Grant and Lee
Throughout the course of my history career, which is not very long, teachers and professors have always focused on the point that General Grant was a butchering alcoholic who won the war solely on the account of his stubborn personality. And on the other hand, teachers portrayed General Lee as a masterful strategist, who used Christian values in order to win the rebellion. However, in Fuller's account of the two Generals, he alleges through data and personal intuition that General Grant was actually a strategist and mastermind that not only won the war but also, lost fewer soldiers.
During the past century there has always been this distinct cultural separation of the north and south (Union and Confederate). The main reason for this is due in part to the cultural differences of the north and south during the late nineteenth century. Citizens of the north believe that Grant was the better General because, well, he was the commander of the Union army. On the other side of things, southerners undoubtedly know that General Lee was the superior mind of the two because, well, he was the commander of the Confederate army. And even though the Confederates lost the war, people manipulate the truth and explain the reasons that the south lost the war were because Grant had the larger army, could kill off more of his troops, and still be able to take his objectives. But in Fuller's description of the two, he analyses the personalities of the two Generals and analyses the psychological differences that made them choose certain strategies and tactics in which Grant is shown to be the superior commander. Is this book biased? Of course, but as Fuller explains in the preface of the book, his instinctive premise was to show that Lee was the superior General because, he was taught this in his previous education, where he later states, "
so much for school education."(Page 8) As an overview of the book, Fuller does not indulge in reacting all of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document