Interesting

Grant or Lee?

Grant or Lee?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Lee Grant

Lee Grant (born Lyova Haskell Rosenthal October 31, during the mid-1920s) [a] is an American actress, documentarian, and director. She made her film debut in 1951 as a young shoplifter in William Wyler's Detective Story, co-starring Kirk Douglas and Eleanor Parker. This role earned her an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress as well as the Best Actress Award at the 1952 Cannes Film Festival.

In 1952, she was blacklisted from most acting jobs for the next 12 years. Grant was able to find only occasional work onstage or as a teacher during this period. It also contributed to her divorce. During this time, Grant appeared in plays on stage. She was removed from the blacklist in 1963 and started to rebuild her on-screen acting career. She starred in 71 TV episodes of Peyton Place (1965–1966), followed by lead roles in films such as Valley of the Dolls, In the Heat of the Night (both 1967), and Shampoo (1975), for the last of which she won an Oscar. In 1964, she won the Obie Award for Distinguished Performance by an Actress for her performance in The Maids. During her career she was nominated for the Emmy Award seven times between 1966 and 1993, winning twice.

In 1986 she directed the documentary Down and Out in America which tied for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, and in the same year she also won a Directors Guild of America Award for Nobody's Child.


Grant vs Lee

He lost at Belmont early in the war, his Illinois regiments needing to board steamboats to beat a hasty retreat from near the Confederate stronghold at Columbus, KY.

He also lost a few in the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. Cold Harbor and The Battle of Petersburg come immediately to mind.

With that said, Grant had three Confederate armies surrender to him at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox, something no one else came close to in the Civil War.

Carl Noreen

Perception and reality are not the same thing, Grant may not have looked like what many people would imagine a general to look like.

Most of the attacks that were made against Grant were made by Democrat copperhead newspapers who were more concerned with their political party winning than with the preservation of the nation.

Viperlord

He lost at Belmont early in the war, his Illinois regiments needing to board steamboats to beat a hasty retreat from near the Confederate stronghold at Columbus, KY.

He also lost a few in the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. Cold Harbor and The Battle of Petersburg come immediately to mind.

With that said, Grant had three Confederate armies surrender to him at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox, something no one else came close to in the Civil War.

SiegeOfPetersburg

I'm okay with calling Belmont a tactical draw, but the Confederates did hold the field at the end of the day.

The bolded part in your statement above has always been a point of fascination with me. The more I study the Siege of Petersburg (and less extensively the Overland Campaign), the more I find myself trying to assign blame/praise to Meade/Butler/Grant for the various operations. At what point do we hold Grant responsible for things like Meade insisting to Burnside that White troops had to lead the attack at the Crater rather than the USCT regiments who had trained for the task at length? And if we do, how much blame should be placed on Grant? At Cold Harbor, should Grant receive blame for not being MORE involved? Likewise, when things went well, how much praise should be given to Grant and how much should his army and corps commanders receive? I admit to not having a good answer to any of this or having a hard and fast opinion at this point in time. As I read through a lot of the primary source material on Petersburg it is one thing I constantly have in the back of my mind and I hope to have a specific discussion on this some day when I have a clearer idea of what argument I want to make.

Trout Bum

Viperlord

Trout Bum

HammockHank

I like Grant over Lee on a personal level. I find Lee to be too perfect and somewhat boring but this has nothing to do with military competence. As a rank amateur on military matters there's really no way that I can say with any degree of confidence who was the better general. But if results count for anything then the decision has to go in Grant's favor.

Yes, it can be argued that Grant had the numbers and wealth of supplies on his side but Lee fought all his battles against Grant in familiar country, and that has to count as an advantage over Grant. Lee also had the benefit of movement through interior lines of communication which would give him an advantage of being able to entrench in order to meet an attack, thus reducing the advantage of numbers Grant had.

