Been doing a lot of reading on the Civil War lately; always has been a area of special interest for me, as I grew up 45 mins outside of Gettysburg and visited there more times than I can count.

I always seemed to think that Lee was a good general, but now I'm starting to think he really does not get the credit he deserves. After all, the Federals pretty much got to print the history books for the last 150 years.

When he took over the Army of Northern Virgina, with McClellan a real threat to Richmond until Gettysburg...he had, what, 15 battles of various sizes? I don't have the list in front of me....but I think Chancellorsville was 13 or 14, and he invaded PA on the back of that victory.

Of those, 10 or 11 were straight wins, a few might be called either way, and even the repulse at Antietam was a costly way for the Federals to get him to pull back across that river. Gettysburg was a lot tighter than many believe and was close, several times, of going the other way.

He was almost always out numbered, his biggest victory at Chancellorsville he was out numbered 60,000 to 133,000...where he attacked a fortified position, had to send troops all over to fight on 2 fronts (Union coming from Fredricksburg), pulled off the greatest flank attack of the war (with a lot of help from Stonewall), and sent the Yanks running. Out numbered over 2-1 he split his army (yikes) and ousted a fortified position while fighting on two fronts...are you kidding me?

The more I learn about this guy, the more I think he is neglected. I see no reason why he should not be considered one of our greatest generals. I know we have some history buffs out there...am I wrong? Is it really the Confederate label that sort of holds his record down?

For better or worse he is the Greatest American General ever.... IMHO

under the circumstances at the time, i totally agree.

I'm not sure I've ever read or heard anyone claim Lee was anything but great. If there are any critics they generally start the negative evaluation with somthing like "Gen. Lee, while no doubt a great leader.."

It's possible, growing up as I did, in the "North" and just East of Gettysburg, that my views and education were shaped by geography. I still never walked away with a real appreciation of how good Lee really was as a military leader. We were always sort of taught that Grant was his superior....yeah, we had some boobs early on (although I maintain McClellan got sort of a bad rap, as he'd sure tell you himself), but Grant set the record straight. Grant may have been a good general....his Vicksburg campaign is a good example of what he could do, but I don't see him on the same playing field.

I'm guessing, someone educated, for example, in Richmond might have had a different focus.

I even did a quick google on "top american generals" to get a list and see what was out there. Found one that ranked Lee #3 and Grant #4. Perhaps he gets extra credit for being a Northern general? It does seem Lee appears on all the lists, and Grant only sometimes.

The 40 days of Lee v Grant in '64 really cemented it for me.

If Lee had been in charge of the Army of the Potomac the "civil war" would have been over in 1862, and probably won't have even been called that, but....

our country might have been worse off because it was before the emancipation proclamation and most of the south that voted to rebel wouldn't have understood how much they had been beaten.... it would still have been very difficult to abolish slavery.

The way it happened, even massively partisan people like Bedford Forrest understood they had been beaten,

Longstreet and Jackson were the genius behind Lee's success, that said, he was a very good leader of men.

The Late Unpleasantness was groundbreaking in terms of tatics. I wonder how much more so it would have been in terms of strategy if Lee had thought to use the Gettysburg campaign to cut the supply of coal flowing from PA and WVA to the factories of the North.

That's why I liked the 40 days. Jackson was dead and Longstreet gets shot out of action on like day 3 of 40...

Lee made a point of making sure all of his soldiers understood that "we wage war on the enemy, not the population" (paraphrase). During that push north, no one was allowed to loot and fair prices were to be paid for all food. Of course, he paid with shin plasters, so I guess in the end it was a bad deal for the people giving up livestock. Part of this was also political, he was, as we say today, trying to win hearts and minds. Much of the North was already fed up with the war.

Quite different, however, than what happened when the armies came the other way.

Lee was an engineer and I think perhaps to this day may be the only officer ever to get through his entire course of instruction at West Point without a single demerit.

