative in Ohio (Chernow, 6). Grant attended school in Ohio and worked at his father's tannery throughout his early years (Chernow 9-10). Grant enrolled at West Point's American Military Academy in 1839 (Chernow, 25). When he arrived at West Point, there was a mistake on his admission documents, and he was listed as Ulysses S. Grant instead of Hiram Ulysses Grant (Chernow, 25). Grant decided to preserve the name, and he lived the rest of his life going by Ulysses S. Grant (Chernow, 26). Grant performed admirably in mathematics and equestrian while attending West Point (Chernow, 29). After

Hrozek 2 earning his degree in 1843, he was appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Army (Chernow, 35). Grant was tasked with serving at several military installations across the country, including Missouri and Louisiana (Chernow, 57). He participated in the Mexican-American War in 1846 and took part in the Battles of Palo Alto and Monterrey (Chernow, 67-68). In 1853, Grant was appointed captain for his combat prowess (Chernow, 85). In 1848, he married Julia Dent, the sister of a West Point classmate (Chernow, 83). Grant left the army in 1854 and relocated to St. Louis, Missouri, where he experimented with a variety of vocations, including farming and real estate (Chernow, 92-93). He relocated his family to Galena, Illinois, where he worked at his father's leather goods shop since he was struggling to make ends meet (Chernow, 109). Grant was a clerk at his father's store in 1861, the year the Civil War started (Chernow, 110). Grant was named colonel of the 21st Illinois Volunteer Infantry in June 1861 (Chernow, 119). He made a name for himself in combat right away, earning a promotion to brigadier general (Chernow, 151). Grant led the Union army to multiple wins in 1862, including those at the Battle of Shiloh and the Battle of Fort Donelson (Chernow, 190). Grant was given the moniker "Unconditional Surrender" Grant for his bold tactics while taking a lot of losses (Chernow, 198). Grant was chosen to lead the Union Army's western theater in 1863 (Chernow, 231). At the crucial Battle of Vicksburg, which turned the tide of the Civil War, he led the Union forces to victory (Chernow, 247-248). Grant was promoted to major general and given command of all Union armies as a result of his victory at Vicksburg (Chernow, 460-461).

Hrozek 3 Grant conducted many planned offensives against the Confederacy in 1864 (Chernow, 583-585). General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, personally led the Army of the Potomac (Chernow, 587). Grant persisted in pressing Lee's force despite suffering significant losses (Chernow, 773). The Civil War was effectively over when Lee gave himself up to Grant at Appomattox Court House in April 1865 (Chernow, 890). Grant received a promotion to general of the army, the top position in the American Army, following the war (Chernow, 718). From 1866 until 1869, he managed the restoration of the South while acting as commanding general (Chernow, 626). He was chosen as the 18th President of the United States in 1868 (Chernow, 732). The Whiskey Ring and the Credit Mobilier were two corruption scandals that marred Grant's presidency (Chernow, 848-849). Despite these issues, Grant's administration is remembered for some noteworthy accomplishments (Chernow, 812). He oversaw the creation of the Department of Justice and the National Park System, and he signed the 15th Amendment, which gave African American men the right to vote (Chernow, 667, 687, 696). Grant was elected again in 1872, but his second term was hampered by political unrest and an economic downturn (Chernow, 671). Democrats and Republicans both opposed him as he battled to keep control of his administration (Chernow, 835). Grant decided not to seek reelection in 1876 and left politics (Chernow, 842). Grant and his wife set out on a world tour after leaving office (Chernow, 846). Everywhere he traveled, he received a warm welcome and rose to international fame (Chernow, 928-929). He was hailed as a Civil War hero and a testament to the tenacity and spirit of Americans (Chernow, 706).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Hrozek 4 Grant received a diagnosis of throat cancer in 1880 (Chernow, 946). He battled the illness for many years and tried numerous ineffective treatments (Chernow, 903). He started writing his memoirs in 1884 to support his family following his passing (Chernow, 964). Grant devoted a great deal of time to writing his memoirs despite his deteriorating health, finishing them just a few days before he passed away on July 23, 1885 (Chernow, 1078). Grant was renowned for his modest, unassuming manner and his unflinching dedication to duty throughout his whole life (Chernow, 5). He was an accomplished military tactician and devoted public servant who was instrumental in the Union's Civil War victory (Chernow, 5). Grant is still regarded as one of the most revered and admired people in American history, despite the scandals that dogged his presidency (Chernow, 5). Grant's reputation has changed over the years since he passed away (Chernow, 957-958). He was viewed for many years as a lackluster leader whose term was tainted by corruption (Chernow, 2). As a military leader, Grant's reputation has never been in question (Chernow, 82). He was a crucial player in the Union's Civil War victory and is usually considered one of the greatest generals in American history (Chernow, 3). His strategic acumen and tenacity helped the Union win the war by shifting the balance of power (Chernow, 130-135). Ulysses S. Grant was a fascinating and complex figure in American history. His life and legacy continue to motivate and inspire us, serving as a constant reminder of the value of tenacity, commitment, and selflessness. Understanding the circumstances in which this accusation is made is necessary before we can determine whether Grant was a butcher. The word "butcher" is usually used to refer to someone who purposefully ends the lives of others, either out of incompetence or out of disregard for human life. Grant's willingness to sacrifice many soldiers to accomplish his goals during the Civil War is one of the principal accusations leveled at him being named a butcher