Luckily for me I found this piece while surfing through a Grant web site that addresses the OP question:

T. Harry Williams, Military Historian:
"There is no difficulty in composing a final evaluation of Ulysses S. Grant. With him there be no balancing and qualifying, no ifs and buts. He won battles and campaigns, and he struck the blow that won the war. No general could do what he did because of accident or luck or preponderance of numbers and weapons. He was a success because he was a complete general and a complete character. He was so complete that his countrymen have never been able to believe he was real. Grant was, judged by modern standards, the greatest general of the Civil War. He was head and shoulders above any other general on either side as an over-all strategist, as a master of global strategy. Fundamentally Grant was superior to Lee because in a modern total war he had a modern mind, and Lee did not. Lee was the last of the great old-fashioned generals, Grant was the first of the great moderns."


Grant vs Lee

In fact I would ask anybody to show me anything that Lee did that held a candle to Grants Vicksburg campaign.

Grant's troops armed themselves with captured riflemuskets from CS stocks after the fall of Vicksburg. Most of Grants men had been armed with domestic and imported smoothbore muskets at this time.

Grant also authorized Sherman and his troops to conduct unique forms of aggression against civilians in his raids in Atlanta. They would steal livestock and supplies, loot and burn villages, destroy crops and even rape women. All under the commander of Grant.

In Pennsylvania, Lee held the upmost respect to the civilians and honored the rules of war.

Lord_Cronus

The Army of Northern Virginia under the command of General Lee fought many major defensive battles over the next two years. Although the results of many of the battles were inconclusive or Confederate victories, attrition gave the final victory to the Union Army under the command of Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant. The Battle of The Wilderness from May 5, 1864 to May 7, 1864 had an inconclusive result. The casualties were 11,400 for the Confederacy and 18,400 for the Union. The Battle of Spotsylvania Court House from May 8, 1864 to May 21, 1864 also had an inconclusive result. The casualties were 12,000 for the Confederacy and 18,000 for the Union. The Battle of Cold Harbor from May 31 to June 12, 1864 was a Confederate victory. The casualties were 2,500 for the Confederacy and 13,000 for the Union. The Battle of Petersburg from June 15, 1864 to June 18, 1864 was a Confederate victory. The casualties were 3,236 for the Confederacy and 8,150 for the Union. Then came the long Siege of Petersburg.

This was sent to me last night from a friend. I'm trying to get the citation from him. Is it fair to compare Vicksburg with say Fredericksburg or the like? Considering Grant had the advantage of moving his troops by water for an amphibius landing.

Jdbeatty

Why would you feel the need? Handicapping Grant because he had an "advantage?"

Lee surrendered to Grant. THat's all the military proof needed. But there's more.

Lee fought a war that, as you so succintly observed, he could have ended at nearly any time after 1862, in support of a policy that treated human beings like cattle because of the color of their skin. Grant fought against the institution. This makes Lee "better?" Really?

Lee committed troops to a battle with little intelligence foreign terrain and committed his last reserves against stationary infantry uphill in clear weather against an enemy of unknown strength (Gettysburg). Grant threw veteran troops against fieldworks, supported by artillery but poorly coordinated at a subordinate level (Vicksburg and Cold Harbor). Lee a "better" general? Oh?

Grant offered his services to the Union, the institution that tranied him, in any capacity that he could be useful in. Lee, unable to secure high command (he was offered a small one, NOT the entire army, as the myth suggests), but instead QUIT HIS COUNTRY to support a monsterous but thriving institution (chattel slavery) only because he wanted the money and the postion. HE DID NOT HAVE TO SERVE AT ALL.

All this makes Lee "better?" How?

Gustav II Adolph

Grant also authorized Sherman and his troops to conduct unique forms of aggression against civilians in his raids in Atlanta. They would steal livestock and supplies, loot and burn villages, destroy crops and even rape women. All under the commander of Grant.

In Pennsylvania, Lee held the upmost respect to the civilians and honored the rules of war.

Lord_Cronus

That's the last thing I'm saying on the matter.

Commander

Grant offered his services to the Union, the institution that tranied him, in any capacity that he could be useful in. Lee, unable to secure high command (he was offered a small one, NOT the entire army, as the myth suggests), but instead QUIT HIS COUNTRY to support a monsterous but thriving institution (chattel slavery) only because he wanted the money and the postion. HE DID NOT HAVE TO SERVE AT ALL.

