Thus says the Lost Causers who want to pretend that southerners were better fighters, lovers and gentlemen than northerners. In actuality, Grant's offensives were very clever and caught Lee by surprise on almost every occasion; it wasn't an unwinnable war for Lee, yet he lost because he was thoroughly out-general'd.
I don't believe the comments mentioned any subscription to the lost cause theory, nor was there any mention that southerners were better fighters, lovers, gentlemen etc. That is I believe your own misinterpretation based on personal biased.
Grant's offensive against Lee was not really that clever, but it was determined and different to anything Lee had faced before. Unlike other Union generals Grant did not retreat to lick his wounds but kept on pushing towards Richmond. Lee certainly was not thoroughly out generaled by any stretch of the imagination. Grant was checked at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor. Grant beat Lee because he could afford to fight a war of attrition, Lee could not.
We're talking about Lee versus Grant. What do other commanders have to do with this?
I mention their performance against other commanders as Lee and Grant faced off against each other for only eleven months (May 64 -April 65), and for a large period of that time the situation was stalemated around Petersburg. To judge who was the better general you MUST look at their careers throughout the war, not just how they performed against each other! To do what you suggest would be like comparing what two sports teams had the better season, not based on their final placings in a league, but who won the few games they played against each other and by what score.
Pickett's Charge was indeed Lee's fault. He came up with a terrible plan that Longstreet warned him about repeatedly, and it resulted in catastrophic casualties.
I don't believe my comment absolved Lee of blame for Gettysburg, I simply stated that he was not entirely to blame. Yes Lee was probably thinking that by July of 1863 the ANV was largely unstoppable and could deliver a knockout blow to the Army of the Potomac, he was overconfident. Also much has been made of Longstreet not wanting to go ahead with Lee's plan on the third day of Gettysburg and Longstreet may of been correct. However, Ewell failed to take Culps Hill on the first day which if he had would of made the Union position untenable. He again failed to take it on second and third days. Longstreet dragged his feet on the second day in attacking the Union right and wasn't exactly quick about mounting an attack on the third day. As for Jeb Stuart, he if had been doing his job in the first place instead of gallavanting around Maryland, Lee would of had a better idea of the terrain and may not have fought at Gettysburg at all. Hence as I put forth in my first post, several people share the responsibility for the Confederate failure at Gettysburg, not just Lee.
As for Lee's plan being terrible, well, highsight is a wonderful thing! Lee's plan was not necessarily doomed for failure. If the artillery barrage had not overshot its mark, and Ewell, Longstreet and Stuart had coordinated their attacks on Culps Hill, Cemetary Ridge, and the rear of the Union lines, respectively, then it could have been much more successful. A combination of poor intelligence, problematic communication, bad luck and some very good generalship from several Union divisional commanders like Winfield Scott Hancock in particular, brought about Lee's defeat at Gettysburg.
With, I might add, one of the most brilliantly waged campaigns in military history, in which he captured an enormous amount of Confederate troops after a very risky operation. Lee did nothing comparable in his career.
I agree that Grant did wage a very brilliant campaign in taking Vicksburg, but as for Lee not doing anything equally as comparable, forgive me sir, but I think that it is you who has no idea what they are talking about. True Lee did not engage in any offensive sieges, but during the Peninsula campaign he raised the siege of Richmond, forced a stronger more numerous and better equiped army than his own to retreat and ruined McClellan's campaign. And then what does he do? At Second Manassas, he routs a large part of Union army sending them in full flight. At Antietam he faces a stronger opponent who had Lee's battleplan in advance of the battle, and Lee still fights him for all intents and purposes to a draw. Fredericksburg, well, Burnside defeated himself with his bull-headed plan, so I cannot give too much credit to Lee there. But what about Chancellorsville? Lee divides his army not only once but twice in the face of overwhelming numbers and routs a large party of the Union army again. I think that is comparable to Grant's Vicksburg campaign!
I don't think you know what you're talking about. At Shiloh, Grant not only lead the Union armies to survive a very aggressive Confederate assaulted, he also warded the Confederates back and allowed the Union army to continue advancing. That's a complete victory by anybody's standards.
Grant got caught completely by surprise at Shiloh. He was overextended and exposed in a weak position. He had failed to order his troops to dig in and he paid a heavy price for it. The arrival of Union gunboats and reinforcements from Buell and Lew Wallace saved the Union line the first day and allowed them to go on the offensive the next. I will give Grant credit for stabilizing a potential Union disaster on the first day and having the tenacity to take the fight to the Confederates the next day, but the Union victory was a narrow and highly costly one. Hardly the complete victory you claim it to be.
Please also do not forget the Battle of Fort Donelson, which was the first major Union victory in the war due to Grant capturing a huge amount of Confederates with a relatively modest amount of casualties.
Again I will give Grant credit for some very good generalship at Fort Donelson. I am not disputing Grant was a very good general, what I am advocating is that Lee's generalship even though he eventually lost was better.
