Catton's Analysis

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee met on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House in Virginia. Both of these men were bringing a stop to the Civil War. The way Grant and Lee led their army were different from each other. Lee was a nobleman who fought hard for his Confederate men. Lee became a symbol for which his men were willing to die for. On the other hand, Grant grew up the hard way through the toughness beyond the mountains. Catton says “ These frontier men were the precise opposites of the tidewater aristocrats”. Grant and Lee represented two different sides of the so called American life. Though having different personalities and beliefs, both Grant and Lee are actually quite similar. They are tremendous fighters who only want one thing--to

These two men were bringing the Civil War to a final finish, upon the meeting at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, on April 9, 1865. This meeting believed to have closed and opened a new chapter into American life. Although they were opposing Generals, they were courageous, representing strengths in their conflicting groups, or currents. Both Grant and Lee, different in their upbringing, or background, personalities, and vast aspirations, they were also much alike. These two Generals were marvelous fighters with a refusal to give up. The greatest comparison of all is both men’s ability to move quickly from war to peace, setting examples to all.

General Washington was respected not just by the rank and file, but also by people in all parts of the colonies. Although he did not inspire his men to fanatical loyalty as Napoleon or Nelson, the troops under his command knew they could count upon his valor, military judgment, and fair justice always. (Morison, p. 314-5) Everyone, from the highest gentleman in Congress to the lowest private in the Army, could depend on George Washington's character at all times.

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.

No matter how much something can differ some characteristics are shared. As strange as it sounds it’s very true, both Grant and Lee are two different yet similar people. As these two fights for what they believe in, though their beliefs are different they share some qualities. Ulysses S. Grant wanted the nation to expand and look forward towards the future. Robert E. Lee thought that an old aristocratic way of life was the better choice and that it can survive and dominant in American life.

“Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts,” written by Bruce Catton compares and contrasts the characteristics and lives of two leaders of the Civil War. Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, two very strong and very different generals, met on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House in Virginia to bring to a close the Civil War. By this time, America had become a country that was starting over with the simple core belief in equal rights for everyone.

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

Grant viewed his role as formulating general policies for the Union armies and leaving tactical decisions to theater commanders. He favored bold attacks and maneuvers, however, while Meade felt more comfortable waging set-piece battles. Their approaches to fighting Lee were incompatible, and friction was inevitable.” (Civil War Series)

Throughout history, there have been people whose names and faces have become synonymous with the time periods in which they lived. For example, Julius Caesar is synonymous with the late Roman Republic and George Washington is synonymous with the American Revolution. Just like these two men, the name Robert E. Lee has become synonymous with the American Civil War. Not only did Lee rise to become the most important and recognizable person in the Southern Confederacy, but his honor and virtuous acts during and after the war made him a hero to modern-day Americans. Even though he fought for what many consider the morally erroneous side of the war, the virtues of his character have made him a figure in American history

In the end of the Civil War. Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant were considered as heroes. The two generals would earn a great reputation and will go down as one of the best generals for the years to come. These two changed, todays American History and how we can know better understand how the war actually came about. We know that these two made life decisions out on the battle field. We know that the both of them gave everything they had for their homeland. Though we know that their choices would represent each other.

Ulysses S. Grant was the 18th president of the United States. In the book, “Cigar, Whiskey and Winning”, it highlights his management skills during the Civil War as he lead the Union Army to defeat the Confederate Army. When he was younger, Grant attended West Point. He was not the brightest student, but he did enjoy reading. After he graduated, he became second lieutenant in an infantry regiment. In the book it showed him taking advantages of opportunities to rise to victory. He had gotten married and began to feel like his work with the Army was not important, so he resigned from the Army. He dabbled in farming and real estate, but was not very successful in either. It further shows

By the end of the Civil War, much of the country thought of General Robert E. Lee and General Ulysses S. Grant as personal heroes. Despite the outcome of the war, both the Union and the Confederates looked towards their leader with admiration. Both men were viewed as spectacular fighters, who were smart and strategic during the war. However, despite similarities between the two Civil War generals their differences in background experiences, personality traits, and personal underlying aspirations made them not only opposites of each other but the perfect champion for the people they were chosen to lead.

In “Historians Respond to John F. Kelly’s Civil War Remarks: ‘Strange,’ ‘Sad’ , ‘Wrong’”, the author Philip Bump incorporates what the Chief of Staff, John Kelly, said and what historians, like McCurry and Blight’s, opinions and comments on his statement. John Kelly speaks about how Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general, was an “honorable man” who “gave up his country to fight for his state” and how the Civil War was caused by the failure of compromise between the North and South.

During the times of Civil War, there were many Commanding Generals that came along. But two stand out amongst all, Ulysses S. Grant of United States of America and Robert E. Lee of Confederate States of America. Both men had formally fought, not along side of each other, in the Mexican-American War. At one point Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant worked together in the Mexican-American War. They both gained a war time experience, Grant as a quartermaster and Lee as an engineer who positioned troops and artillery during their participation in the Scott’s march from the coastal town of Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Both men were vastly different with different styles and background who not only won the affection of their men but respect of

In addition to training and self-control, Rome was suggested to value discipline in education. Children, specifically boys, were expected to be well-schooled and regiments, physically and mentally. Cato was spoken to have been his son’s reading teacher, tutor, and athletic trainer, forcing his son to fight and brave the extremes of nature (Plutarch 411). As Rome’s military vigor was seen as important to the strength of the empire, Plutarch hints that it was crucial for children to be disciplined into great fighters. Cato ‘s attention to his son’s education had appeared to be successful in Plutarch’s eyes, as Cato’s son grew into a formidable soldier despite his frail body (412). Education was fundamental to Romans in order to practice discipline