All this makes Lee "better?" How?

Lee was born into a wealthy plantation family. Why would you suggest he quit his nation for money? Didn't he already had plenty of it.

Grant offered his services to the Union, while Lee offered his services to Virginia . his home. His state has the right to leave the Union. If Virginia would have fought England and the rest of Europe, I have a feeling Lee would have been there for her.

Professor Phantom

Gustav II Adolph

Jdbeatty

Lee was born into a wealthy plantation family. Why would you suggest he quit his nation for money? Didn't he already had plenty of it.

Grant offered his services to the Union, while Lee offered his services to Virginia . his home. His state has the right to leave the Union. If Virginia would have fought England and the rest of Europe, I have a feeling Lee would have been there for her.

Actually, the Lees of Virginia were known as "shanty nobility," not that wealthy at all by the time Lee was an adult. He had to have an income, and most of all, he had to achieve fame to be worthy of his idol, George Washington.

Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people disagreed with any state's "right" to seceed. Might IS right, after all. And this issue is completely irrelevant to the point.

You dodge, however, the fact that LEE FOUGHT FOR SLAVERY, which is why Virginia seceeded. Fighting for home is one thing, but fighting for your home that supports an abomination like slavery is quite another.

Further, he had to have known, if he was the military genius that his fans choose to paint him as, that the cause was pretty hopeless, probably as early as 1862, but certainly by 1863. He must have realized at one time that there was no chance that the Southern Confederacy could have won a military victory that would have resulted in meaningful and lasting independance. It is quite clear with his farewell address to the Army in 1865 where he spoke of the "material superiority" of the North: this realization could not have come as a bolt from the blue at Appomattox. If he knew (and by his writings and statements he certainly saw the pieces), why did he keep fighting, expending lives in a hopless and evil cause? If he didn't realize it, where's the "genius?"

Lee fought a war against his own people and lost. He was defeated by Grant. That's pretty much it.


Grant vs Lee

Lee famously worried that the way they kept going thru generals, 'one day' the Union was bound to find someone who knew how to beat him.

Grant was the man who knew how to beat him.
He wasn't as flashy as Lee. wasn't as daring. but he was what consistently winning generals usually are. dogged, persistent, unrelenting, and hellishly good at directing the efforts of other commanders.

When it comes to the better General. hate to say it, but Winning, Counts. Prima Donnas and their daring do may win battles, here and there. But winning wars is left to the more sober and understated men who are too busy to preen for the press.


Folks tend to love or hate Patton and Montgomery. but these guys didn't win the war. Ike and Marshall won the war.
It was Ike that got these pompous glory hogs to do what HE needed them to do.
i.e. Follow orders.

Wilber6150

Tjadams

Viperlord

Indeed. Hence they were never engaged, which is what I said. They did have a prominent role in Meade's pursuit of Lee's retreat however.

I'd argue Grant was less blatantly and grandly reckless in terms of launching grand frontal assaults. Grant has a couple of assaults on Vicksburg to his dis-credit, but I'd certainly argue he had to at least make the effort at taking the city by storm before settling in for a siege. Grant also has Cold Harbor, but a few details are important to note firstly, that Grant had effectively relinquished tactical control to Meade at this point, who was rather disgruntled with his role as a glorified supernumerary following the Wilderness undoubtedly, what he saw as Grant's lack of any greater success at Spotsylvania and the North Anna emboldened him to try and fight his own army again.

Secondly, the assault at Cold Harbor was not conceptually doomed to failure in the manner of Malvern Hill and Pickett's Charge it was simply delivered far too late to be effective. The aim was to catch Lee before he had entrenched sufficiently to resist an all-out attack. Delays meant the attack was effectively a day too late in this regard, and Grant or Meade should have cancelled it. Meade bizarrely boasted of ordering the assault in a letter to his wife however, and I'd assign the plurality of blame to him here.