Hrozek 5 (Chernow, 564). This accusation is frequently made regarding his infamous incursions into Confederate strongholds, like the siege of Vicksburg and the Battle of Cold Harbor. Grant instructed his forces to conduct frontal assaults against strongly entrenched positions in both instances, leading to horrifying fatalities on both sides (Chernow, 402). Grant was indeed prepared to take more casualties than his forerunners, but it's crucial to keep in mind that he did so with a specific goal. According to Chernow, "Grant knew that wars were won by attacking, not by waiting for the enemy to make a mistake" (Chernow, 314). Grant understood that the only way to destroy the Confederacy was to engage them in battle, which would inevitably result in many losses (Chernow, 121). Although he cared about his soldiers' lives, he understood that war was a merciless endeavor, and the only way to put an end to it was to seize the moment an advantage was available (Chernow, 632). It's also important to remember that Grant wasn't a careless leader who launched his soldiers into war without thinking about their safety (Chernow, 725). Instead, he had a reputation for meticulous planning and attention to detail (Chernow, 571). He made a considerable effort to ensure that his troops were well-fed, well-supplied, and well-trained (Chernow, 354). He was also constantly looking for methods to enhance their living quarters and raise morale (Chernow, 354). He was also a hands-on leader who frequently led his soldiers from the front, putting himself in danger along with his men (Chernow, 185). Grant was renowned for his military prowess as well as his considerate treatment of the Confederate soldiers he captured (Chernow, 163). Grant understood that the Confederates were fellow Americans who had merely been on the losing side of a fight, in contrast to many of his fellow Union generals, who saw them as traitors and vowed to punish them as such (Chernow,

Hrozek 6 684). As a result, he showed them warmth and respect by frequently providing them with food and medical attention when they were ill (Chernow, 328). Grant was not the only one whose reputation as a "butcher" was called into question (Chernow, 520). Many other well-known Civil War generals, such as William T. Sherman and Robert E. Lee, were also charged with sacrificing human life needlessly (Chernow, 680). In actuality, war is a harsh, nasty process, and it inevitably involves casualties. Even though it is always heartbreaking when soldiers pass away, it's vital to keep in mind that they sacrifice their lives in support of their country and a cause they believe in. Even though Grant's military battles saw a lot of losses, it is not fair to call him a "butcher." He was a capable and considerate commander who understood the brutal reality of war and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to win. He was also a kind leader who sincerely loved his troops and understood the humanity of his foes. Grant's record can undoubtedly be faulted in some ways, as with any historical figure, but to call him a "butcher" ignores the complexity of his personality and the difficulties he encountered as a commander at one of the most trying times in American history. Henry Lee III and Anne Hill Carter Lee welcomed Robert Edward Lee into the world on January 19, 1807, in Stratford Hall, Virginia (Korda, 2). Henry Lee III, popularly referred to as "Light-Horse Harry," was a cavalry officer in George Washington's cavalry during the Revolutionary War (Korda, 1). The youngest of five children, Robert E. Lee lost both of his parents when he was a small child (Korda, 3). His mother died when he was only 11 years old, and his father died when he was nine (Korda, 3). After his mother passed away, Robert E. Lee moved in with Ann Hill Carter Lee, who was married to a well-known attorney named Robert Randolph (Korda, 3).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Hrozek 7 Lee was a standout student who spent his entire childhood at private schools (Chernow, 4). He had a gift for mathematics and a passion for engineering (Chernow, 4). He enrolled in the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1825, and four years later, he received the second-best grade in his class (Korda, 4). Lee's experiences at West Point influenced the way he viewed duty, discipline, and leadership (Korda, 5). Lee joined the Corps of Engineers as a second lieutenant following his graduation from West Point (Korda, 5). He served in a variety of engineering roles, including helping to build Virginia's Fort Monroe (Korda, 6). He married Martha Washington's great-granddaughter, Mary Anna Randolph Custis, in 1831 (Korda, 11). As an assistant in the engineering department in the 1840s, Lee oversaw the building of lighthouses, piers, and other projects (Korda, 9). Additionally, he participated in the Mexican-American War, where he made a name for himself as a strong leader (Korda, 19). At the Battle of Chapultepec, he was hurt, yet he nevertheless led his forces to victory (Korda, 21). Lee was named director of the American Military Academy at West Point in 1852 (Korda, 25). He carried out several reforms during his three-year term, such as a new discipline scheme and curriculum revision (Korda, 25). Lee's experience at West Point contributed to the development of his image as a superb administrator and leader (Korda, 25). In 1855, Lee was chosen to lead the Second Cavalry, which had just been organized, as its lieutenant colonel (Korda, 28). He undertook many duties, including leading troops in Texas and taking John Brown to court following the raid on Harpers Ferry (Korda, 29-30). Lee questioned his allegiances as North-South hostilities intensified in the late 1850s (Korda, 37). He supported the Union's continued existence and opposed secession, but he still harbored deep ties to his native Virginia (Korda, 37). In April 1861, Virginia decided to leave the

