[Alouette]

Grant? Are you nuts? The only reason he beat Lee was that he had far more men who were much better equipped.

He beat Lee after McClellan, Meade, & Burnside, who had the same amount of men & equipment failed.

He won. Lee lost. Deal with it.

[TexConfederate1861]

YOU DEAL WITH IT!

Just because Grant "won", doesn't mean a damn thing!
Lee was a better General. Ask anyone that went to West Point.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As I just said, by the time Grant beat Lee, his army was poorly equipped, injured, and half starved. The armies of the North and South could never be thought of as equal. Lee did much better with less than Grant ever could have.

BTW, here is an interesting bit of trivia totally unrelated to the subject. After one battle, the Confederates went and picked up all the rifles that had been abandoned or dropped on the battlefield. Of the 37,000 rifles picked up, 24,000 had been improperly loaded and would not fire.

[yarddog]

When Grant faced Lee, Lee's army was only a fraction of what it once was. I don't think Lee ever faced an army smaller than his but Gettysburg was the closest.

I think Lee took a desperate chance at Gettysburg because he knew if he won the war would be all but over.

[GOPcapitalist]

He won. Lee lost. Deal with it.

Leonidas fell with 300 at Thermopylae to a 300,000 man army. Xerxes lost 20,000 men to win the battle. Does that make Xerxes the better general?