Thirdly, the casualties of Cold Harbor have been grossly exaggerated the ridiculous but commonly propagated figure of 7,000 casualties in half an hour is patently absurd. Gordon Rhea's work on the Overland Campaign shows a figure of something over 4,000 total casualties, over a matter of hours certainly not a figure to be sneezed at, but it pales in comparison to Lee at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg, to Burnside at Fredericksburg, and Hood at Franklin.

As I've previously alluded to, I don't believe Lee's assaults at Malvern Hill and Cemetery Ridge had the slightest probability of success, and he threw away thousands of men because, in the words of James Longstreet, "His blood was up". Grant was a hard and determined fighter, but he never threw away men on an assault because he believed God was on his side or that his men simply couldn't be beaten, and he willingly adopted the excellent tactics of Emory Upton at Spotsylvania, so at the last, I'd give a slight nod to Grant as a more realistic appraiser here. But again, it's worth remembering that tactics were a bit below both men's pay-grades as army commanders Lee's style was usually to let his corps commanders deal with the tactics, and this method usually worked for him when he stuck to it and Grant, while possibly a bit more hands-on in the west due to starting with smaller commands, was certainly no more hands-on than Lee in the Overland Campaign, most likely even less so due to his greater responsibilities. If I seem harsh on Lee here, it's because this comparison doesn't take into account Grand Tactics, at which Lee and Grant were both masterful.


Robert E. Lee vs Ulysses S. Grant

The question is simple: out of these two almost universally recognized as the best two generals of the American Civil War, who was the superior? Who achieved the better results, who displayed the superior ability in the art of war, who showed himseld to be the deeper military thinker and contributed more to military science, who was the better and more effective political general, who posessed a greater understanding of the war, who showed himself to have the more statesmanlike qualities, who ran his army and its logistics more efficiently, who had the best eye for subordinates, who was the superior at maintaining control over his army, and not least of all who was the better leader for both his men and his immediate subordinates? All these and more questions should all go into consideration for exactly who out of Grant and Lee deserves to be regarded as the preeminent general of the Civil War?

Go for your lives, but lets keep it polite, shall we? Lee and Grant themselves would expect nothing less one can be sure.

DIVUS IVLIVS

For myself the answer is Grant to every single one of the above questions.

I have a fair idea what Deadkenney's response might be if he makes one, but I'm quite eager to hear some others.

Deadkenny

I've voted as you 'requested' just to even it up to start. The comparison is actually quite asymmetrical, since Lee was only ever commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and not in charge of overall Confederate strategy as was Grant for the Union. In fact, Lee often had limited influence over key events outside the area of his army. For example, when Davis appointed Hood to replace Johnston against the advice of Lee. Of course Lee was also forced to operate within the limited resources available to the Confederacy.

The most relevant basis for comparison is of course their 'head-to-head' confrontation in Grant's 'overland campaign' and 'Siege of Petersburg'. I believe that has already been thoroughly hashed out in other threads.

Cicero

DIVUS IVLIVS

I've voted as you 'requested' just to even it up to start. The comparison is actually quite asymmetrical, since Lee was only ever commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and not in charge of overall Confederate strategy as was Grant for the Union. In fact, Lee often had limited influence over key events outside the area of his army. For example, when Davis appointed Hood to replace Johnston against the advice of Lee. Of course Lee was also forced to operate within the limited resources available to the Confederacy.

The most relevant basis for comparison is of course their 'head-to-head' confrontation in Grant's 'overland campaign' and 'Siege of Petersburg'. I believe that has already been thoroughly hashed out in other threads.

I wouldn't quite agree with that.

Grant didn't become effective general-in-chief for the Union until 1864, before that he was just another theatre commander like Lee, and actually before that quite a bit less. Lee was named effectively the commander in chief of all Confederate forces towards the end.

Even when Grant was not even a theatre commander he still displayed an extraordinary ability to keep an eye on the bigger picture and tailor his actions to it, whereas Lee had no real interests at all outside of his own corner of the war, and even when he was given responsibility for those other areas he showed himself to be remarkably narrow-minded about it.

Thus we can say that Grant easily demonstrated a fantastically superior grasp of Grand Strategy.