Hrozek 8 Union, and Lee left the U.S. Army and enlisted in the Confederate Army (Korda, 79). Lee's military career during the Civil War was highlighted by many significant wins and losses. He assisted President Jefferson Davis as a top military adviser before being named Army of Northern Virginia commander in June 1862 (Korda, 443). The Confederate Army triumphed in several significant engagements under Lee's command, including the Second Battle of Bull Run, the Battle of Fredericksburg, and the Battle of Chancellorsville (Korda, 377). The Battle of Gettysburg, a crucial moment in the war, was one of Lee's many critical setbacks, though (Korda, 520). Lee was a skilled military commander, but the Union Army frequently outnumbered and outgunned him, and his forces struggled due to a lack of money and supplies (Korda, 580). Lee's health started to deteriorate as the war dragged on. He had cardiac issues, and his physical health was declining (Korda, 710). At Appomattox Court House in April 1865, Union forces surrounded and outnumbered Lee's army (Korda, 778). Lee surrendered his army to General Ulysses S. Grant after realizing that continuing to resist would be pointless, ultimately putting an end to the Civil War (Korda, 763). After the war, Lee went back to the civilian world and was appointed president of Lexington, Virginia's Washington College, which is now known as Washington and Lee University (Korda, 784). He put forth endless effort to restore the institution and implant in his pupils his principles of order, responsibility, and character (Korda, 784). He also pushed for unification and a common sense of national identity as a supporter of North-South reconciliation. However, Lee's involvement with the Confederacy made his legacy more difficult (Korda, 713). While some considered him a hero and a symbol of Southern pride, others saw him as a traitor to the Union and a protector of slavery (Korda, 713). Lee expressed regret for his part in the conflict and his choice to back the Confederacy as he grappled with his legacy (Korda, 719).

Hrozek 9 After the war, Lee's health deteriorated further, and in September 1870, he had a stroke (Korda, 702). On October 12, 1870, he passed away at his Lexington, Virginia, home two weeks later (Korda, 793). At Washington & Lee University's Lee Family Crypt, he was laid to rest (Korda, 793-794). In the years following Lee's passing, his reputation remained a source of discussion and contention (Korda, 737). Some viewed him as a tragic figure, a superb leader divided between his state's and his country's duties (Korda, 653). Some people believed that he represented the Confederacy and stood up for slavery and that his legacy should be decried (Korda, 691). Robert E. Lee continues to be a significant figure in American history despite the dispute surrounding his legacy. Although Lee was unquestionably a great military leader who led his forces to numerous important triumphs, there is much debate as to whether his successes were the result of his genius or of other factors like luck or superior manpower. Lee's talent for inspiring and motivating his troops is one aspect that contributes to his brilliance (Korda, 443). Lee was well regarded and admired by his troops, who looked up to him as a representation of Southern honor and pride (Korda, 443). Even under extreme stress, he was renowned for maintaining his composure and his ability to lead from the front (Korda, 443). His tactical adaptability of Lee is another aspect that contributes to his brilliance (Korda, 659). Lee was a master of maneuver warfare, and he was adept at changing his strategy to fit the environment and the circumstances at hand (Korda, 659). He was also renowned for his willingness to take chances and was not averse to launching audacious assaults or employing unconventional strategies if he thought they would benefit him (Korda, 659). The evidence suggests that Lee's success on the battlefield cannot, however, be exclusively attributable to his brilliance (Korda, 547). One of the most important of these is the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Hrozek 10 fact that Lee spent a large portion of the Civil War on the defensive and was frequently outnumbered and outgunned by his Union adversaries (Korda, 445). He found it difficult to carry out protracted campaigns or launch massive offensives as a result (Korda, 445). Additionally, Lee benefited from several tactical errors made by his Union adversaries. For instance, Union General Joseph Hooker made many tactical mistakes during the Battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, which gave Lee a resounding victory (Korda, 446). Similarly, to this, Union General George McClellan failed to take advantage of his numerical advantage at the Battle of Antietam later that same year, allowing Lee to flee with his army still intact (Korda, 603). Lee was unquestionably a talented tactician, but his strategic vision was frequently lacking (Korda, 523). He was often criticized for his lack of strategic planning and was well- recognized for his propensity to prioritize short-term goals above long-term ones (Korda, 444). This became especially clear in the closing phases of the conflict when Lee's Confederate forces were becoming more and more depleted and unable to mount successful counteroffensives (Korda, 562). While there is little doubt that Robert E. Lee was an accomplished military leader who led his forces to numerous noteworthy triumphs, the question of whether he was a genius is complex and challenging to answer with certainty. While there are many indications that Lee was a strategic genius, many other indications point to other causes, like chance or greater manpower, for his military victories. In the end, it's a coin toss whether Lee was a genius, but in my opinion, he was a lucky genius.

