Grant and Lee a Study in Personality and Generalship (Midland Bks: No. 288) [Hardcover]

J. F. Fuller (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 323 pages
• Publisher: Indiana Univ Pr; First edition. edition (June 1982)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0253134005
• ISBN-13: 978-0253134004
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,351,213 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding Analysis by the Clausewitz of the 20th Century!, August 24, 2002

By 

Q. Publius (Annandale, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Grant and Lee a Study in Personality and Generalship (Midland Bks: No. 288) (Hardcover)

The oft-repeated view, especially from Confederate defenders, is that Grant won though he was a drunken butcher indifferent to high casualties whose triumph was inevitable because of superior manpower and supplies. John Frederick Charles Fuller, the British Major General, and along with Liddel Hart one of the top military strategists of the 20th century, provides overwhelming evidence to lay this view to rest. Grant practiced maneuver warfare when he could, and his Vicksburg campaign (not just a siege, rather a series of five battles), along with Jackson's valley campaign, are the two greatest campaigns of the war. In his final Overland campaign, Grant could not maneuver much because Lincoln required that he keep substantial forces between Lee's army and Washington. By a thorough analysis of Grant's and Lee's battles throughout the war, Fuller makes the case that Grant was among the best generals ever, and greater than Lee, who was also great but had his limitations (after Order 191 was lost and recovered by McClellan's troops before Antietam, Lee would only issue oral orders, and his subordinates were often confused by them; Grant was known for crystal clear written orders, following the example of Zachary Taylor under whom Grant (and Lee) had served in the Mexican War). Rating Grant so highly will of course be heresy for neo-Confederates, but there is no question Grant has received unfair treatment even among historians. Another Fuller book, "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" adds more details to the defense of the claim that Grant was an excellent general. In assessing the relative greatness of Grant and Lee, one should keep in mind their age difference and the difference in upward mobility on the two sides during the war. Lee was 14 years older than Grant, Lee was already a Colonel when the war started and still serving on active duty, whereas Grant had left the army as a captain after the Mexican War. At the start of the war, Winfield Scott, who had served in the War of 1812 and masterminded in the Mexican War the amazing defeat of a country of 20 million people with 12,000 invading troops, was the greatest soldier on either side. However he was old and so fat he could no longer ride a horse; his campaigning days were over. After Scott, Lee was the best soldier on either side at the start of the war--and Lee was offered command of the Union army but turned it down. However Grant rose through the ranks because he learned quickly from his mistakes at Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, and Holly Springs. By the end of the war Fuller's analysis shows Grant was clearly the superior general, and not just because he had superior numbers. Even the oft-cited mistake at Cold Harbor, according to Fuller, is exagerrated. Fuller summarizes the overall casualy numbers during the war: the ratio of killed and wounded to total forces engaged for Grant was 10%; for the whole Federal army it was 11%; for the whole Confederate army it was 12%; and for Lee, it was 16%. One must be fair to Lee and not lose sight of the fact that he was an exemplary, even a saintly individual who must always be acknowledged as among the great American generals. But the simplistic, grossly unfair judgment of Ulysses S. Grant is revealed here as a sham which must stop. Under the razor-sharp and penetrating analysis of Fuller, one of the greatest military historians of all time, the conventional, common opinion of Grant is shown to be balderdash. Ulysses S. Grant was one of the greatest generals the U.S. has ever produced. Though written many years ago, Fuller's book is still relevant to this ongoing national discussion, and is a must read for anyone who wants to compare Union and Confederate generalship. Regarding Grant's drinking, Fuller doesn't discuss this, but this too is greatly exaggerated. He was indeed a binge drinker. When I asked the renowned Civil War historian Ed Bearss about this, he said Grant got drunk about four to six times during the war, always when he was away from his wife (she was with or lived near him during some campaigns and he was always lonely without her). Moreover, in the Civil War one could usually tell when battle was near, and there was usually inactivity during the winter months. The circumstances are not comparable to a modern general's always being on call in the nuclear age. Grant's occasional binge drinking never once affected his generalship, in public functions he usually would not drink at all, being a semi-recovered alcoholic except for the occasional binge. The stereotype is that Grant was constantly drunk during the war. This too is an unfair assessment not based on historical fact. Read this book and will see just how wrong the stereotype of Grant's generalship is, and how good a general he was.

19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Interesting Comparison Between Lee and Grant, June 22, 2005

By 

Michael Taylor "Michael Taylor" (Indian Trail NC) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Grant and Lee a Study in Personality and Generalship (Midland Bks: No. 288) (Hardcover)

Whatever your view of Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant, Fuller's book will challenge you to think long and hard about your beliefs concerning both generals.

As a Southerner, I have to admit that Fuller makes a compelling case for Grant being the better general between the two. One instance is where he confronts the idea that Grant was a butcher because of the heavy casualties during the Wilderness-Spotsylvania Campaign. While Grant indeed suffered the heavier losses, the percentage of losses was acutally lower than Lee. In fact, this was a common occurence in many battles in which Grant commanded.

The book's contents are as follows:

1. The Two Causes - the two nations, presidents, armies and other North/South factors both generals had to operate within.
2. The Personality of Grant - modesty, common sense, courage.
3. The Personality of Lee - humility, tact, audacity.
4. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1861-1862 - description of the battles fought by both generals during both years (Shiloh, Fort Donelson, Antietam, Fredericksburg, etc).
5. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1863 - Vicksburg, Gettsyburg, Chattanooga, Chancellorsville.
6. The Generalship of Grant and Lee, 1864-1864 - Spotsylvania, Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, Appamattox.
7. The Two Generals - comparison and contrast between their two styles and personalities.

One other interesting point mentioned by Fuller was perhaps making the Confederate capital in Atlanta instead of Richmond. I have often thought how such a move would have affected the fighting in Virginia, Georgia, and my home state of North Carolina. Something interesting to ponder!

I highly recommend the book. Read and enjoy.