A lot of my argument would be about Grant's fantastic displays of skill in the Western and Middle Theatres (where the war was really won, and by Grant) compared to the also (but slightly less) fantastic displays of Lee in the East, but even simply comparing them when they faced each other directly - in the Overland and Appotomax campaigns, I find Grant easily the superior. His maneuvering, tactics, organization, and leadership were consistently sophisticated and imaginative (even more so than Lee's), he as always kept an eye on the bigger picture, and he achieved his objectives with what by the standards of that war were most certainly tolerable casualties.


Grant and Lee a Study in Contrasts

. Abstract: Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts Wars and conflicts may determine the rise or fall of great leaders. Even today, such leaders are portrayed as martyrs for their impeccable courage and valor on the battlefield. In Bruce Catton's essay, Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts, he reveals the different leadership styles of both generals and then presents the strength of two conflicting currents that entered into a final collision, the Civil War. Catton introduces a sentiment of excitement and change in his beginning paragraphs by introducing comradeship and amnesty. These concepts represent the pinnacle of American history and its new foundations. Catton uses literary techniques of diction, contrast, and juxtaposition to reveal the situation that was presented to both generals. Two great Americans, General Grant and General Lee, fought for their respective, regional beliefs. Despite their regional differences, they were very much alike. It was April 9, 1865, when Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee met in the parlor in Appomattox Court House to determine the fate of the fugitive South (the former Confederacy). To the South, General Lee was the cornerstone of motivation. He represented the notion that the old, aristocratic concept should dominate American life, in order for.

Grant/Lee a Comparison and Contrast Essay

. GRANT AND LEE: A COMPARISON AND CONTRAST Ulysses S. 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 to be a better military leader. The childhood of Robert Edward Lee played a pivotal role in the way he would see the world as a man. Lee was born into an aristocratic family of Virginia with a deeply rooted American history. Richard Henry and Francis Lightfoot Lee, Robert E. Lee’s uncles, helped draft resolutions that would lead to the Declaration of Independence, both would sign it1. Lee’s father, Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee III was a revolutionary war hero and one of George Washington’s most dependable fellow countrymen. In 1771, Washington, also from Virginia, wrote: “ I know of no country that can produce a family all distinguished and clever men, as our Lees.”2 Lee’s mother and father were strong influences in his life for very different reasons. Lee’s father would define.

Essay about Grant and Lee

. Grant and Lee Throughout the course of my history career, which is not very long, teachers and professors have always focused on the point that General Grant was a butchering alcoholic who won the war solely on the account of his stubborn personality. And on the other hand, teachers portrayed General Lee as a masterful strategist, who used Christian values in order to win the rebellion. However, in Fuller's account of the two Generals, he alleges through data and personal intuition that General Grant was actually a strategist and mastermind that not only won the war but also, lost fewer soldiers. During the past century there has always been this distinct cultural separation of the north and south (Union and Confederate). The main reason for this is due in part to the cultural differences of the north and south during the late nineteenth century. Citizens of the north believe that Grant was the better General because, well, he was the commander of the Union army. On the other side of things, southerners undoubtedly know that General Lee was the superior mind of the two because, well, he was the commander of the Confederate army. And even though the Confederates lost the war, people manipulate the truth and explain the reasons that the south lost the war were because Grant had the larger army, could kill off more of his troops, and still be able to.

Lee and grant Essay

. author seeks to contrast the characteristics of two leaders and generals of the Civil War, Robert Lee and Ulysses Grant. The two generals were significantly strong yet Different in character and style. The article by Bruce Catton indicates that the two generals met on the April 9, 1985 with the aim of essentially negotiating on the end of the Civil War. By principle, the Americans believed in equal rights for all. Lee, Virginia held some traditional beliefs characteristic of his upbringing. The general had his belief rooted in the notion and belief that having inequality in the society’s set of social categories could be of great significance and advantageous to the society, The confederacy preferred Less as the perpetrator of their ideological beliefs of holding to the past way of life that did not provide opportunities for all. On the other hand, the article portrays Grant as the opposite of Lee. The general’s raising was that of a “hard way” by his tanner father. Grant’s focus was on what the future held in store. His belief was that of a society with balanced social structures without limiting any individual to any sort of destiny. Gen. Grant’s core belief was that life could be equal to a competition where every individual should have a fair chance of reaching his limits. Therefore, the two leaders had individual beliefs that were contrary in many respects. In comparison, Grant’s.

