Nancy Hobart retweetledi
Everyone loves asking: “If Grant was such a great general, how come he lost nearly every battle to Lee and suffered way more casualties?”
Robert E. Lee himself had a very different answer.
“I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant’s superior as a general. I doubt his superior can be found in all history.” — Robert E. Lee
The entire question is built on two flat-out falsehoods.
First: Grant didn’t “lose nearly every battle.” There was essentially ONE continuous campaign — from the Wilderness in May 1864 straight through to Appomattox in April 1865.
Grant seized the initiative in the very first clash and never gave it back. Lee spent the rest of the war reacting to Grant’s moves.
When Lee attacked in the Wilderness hoping the old forests and bogs would save him (like they always had), Grant didn’t retreat north like every previous Union commander. He simply disengaged, slid south, and flanked Lee again.
Lee never dictated the terms of battle after that day.
James Longstreet had tried to warn the Army of Northern Virginia: “We’ve never faced anyone like this man.” They didn’t listen. They learned fast.
Second: The casualty comparison ignores that Lee was almost always the defender. Context matters.
But the deeper truth is bigger than any single clash. Lee still fought war the old way — disconnected battles, win-loss record like a sports season.
Grant fought the next war: coordinated campaigns across multiple theaters, using railroads, telegraph, navy, and engineers to keep relentless pressure until the enemy simply could not continue.
Grant didn’t win by accident. He made contact and maintained it until victory was inevitable.
Lee fought the last war. Grant wrote the blueprint for the next one.
That’s why he was great. That's why he won.
Change your mind yet? Drop your hottest take on Grant vs. Lee below. 🔥
English
