Summary: This is a 3-page paper on social sciences comparing and contrasting the two famous American Civil War generals, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. The paper is in MLA format and has one source.
Introduction:
Ulysses Grant and Robert Lee were the two most prominent generals during the Civil War, serving as the backbone and core support of their respective sides. Both Grant and Lee were remarkable soldiers, possessing natural soldiering abilities that made them marvelous fighters” with similar fighting qualities (Catton, 506). During battles when their sides were weak and victory seemed hopeless, both men demonstrated extraordinary bravery and stoutness. Grant exhibited this valor in Mississippi Valley while Lee stood firmly in the trenches of Petersburg despite there being no hope for survival (Catton, 506).
Both leaders had the ability to think swiftly and act upon it faster. As Catton (506) says, they had to have the ability to think faster and move faster than the enemy.” These were the main qualities behind the success of these two generals in some major battles. The most striking similarity between the two leaders was their ability to switch from war to peace when they got the chance and were sure that they could make peace. When they realized that there was a genuine possibility of making peace, both leaders gave up fighting and met at Appomattox, which became a turning point in U.S. history and made possible the reconciliation of both sides. If they had not taken this step, today’s United States would never have materialized with such might and prosperity.
Differences:
Grant and Lee were two leaders who differed greatly in their personalities and social backgrounds. Robert Lee came from the old aristocracy and held firm beliefs in the traditional way of life of the Middle Ages, which had long since passed. He was from Virginia, where conservative culture still prevailed, and his family represented one of the last remnants of old chivalry brought to the New World by the British. His way of life could be traced back to Knighthood and English country squire. (Catton, 505) Lee firmly believed that social inequality had its advantages, and dividing society into a leisure class and a common class was necessary.
He believed that the leisure class of men, i.e. the aristocracy, had the responsibility to lead the nation. Lee was so immersed in this ideology that during the war it was felt that all Confederates were fighting only for him because he seemed to be the best symbol of the Confederacy and its way of life. Grant, on the other hand, came from an entirely different social background. Originally from the Western frontier where his father was a tanner, Grant did not earn every privilege from birth like his counterpart Lee.
Grant had come up the hard way throughout his life, but despite his tough personality and firm physique of a mountaineer, he didn’t have anything particularly remarkable about him. Unlike Lee, who was fighting to preserve the past, Grant had nothing in his eyes but the future. He firmly believed in democracy and a society where every individual would have equal rights and opportunities. He wanted to change society into one where nobody has any inherent privileges, only those earned through their own efforts.
Another difference between the two leaders was that Grant saw himself in relation to the whole national community. He understood that Westerners, who were mainly working-class people, could only hope for prosperity when their businesses ran smoothly without obstacles and hindrances. This was only possible when all roads were open and opportunities were available for every individual to do their best and achieve success. Grant fought for the survival of his nation as a whole, fighting for everyone from peasants and farmers to merchants and industrialists. He thought of everyone and could not stand aside while the integrity of the entire nation was at stake.
On the other hand, Lee only saw himself in relation to his own region and society where he lived. His loyalty went only to that region where his society prevailed at that time regardless of how it impacted the entire nation. His only meaning in life was defending their way of living, social lifestyle, preventing anything that threatened its dominance in that particular region.
Grant was a symbol of modernism, bustling cities, the age of machines and industry. He supported everything that tended to abolish old traditions and customs based on class inequalities, birth privileges, and wanted change and modernization in every aspect of society. He rejected preservation of old customs and values that hindered the pace of modernization and change in society. On the other hand, Lee seemed to have emerged from ancient chivalry with a lance in his hand and silken banner fluttering over his head. He lived in an old age that had virtually met its end long ago but this arrogant and proud man had a firm belief in his customs and values. Not only did he want to preserve them but also promote them throughout the country (Catton 506).
Conclusion:
The comparison between Ulysses Lee and Robert Grant clearly shows that these two generals who fought against each other during the Civil War had entirely different social backgrounds and points of view. However, they shared some striking similarities in terms of their personalities. For example, both of them were great fighters who never gave up. They were also remarkable planners and decision-makers, always swift to move when necessary. Additionally, they both had a tendency to sit at the negotiation table instead of continuing fighting when given the chance, thus changing the history of the United States forever.
Works Cited
Catton, Bruce. Grant & Lee: A Study in Contrasts.” The American History, 1956.
