Question #07160

General #1: Robert E. Lee

Strength
-Second in his West Point class
-An engineering officer
-A career military officer
-Great tactician
-Well known officer
-Good at offense and defense
-Was loyal to Virginia, his home state

Flaws
-Not good quartermaster: army was not in good condition
-Not good at strategizing

General #2: Ulysses S. Grant

Strength
-Great quartermaster: his men were well-supplied
-Bold
-His men looked up to him
-Great strategist: He saw the big picture clearly
-He knew what he was doing

Flaws
-Mediocre student: 21st of a class of 39
-Somewhat failure as military career man
-Not a great civilian
-Not great tactician

So, after looking at these, who is the better general?

Both fought for what they stood for. Both were bold and decisive men. However, Lee's lack of strategy led to the North's victory, since Grant was brilliant at coming up with strategies.

Personally, I would say both of these men put their heart and soul into this war. Therefore, there is no better of the two.

However, out of the two, you might choose one over the other depending on your point of view on it:

Lee was a better general in general. He was well-known and respected. He knew a lot about war, but his men were not well-equipped and he failed to see the big picture.

Grant was more of a "let's get this done" type of guy. He was awesome at strategizing and keeping his men well-equipped. However, his tactic making techniques were not that great compared to Lee. Also, Grant was known to be a rougher sort of person but his men still looked up to him nonetheless.

Hope this helps!