What are similarities between George McClellan and Robert E Lee?

Answer 1

Believe it or not, Ulysses S. Grant actually owned slaves, and Robert E. Lee did not. It is so sad that so many people just follow the crowd instead of truly looking for the truth on the Civil War. Both were very good, wise, and noble men, fighting a war that was over so much more than slavery. As i mentioned at the beginning , if the north's main general owned slaves and the south's did not, was the Civil War really about slavery, or about something more than that? You answer the question. Ulysses was a god man and especially a good president, I am not prejudice against him; but Robert E. Lee was so much more, for he fought for a cause hidden today, and still kept going.

***

I disagree. Does anyone really believe that 620,000 men, two per cent of the population of the entire United States prior to the Civil War, died over "... so much more than Slavery" ?

THAT is the position of the crowd --- THAT is what has been taught in our schools since the close of the first decade following the Civil War

Did the South lose 280,000 plus men, and have one-fourth to one-third of its surviving soldiers with at least one limb missing, over the issue of Tariffs (which was a major bone of contention between the increasingly industrial North and the Agricultural South) ? Please.

Did the average Confederate soldier fight to defend slavery ? We are asked. Did the average Union soldier fight to free the slaves ?

Let me respond to those questions by asking some of my own.

Did the US Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Coast Guard fight in World War II to free France, to save Britain, to help those poor Belgians ? Did we fight in Vietnam to guarantee the freedom of the South Vietnamese ? In Iraq to liberate the Iraqis ?

In all those instances, the answer is, essentially, No --- but that is what they did (the South Vietnamese government's failure of nerve led to the victory of the Vietcong.)

When the Union private slogged his way through the Wilderness in 1864; when his Confederate counterpart routed the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville a year earlier, they were mostly fighting for their state, their country, or both --- But it was the issue of Slavery that put them there.

Without the existence of Slavery, there would have been no Civil War. That is the essential element at the core of the conflict. To contend otherwise, as we have been doing for the past 140-150 years, is simply wrong.

***

Grant was a terrible President. His ownership of slaves was circumstantial and relatively fleeting.

As for Lee, if you could go back in time and talk to General Pickett, you'd get a vastly different opinion of Robert E. Lee than we normally hear. General Lee was a risk taker who against all reasonable judgment sent Pickett's forces to their death... simply because Lee's "blood was up." Generals Montgomery and Eisenhower, touring the Gettysburg Battlefield after WWII, both agreed that Lee and Meade should have been subject to courtmartial for their actions during those pivotal three days of July 1-3, 1863.

They called Grant a butcher, but every time Grant outmaneuvered Lee during the 1864 campaign, and it was more frequent that one would expect, Lee successfully sped his forces through territory with which he was familiar and turned to face Grant again. If Grant was a butcher, so was Lee.

Robert E. Lee was a patrician and he wears well. Grant was not, and grates on our sense of civility. Remember this though, Lee defeated every Union general he faced, until he came up against Grant.

Of course, Grant had been used to that throughout the entire war.

Answer 2

They were both West Point graduates, liked and trusted by their men and decisive in their plans.

Both men were also in the Mexican War. They knew each other from that war but were not friends, just fellow US Army Officers doing their duty in the Mexican War.

Answer 3

They were about as different as you could get.

Lee was the true embodiment of the Confederate cause, a Southern aristocrat from a notable family, who possessed an impressive physical presence and exuded the quality of human greatness.

Grant was an essentially ordinary man, who had been virtually unemployed before the war - a failed farmer from Ohio, who was rumoured to have been discharged from old army because of drunkenness. He dressed like a tramp, and had no interest in military formalities or ceremonial. Strategicaly, he was a simple man who was good at simplifying problems.

All they had in common was a great desire to destroy enemy armies through high aggression and relentless pursuit. And for this reason, they inspired the greatest loyalty of their men.

Answer 4

Lee - a noble figurehead in the best Confederate (Cavalier) tradition, object of intense loyalty, and mastermind behind some of the most audacious tactical triumphs of the war.

Grant - an outwardly unassuming character, cool under fire, good at simplifying problems, unflappable, determined and well-suited to a long war of attrition. Grant was a younger man then Lee, and they respected each other as military leaders with difficult tasks to perform. Unfortunately Grant was accused of antisemitism during the war and apologized for the incident surrounding it. Lee and Grant also had different attitudes concerning how civilians should be treated during war. Grant and Sherman believed in total destruction of private property that could be used to aid the Confederate army. Lee did not share that "trait" or belief.

Answer 5

They both believed in exploiting their victories by pursuing the enemy hard, to try and destroy the opposing armies before they had time to re-group. Both had proved themselves bold and decisive under fire. Both were devoted family men.

Apart from this, they had nothing in common. Lee was a formal, humourless Southern aristocrat. Grant had been an unemployed store-clerk in the prairies, who dressed like a tramp, even when he was a commanding General.

Answer 6

They where both great Civil War generals. The best of both sides.