Not as great as Lee. Lee was the best military tactician in Western history.
Possibly. But he was also extremely lucky in his opponents up to Meade and Grant.
Just ask yourself what would have happened at Chancellorsville or Antietam had he faced Grant.
At Chancellorsville Grant would have counter-attacked, as he did at Shiloh after a similar initial clobbering.
At Antietam he would never have fed his men in a little at a time and he would have got them all into the battle. He would also never have let Lee get away without another battle.
“Lee was the best military tactician in Western history.”
Maybe, but Grant was better at strategy.
Not as great as Lee. Lee was the best military tactician in Western history.
Perhaps, but he is also remembered as forcing the frontal assault,(Pickett’s Charge) on the third day of Gettysburg.
Jackson wanted to flank..Lee said no.
Lol, many great commanders have done far more with far less. Lee is over rated.
Regarding Grant, in a new book titled, 'Ulysses S. Grant a Victor, not a butcher' by Edward H. Bonekemper 111,
'....In Ulysses S. Grant an Victor, historian Edward H. Bonekemper111 proves that Grants casualty rates actually compared favorably with those of other Civil War generals. His perservance, decisiveness, moral courage, and political acumen place him among the greatest generals of the Civil War-indeed of all military history. Bonekemper proves that it was no historical accident that Grant accepted the surrender of three entire Confederate armies and won the Civil War. Bonekemper ably silences Grant's critics and restores Grant to the heroic reputation he so richly deserves'