Matt Grant Case Study Essay

. Running Head: Matt Grant Case Study Brandee Pohlson Matt Grant Case Study Entrepreneurship Grantham University ABSTRACT Matt Grant is an ambitious businessman who has found himself at a critical life crossroad as he faces possible discharge from his corporate career while conceptualizing an innovative business endeavor. Trekking through a handful of failed corporate projects with the company he currently works for, he must decide whether he wants to play it safe and remain a corporate employee or take an opportunistic leap of faith in the business realm. Matt is not alone in his experiences. His wife journeys with him through his trials, and also experiences career setbacks as a result of Matt's past failures. Matt actively lays the foundation for his venture and puts a great deal of work in to his aspiring business concept. The Grants must make an abrupt, considerable life decision together which will affect their marriage, their financial situation, and their livelihood. MATT GRANT CASE STUDY Matt Grant is a driven individual in the business world with the forward thinking skills any potential entrepreneur should possess. Despite Matt's enthusiasm in the corporate environment, he and his career are not invulnerable to shifting winds in the economy. Throughout the course of five years, Matt journeys turbulently.

Sara Lee Case Study Essay

. management struggled to manage the company’s broadly diversified and geographically scattered operations. With the retrenchment strategy, Sara Lee Corporation is able to transform it into a more tightly focused food, beverage, and household products company. Management believed concentrating its financial and managerial resources on a smaller number of business segments in which market prospects were promising and Sara Lee’s brands were well positioned would help the company save cost and more profitable. The company had also implement an outsourcing strategy known as Project Accelerate. It a company-wide cost saving and productivity that focused on outsourcing, supply chain efficiencies, and overhead reduction. 2. Sara lee’s corporate strategy was implementing acquisition strategies. The retrenchment strategy changed the nature of its business lineup from a small wholesale distributor to acquiring retail food business. The business also acquired related and unrelated business. Sara lee corporations was able to transform it into a more tightly focused food, beverage and household products company. Sara Lee is returning to its roots of food service where name recognition is the strongest. industries represented in Sara Lee Corp.’s business portfolio? The retail, foodservice, and industries represent the most attractive long-term. Sara lee has name recognition in the retail industry. Sales of these.

Case Study Sara Lee Essay

. Case Study: Sara Lee 1. What is Sara Lee’s corporate strategy? How has its retrenchment strategy changed the nature of its business lineup? - new CEO wanted to transform Sara Lee into a more profitable company - a part of new strategy is the elimination of eight branded apparel business because of poor economic performance and decreasing sales  this leads to concentration of its financial and managerial resources into smaller and better positioned business segments.  goal: reaching of economies of scale by what it was internally known as Project Accelerate, a cost saving plan all across the company and productivity initiative focused on outsourcing, increase the supply chain efficiency and reduce overhead costs - After completion of its retrenchment strategy the company focused on increasing sales, market share and profitability of its key remaining brands -The organizational structure post-divestures became a six division organization built around product similarities, customer types, and geographic regions. - The core of the strategy: Original corporate strategy headed for the acquisition of new businesses and adding them to the portfolio  Change to non-core lower producing businesses, like mentioned before, and create a more focused company regarding their consumer goods lines like food, beverages and household products  The new strategy would lead us to the conclusion that Sara Lee is following now a.

Sara Lee Case study Essay

. nature of its business lineup? Sara lee’s corporate strategy was implementing acquisition strategies. The retrenchment strategy changed the nature of its business lineup from a small wholesale distributor to acquiring retail food business. The business also acquired related and unrelated business. Sara lee corporations was able to transform it into a more tightly focused food, beverage and household products company. Sara Lee is returning to its roots of food service where name recognition is the strongest. Sara Lee’s corporate strategy was to transform the company into a more tightly focused company by focusing on their food, beverage, and household products. In order to accomplish this, Sara Lee planned to divest their weak performing business units and product categories which accounted for $7.2 billion in sales. Although the divestitures would decrease Sara Lee’s revenues from $19.3 billion to $12.3 billion, they believed it would be better to concentrate on its financial and managerial resources on a smaller number of business segments. These smaller number business segments had prospective markets and were well positioned. After the completion of the retrenchment strategy Sara Lee focused solely on increasing the sales, market shares, and profitability of its remaining businesses. In order to complete this, they implemented three competitive capabilities in all of its remaining businesses. The first strategy.