He was brilliant and very calculating. He understood early on the value of defensive battle, so much so he earned the nickname, "The King of Spades". The rest of the world watched how he won battles in the defense and this would be frightenly played out in the Great War 50 years later. This type of battle suited the undermanned, under equipped Southern Army. Perhaps he saw that, I don't know, but he was a master of Defensive War. Our greatest ever, I don't know he certainly ranks up there. I don't particularily see Grant as a great General, he had every advantage, took command in 1864 with the war probably already decided.

But if I had to make a list of our best Generals off the top of my head.............no particular order.

Gen Terry McAulliffe - just for saying NUTS! at Bastogne, and oh yeah the defense of that town.
Gen Omar Bradley - the guy who made it possible for Patton to do his work both as a subordinate and a superior.
George Washington - probably should not have won that war
Gen Billy Mitchell - our dominate Air Power is due to him
Dugout Doug - should probably be on this, but I really don't like the guy
Admiral Farragut - probably won the Civil war for the North, and got damn little credit
Lee - has to be on the list


* I think in the future Gen Petreaus will also be on the list, no war more difficult than non-linear war

I would disagree a bit about Grant, he may have taken command of the Army of the Potomac in '64; but before that he was doing quite good things in the Western theater. Vicksburg was a tough nut to crack, and Grant's plan was not only executed brilliantly, it was so daring and unexpected this his staff and generals, almost to a man, thought he was off his rocker. A fair number of them even predicting disaster, publicly, to distance themselves from what they believed to be inevitable failure.

I also disagree on G. Washington. I think he was a good leader and had a good understanding of the type of war he was fighting; but his record in battle was atrocious. His impact on the number of forces and factors that decided that conflict was also minimal. He was in the mix, to be sure, but he also seems to gain generously in hindsight.

I don't know enough about the others, to be fair. But I think the success of McAuliffe at Bastogne owes more to the way the Germans decided to attack it; leaving a small force behind while the rest passed and then attacking only at one point at a time thus allowing the scant few defenders time to shift to where they were needed. It was a stout defensive effort, no arguments, but should have fallen if the Germans were a bit sharper.

I also have trouble with Petreaus. The sheer difference in technology, fire power, training, organization, communication, capability, flexibility (etc) makes any conflict almost a farce. Beyond that, the enemy isn't really defeated yet. The response needs to be one of a guerilla nature, and has been...and the end result has been a continual spread of the conflict. It seems the end result has been largely ineffectual.

I agree with you on Grant's Western Offensive, overall, I just think he gets too much credit.

What Washington did was far more about keeping a fighting force on the field, than what that fighting force did on the field of battle.

This current war IMO is probably our most difficult war for a host of reasons (The Revolution right there too.) Petreaus deserves a lot more credit than he is getting. But as I said we have to wait and see on this; 50 - 100 years from now it will be a different world one way or another and Historians are likely to come to some kind of concensus on this conflict.

Who's on your list?

I don't know enough about all the leaders, in all the wars, in all the battles, in all the world to even hazard much of a guess.

I am going to put G Khan up there, though, for his ability to adapt and incorporate the ideas and talents of his captured / vanquished enemies into application. He was very unusual for his time, and the scope of the Mongol empire speaks directly to his leadership / fighting abilities.

Well...I guess we were talking about American generals though, huh? I always liked B Arnold, first because before he was a traitor he was a true American hero. Plus, he is a way interesting character. Not sure you would consider him anything like "one of the best", but his efforts at Saratoga helped carry that victory...and the results of that British defeat had large implications.

Stonewall Jackson's work in the Valley was brilliant. He had some drawbacks, as evidenced during the 7 Days..."Where's Jackson?" There was even talk that his famed nickname "There stands Jackson like a stone wall" was not actually about any type of defensive stand, but, rather, about his sometimes inability or unwillingness to move at all.