Hrozek 11 Two of the most notable individuals in American history, notably during the Civil War, were Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Despite being on opposing sides of the fight, they had a lot in common yet also differed greatly. Analyzing what made them both distinctive and what made them both effective leaders by focusing on their histories, personalities, and leadership philosophies Robert E. Lee was a well-educated West Point graduate who hailed from a wealthy family in Virginia (Korda, 4). He had a distinguished military career and established himself as a capable tactician during the Mexican-American War (Korda, 64). During the Civil War, he was renowned for his strategic thinking and his capacity to outmaneuver larger Union forces (Korda, 3). Lee was a stern disciplinarian who firmly believed in setting an example for his troops, frequently placing himself in danger to motivate them (Korda, 20). He had a strong sense of allegiance to the Confederacy and supported their cause, which was the upholding of slavery and the defense of state rights (Korda, 26). Ulysses S. Grant, on the other hand, struggled academically before enrolling at West Point and came from a lowly background in Ohio (Chernow, 26). He had both achievements and disappointments during his military career, and he was well known for his drinking (Chernow, 20). Despite this, Grant was a superb tactician who appreciated the value of supply chains and logistics (Chernow, 511). He was prepared to make sacrifices and believed in taking big chances to succeed (Chernow, 363). Grant was primarily motivated by a desire to end the war as soon as possible and restore the Union, not particularly by politics or ideologies (Chernow, 627). Both Lee and Grant were capable military leaders, but they had quite different personalities and management methods. Lee was a calm and discreet leader who was highly regarded by his soldiers (Kodra, 47-48). He was a man of principles who valued loyalty and

Hrozek 12 responsibility (Kodra, 47-48). Grant, in comparison, had a quick wit and a dry sense of humor and was more personable and down-to-earth (Chernow, 14). He frequently visited his troops in the hospital and did everything he could to lessen their pain because he had a great sense of empathy and cared about their wellbeing (Chernow, 230). Lee was a micromanager who valued strict control and discipline in terms of their leadership methods (Kodra, 51). Every facet of his troops' training and deployment had his full attention, and he expected them to be ready to give their lives if necessary for the greater good (Kodra, 51). Grant, on the other hand, was more inclined to give his subordinates authority and trust (Chernow, 327). He was willing to test new tactics if he felt they could help him win, and he believed in allowing his generals the opportunity to make choices and take risks (Chernow, 327). Despite their differences, Lee and Grant had several qualities in common that helped them become successful leaders. They were both sharp minds who could foresee their adversaries' movements and quickly adapt to changing conditions. Both of them had a strong sense of honor and duty, and they were prepared to put their lives in danger to serve as an example for their people. Finally, they both recognized the value of logistics and supply chains, realizing that an army's success depended on its capacity for self-sufficiency. Two of the most famous people in American history, Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant, each had their unique virtues and faults. Both sides possessed the traits of outstanding military leaders, including intelligence, strategic thinking, and a strong sense of loyalty to their cause. Their unique personalities and leadership philosophies may have made them stand out, but their qualities in common were what allowed them to be successful and remembered.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Hrozek 13 Works Cited Chernow, Ron. Grant . Head of Zeus, 2018. Korda, Michael. Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee . Harper Perennial, 2015.

Term Paper

Related Documents