Grant Versus Lee

Hiram Ulysses Grant — a West Point clerical error gave him his more famous sobriquet — was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, in 1822. He was a mediocre cadet — graduating 21st out of 39 in the class of 1843 — but performed well in battle, winning two citations for gallantry and one for meritorious conduct in Mexico. But when the fighting stopped and Grant was assigned monotonous duties at remote posts far from his wife and family, he turned to the bottle. He resigned his commission in 1854 to avoid being drummed out of the service.

After several unsuccessful, short-lived pursuits — including a brief episode as a farmer — he moved to Galena, Ill., to be a clerk in his family’s store. When the Civil War began, Grant eagerly jumped back into military service, where his talents and experience were recognized. By September 1861, he was given command of the District of Southeast Missouri.

Triumphs at Forts Henry and Donelson and the hard-won capture of Vicksburg made Grant the Union’s premier commander. In March 1864, Lincoln named Grant general-in-chief of the Federal armies and, although the casualties incurred were unprecedented, his campaigns in Virginia forced the war’s conclusion.

In 1868, Grant was elected the 18th president of the United States. His administration was riddled with corruption and scandal, although apparently the graft did not reach to the Oval Office itself. After losing his fortune to a corrupt bank in 1884, Grant began writing about his wartime experiences as a means of financial support. The final chapter of his two-volume Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant was completed just days before he succumbed to cancer at age 63.

Born to Revolutionary War hero Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee in Stratford Hall, Va., on January 19, 1807, Robert Edward Lee graduated second in the class of 1829 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point — without earning a single demerit — and was assigned to the Corps of Engineers. Two years later, he married Mary Anna Randolph Custis, a descendant of George Washington. During the Mexican War, Lee served on Gen. Winfield Scott’s staff and earned three brevets for gallantry, both of which contributed to his subsequent appointment as superintendent of West Point.

Because of his exceptional reputation, Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of Federal forces in April 1861. But Lee declined and tendered his resignation from the army when Virginia seceded, arguing that he could not fight against his own people. Instead, he accepted a commission in the newly formed Confederate army.

In June 1862, Lee took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, and his military genius soon became readily apparent. Through masterful and audacious maneuvers, he was able to consistently defeat numerically superior foes moreover, his integrity earned him the respect and admiration of his men. Despite his considerable efforts, on April 9, 1865, Lee was forced to surrender his weary and depleted army, effectively ending the Civil War.

Lee returned home on parole and eventually became the president of Washington College (now known as Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, Va. He remained in this position until his death on October 12, 1870, and is buried in a chapel on campus. His beloved horse Traveller is interred nearby.


What Were the Differences Between Grant and Lee?

Grant and Lee were both Civil War generals, but in addition to being on opposing sides of the dispute, they had very different backgrounds and military experience. There were major differences in their styles of wartime strategy, for instance. Lee was a natural leader who was able to inspire his men, while Grant was able to effectively use his superior resources and manpower.

Lee was born into a prominent family and was already a famous military figure at the start of the war, while Grant was an unknown who rose up through the ranks and became known as a great general through his ongoing victories. Lee was a traditional soldier who had a gift for leadership and was an inspiration for his subordinates.

Through respect and admiration, Lee was able to get his men to do the impossible with very limited resources. Grant was not particularly clever in his military tactics, but he was good at using his access to Northern resources to a great advantage. His strategy was to overwhelm Lee and the Confederate army, and his tenacity enabled him to eventually wear down the South. Although history considers them to both be great generals, Grant was able to methodically use resources and strategy to outmaneuver and ultimately defeat Lee over the course of time.


