a
Originally Posted by
MickG0105
Possibly not the best analogy as "who won the war" and "who was the better leader" are two entirely different questions. On almost every assessment Lee was a superior general and leader to Grant. When Grant assumed command of the United States Army in March 1864 he enjoyed a 3:1 superiority in troops over Lee which steadily increased to better than 4:1 as the war wore on. The Union's 3:1 advantage in finances and population together with its overwhelming industrial advantage were as much factors in their victory as anything Grant did on the battlefield.
I can't argue with your statistics but I don't agree that Lee was a better general or leader... two words "Picket's Charge" - while you might say this was one event, it is endemic of the fact that due to a few close victories, the result of a lot of luck and in some cases, sheer incompetence of the opposition, than of clever strategy or the actions of some of his generals such as Jackson who were entirely batsh-t crazy and won through recklessness, by Gettysburg and particularly Picket's Charge, the 'god' reputation that Lee had garnered for himself had led to him, as they say in the classics, "believing his own BS". Longstreet was a better leader and he warned him not to do it. On top of that he was a traitor. He made war against his own country. The Union always had more industry and more manpower but it also had terrible leadership at the military level, brilliant leadership in Lincoln who eventually found the person with Lee's measure.
In any case, going back to the topic, my point was about the presentation. Good breeding and fine clothes made no difference and let's not forget, any affection for Lee on the part of his 'men' was partly due to most of them being simple backwoodsmen who were barely educated.
If you're looking for a singular brilliant act in the war it was undoubtedly J.L. Chaimberlain's swinging gate at Little Round-Top which saved the battle and quite possibly, the Union. Chaimberlain was well educated but he too had none of the 'panache' and 'elan' that typified Lee and some of his cohorts and he was singularly accepting of African Americans as human beings and not any less than white people - unusual for that day on either side.
The same rule applies today. Substance wins over image, eventually.