Differences and Similiarities Between Grant and Lee During the Overland Campaign

How much did the similarities and differences between Robert. E. Lee and Ulysses Grant affect the outcome of the Wilderness Campaign during the American Civil War

The American Civil War (1861-1865) was the first true industrial war. With technological developments, most notably railroads, mass-produced rifles and telegraphs leading to drastic changes in tactics. With any change in how a war can be and is fought the largest test falls on the commanders ability to adapt. A good example of this and the contrasts between styles of leadership can be seen when looking at two of the protagonists of the war; Robert E Lee of the Confederacy and Ulysses Grant of the Union. The similarities and differences between the two Generals have been well covered, both by contemporaries and by historians since the conflict. The reason for this is best summarised by historian B.Catton saying, “They were two strong men, these oddly different Generals, and they represented the strengths of two conflicting currents that through them, had come into final collision” . The Wilderness Campaign, sometimes referred to as the Overland Campaign, was a brutal eight-week campaign that saw Grant attempting to maneuver his Army of Potomac between Lee’s Army of North Virginia and the Confederate Capital Richmond. The campaign consisted of fourteen conflicts that resulted in great casualties on both sides and allowed Grant and his forces to begin the Siege of Petersburg that eventually led to the end of hostilities.

When looking at something as complicated as two Generals leadership qualities and tactics it is important to look at the context in which the battles and the wider war. For example, it is important to realise just how revolutionary the American Civil War was compared to the last conflict that the commanders of the Union and Confederate Armies were leading their men in. The Mexican-American War (1846-48) was the last time the American Armies had been in conflict. Despite being only just over a decade between the two wars the advancement in technologies changed how a battle could be fought. The mass-production of weapons, most notably the rifle changed tactics that had been designed by Napoleon to a style of warfare. The Springfield model 1861 is the best example of this. With increased range, reliability and accuracy the Springfield was produced in huge numbers during the Civil War with over a million being produced . This allowed for a much more ‘fluid’ battle that didn’t solely rely on cavalry to provide movement. However, it also led to huge numbers of loses with hundreds of men being los in a single volley. He second of the three changes is the use of transport. The network of tracks and the development of the steam train meant that thousands of men and the logistics needed to support them could be moved hundreds of miles and not only arrive weeks faster than if they had be forced to march but also fresh for the fight ahead. The telegram and camera meant that the political impact of a commander’s decision needed to be taken into account. The speed of the telegram also meant that leaders, both political and military, for the first time were able to make real-time decisions that affected the frontline. These factors meant that the commanders faced challenges they had never encountered and new pressures both from the enemy and from those political powers above them worried about the impact actions had on the public’s opinion.

It is clear to see how Robert. E. Lee rose to be the rank he was. He was the son of Major General Lee who later became Governor of Virginia. Lee came second in his class at the WestPoint military academy and distinguished himself during the Mexican War in which he actually fought with Grant. He joined the engineers from WestPoint and rose to the brevetted rank of Colonel during the Mexican War but his permanent rank remained a Captain and did so until his transfer to the cavalry in 1855 although his engineering background is clear to see from his tactics, in the overwhelming Confederate victory at Fredericksburg.

The leadership qualities of the opposing Generals must be looked at when comparing their ability to win battles. From looking at the two men’s contributions in the Overland Campaign alone there are a few subtle differences. The way that the modern military views and defines types of leadership obviously differs to the 1860s, however the modern views do help in defining these dissimilarities. The Defence Leadership Centre separates leadership into tactical level and operational level. Team level leadership is on a small scale, with “fixed margins of time and resources” when the leader has direct influence over his soldiers whilst at operational level where commanders must look at the wider context of the war they are fighting and are removed from direct control. This is relevant Grant and Lee during this campaign

Despite the differences between the two men and their leadership styles there are some notable similarities that Catton does not ignore. It may be slightly obvious to say that both “were marvelous fighters ” with their “fighting qualities were really very much alike” . Much less obvious is both men’s praise to virtue and fidelity; both were incredibly daring and resourceful and both craved for a peace to their nation, which is shown in their abilities “to turn quickly from the war to peace once the fighting was over” .

Bibliography

• Catton, B. ‘Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts’ The American Story. Ed. Garet Garret. Chicago. 1955.
• G.Knapp, Historical Dictionary of the U.S Army. Greenwood, 2001.