Grant vs Lee

Grant never said any such thing. In fact, the reverse is true.

Cincinnatus

Probably impossible to say. Grant obviously had greater resources in 64-65 than did Lee. But part of the blame for that has to go to Lee for losing so many men at Gettysburg the previous summer.

While a lot of people claim that Lee lost in 64-65 because of lack of resources people don't say the opposite about his victories in 61-63. And in the beginning he had some of the most important resources well trained Generals and motivated soldiers fighting on their home land.

Vicksburg was a masterpiece. It ranks with Inchon and Normandy as one of the greatest campaigns in American military history. Don't forget Grants relief of Chattanooga . Grant fought everywhere and won everywhere.

Lee by contrast fought and won only on the defensive and almost always on places he was able to pick and choose.

Viperlord

Our own Belisarius provides a nice, concise definition of tactics, grand tactics, operations, strategy, and grand strategy here. http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/3144-historys-greatest-generals.html

Following this, it seems to me that Lee's talents lied primarily in the field of Grand Tactics and Operations, at which he undoubtedly excelled. He was a fair tactician, but mostly left that to his corps commanders, as he should have. Strategically, Lee's not particularly impressive to me. His West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Campaigns ultimate outcomes explain why. On the field of Grand Strategy, through minimal fault of his own, Lee's a zero as he wasn't commander-in-chief until too late. However, he never used his considerable influence with President Davis to shape Confederate strategy, and I don't believe he ever looked beyond Virginia to the wider scope of the war. That was something his lieutenant James Longstreet was capable of, as shown by his advocation of western concentration. Lee never seemed to recognise that the war would be decided in the west.

Grant on the other hand, was every bit the strategist. Like Lee, he snatched the initiative every chance he had. Unlike Lee however, he produced telling results from his strategic offensives. Fort Donelson was undertaken entirely on Grant's initiative, and it was a excellent jump-start to his military career as an independent commander. Grant never forgot that the enemy had every reason to be as scared of him, as he was of them. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece in the fields of Strategy, Operations, and Grand Tactics. The relief of Chattanooga was simply confirmation of that. His command of the 1864-65 Union war effort that brought the war to a close is an ample demonstration of his talents as a Grand Strategist, and an examination of the way he truly wished to wage it (But was held back by Lincoln's political machinations, such as the Red River Campaign) demonstrates a high degree of strategic vision.

Belloc

Our own Belisarius provides a nice, concise definition of tactics, grand tactics, operations, strategy, and grand strategy here. http://www.historum.com/war-military-history/3144-historys-greatest-generals.html

Following this, it seems to me that Lee's talents lied primarily in the field of Grand Tactics and Operations, at which he undoubtedly excelled. He was a fair tactician, but mostly left that to his corps commanders, as he should have. Strategically, Lee's not particularly impressive to me. His West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania Campaigns ultimate outcomes explain why. On the field of Grand Strategy, through minimal fault of his own, Lee's a zero as he wasn't commander-in-chief until too late. However, he never used his considerable influence with President Davis to shape Confederate strategy, and I don't believe he ever looked beyond Virginia to the wider scope of the war. That was something his lieutenant James Longstreet was capable of, as shown by his advocation of western concentration. Lee never seemed to recognise that the war would be decided in the west.

Grant on the other hand, was every bit the strategist. Like Lee, he snatched the initiative every chance he had. Unlike Lee however, he produced telling results from his strategic offensives. Fort Donelson was undertaken entirely on Grant's initiative, and it was a excellent jump-start to his military career as an independent commander. Grant never forgot that the enemy had every reason to be as scared of him, as he was of them. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece in the fields of Strategy, Operations, and Grand Tactics. The relief of Chattanooga was simply confirmation of that. His command of the 1864-65 Union war effort that brought the war to a close is an ample demonstration of his talents as a Grand Strategist, and an examination of the way he truly wished to wage it (But was held back by Lincoln's political machinations, such as the Red River Campaign) demonstrates a high degree of strategic vision.


Watch the video: Robert E. Lee vs. Ulysses S Grant Documentary (May 2022).