A lot of the other conflicts are harder to judge. Mostly U.S. generals fight from a position of superior numbers, equipment, training, firepower, etc. It really doesn't have the same feel as going toe-to-toe across the field. How do you compare modern warfare to 1776? Completely different set of check-boxes, I think.

Lee was surely a great leader of men,..

The Civil War reminds me a lot of the 3 kingdoms period in Chinese history. Sun Tzu had written his treatise and every officer had read it. It all came down to doing the correct thing at the correct time. The problem being that everyone already knew what that correct thing was... so the successful generals were the ones who did what Sun Tzu did NOT say to do, thus totally suprising everyone. (which, I believe would have made Sun Tzu very happy indeed)
In the Civil War, you have officers from General on down who have all been taught the same Napoleanic warfare at West Point. Fed it until they could spout it back exactly as their teachers wanted.
Lee did the same thing that any of the top students at WP would have done in the situations he was put into. I find it interesting how many Southern commanders were at the bottom of their classes, and can't help but wonder if that is why they were so good. Lee certainly recieved a god-like adoration from his troops, this is what could force a ragtag, outnumbered, out supplied, out everythinged army to outperform one that had numbers and prettier uniforms. If that is what makes a freat general, then he is up there. However, he could never have won the war. His code, his training, his mindset of set-piece battles between armies was as ludicrous in 1863 as it was in 1914. Success for the day was to destroy the enemy's army and then he would concede... of course! Not that that happened, but why put fact in the way of brilliant military teaching.

No, Sherman did more than any other commander to finish the Civil War. Grant could have taken all of Virginia, and the war would have continued. Fighting one State at a time gives the South the unity it needs to survive. The East was useless. Even had DC fallen, It would not have been the first time that a US capital had gone into aggressive hands (See 1812, and Philadelphia of the Rev. War) The war would have continued, perhaps Lincoln loses next election, but what of it? By ripping across the South, Sherman made each militia, each regiment (which were made up along distinctly regional lines) think about what was behind them, rather than what was in front of them. No more could the greatest strength of the South be sent to Lee. Who would leave their wives and children behind to the mercies of Sherman just because Lee wanted them hundreds of miles away?

Lee did well with what he had... against who he faced.
Grant benefitted from all the advantages of manpower and logistics.
Sherman put the South on a losing footing. (not to mention had loyalty from his troops that rivaled Lee's)

Lee and Grant are both considered brilliant leaders, but for completely different reasons. Their brilliance came as a result of their situation. Lee was creative, passionate, selfless, and a risk taker. Grant was humble, audacious, trusting, and focused.
Lee had a limited and inferiorily equipped army that he was intensely passionate about leading. His creativity is best illustrated during Chancellorsville and the multiple splitting of his army. This decision defied all logic based on the current napoleonic tactics used. Lee's selfless side is made obvious by his men chanting "Lee to the rear!" on multiple occaisions. Lee could see the cruical points of a battle, and when no leader would show his men where to go, he would take the reigns. One such situation was during the Wilderness when he led Hill's men along the Orange Plank Road against Hancock from the front!
Grant's success came from entirely different circumstance. Lincoln had already seen what a great tactician could do if thier ego was a priority. Fighting Joe Hooker after Fredericksburg was undoubtidly the best man for the job leading the Army of the Potomac. Hooker's refusal to entertain his subordinates recommendations and 'fight the plan' resulted in an embarrassing loss. As a result, Lincoln realized that a great tactician like Grant who was humble could be the key to victory. Grant's audacity led to the end of the Civil War. His acceptance of enourmous casulaty lists and multiple losses once on the eastern front allowed for the eventual attrition of Lee's army. Of utmost importance was Grant's trust of his subordinates. Allowing Sherman to move unsupported on his march to the sea, giving Sheridan an independent cavalry command out in the Shenandoah Valley, and refusing to micro-manage the Army of the Potomac set him apart from previous commanders.
So if greatness is based on how a war is waged, Lee appears best. If greatness is based on results, Grant appears best.