Grant And Contrast Lee And Bruce Catton

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

Lee and Grant would both serve under General Winfield Scott, a man whom they both admired, during his campaign to Mexico City. General Scott saw greatness in Lee and stated his “…success in Mexico was largely due to the skill, valor, and undaunted energy of Robert E. Lee.”15 Scott was also heard commenting a few years later that; “Lee is the greatest military genius in America.”16 Grant, only a first lieutenant, did not get an opportunity to show much leadership. Grant did however serve with valor. At the Battle of Monterey, Grant would gain some respect among his peers by successfully carrying much needed ammunition to his regiment while under fire.17 During the Civil War, Lee and Grant would implement skills learned while under the command of General Winfield Scott.

Grant and Lee are different in many ways. General Lee was tidewater Virginia, and in his background were family, culture, and tradition. He had embodied a way of life that came down through the age of knighthood and the English country squire. General Grant was the son of a tanner on the western frontier. He had come up the hard way and embodied nothing in particular except the external toughness and sinewy fiber of the men that grew up behind the mountains. He was one of the body of men who owed reverence of obeisance to no one, who were self-reliant to a fault, who cared hardly of anything of the past but had a sharp eye for the future.

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.

Although Grant and Lee had individual beliefs that clashed with one another they also had a few things in common. For example, Catton points out they were both great fighters that displayed a lot of tenacity and fidelity to their separate causes. Grant battled and endured his way down the Mississippi Valley despite his military handicaps and personal discouragements while Lee still had faith at Petersburg after all hope was lost. Also, their fighting qualities were very similar and they both refused to give up as long as they were able to fight. They were both also very daring and resourceful in that they had the ability to move quickly and think faster than the enemy. Most importantly, they were alike in the sense that they had the ability to turn away from war and come to peace once the fighting had ended. As a result, this helped the nation become whole and united again. Their gathering at Appomattox was a great moment in American history.

The comparison or contrast of two generals in a history taught that both men had their own value even they lost or victory. Both generals in the history were very firm and refused did not want to give up. As a great fighter, both commit to fight until their last chance or the end of their lives. For example, even general Lee knew he was helpless, but he still fought until the end. However, by the end of the war, both parties decided to reunion. Also, to come up with possible peacefulness, those two generals learned how to compromise with one another. Because they were similar at that point, both great men brought American together throughout the history.

Robert E. Lee was a very brilliant and strong military leader. He fought in many wars which he defeated them and he got defeated also. He was smart on how he fought in the wars. He had to earn his way up from the bottom all the way up to general. He had fought in the Civil War and in the Mexican War. He wanted to quit so bad but he never gave up and kept on going.

This source could be of value to historians due to its focus on Lee as a general and not necessarily about Lee in the civil war. The purpose of this book is not to debate the civil war, but to appreciate Lee’s role as the general. Therefore, the source is biased based on the authors clear appreciation of Lee. The source both gives facts about Lee’s life as well as information about Lee part in the civil war.

Although James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

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.

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 the end of the Civil War. We will consider Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant to all be heroes. The two generals will 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 (Eisenburg).

Charles Lee, a general in the American Revolutionary war, is a historic figure in American history. Serving under George Washington, Charles Lee participated in a number of battles. However, history says Charles Lee was treacherous to the cause, all the while that he was in command during that time; he was acting in bad faith toward the Americans. His influence in the army was, at all times, mischievous (General Charles Lee: Traitor of the American Revolution). To the British, Charles Lee was a traitor who turned on England to fight under George Washington. Due to Charles Lee’s treacherous actions against America, it would lead to his downfall in the

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