River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1885-01-15
GRANT AND LEE.
Military Characteristics Of the Great
Generals Compared.

Military characteristics OF che Great
Generals Compared.
Grant, the federal chief, says Brig.
Gen. Reyes, in his FIFTY Years OBJ
servation of Men and Events" main
tanned pressure upon Lees defenses
which knew no intermission. As a
rule, he would neutralize the force Of
his enemy's strongly fortified points by
attacking those that were weaker; but
lest his adversary should infer that he
was influenced by fear, he assailed the
almost impregnable position at Cold
Harbor, at cost to himself of 1000
men at least, while he inflicted but
| trihing loss upon the confederates.
| Grant has been charged with an un-
| accessory sacrifice of life on that oc-
casion, but he must have considered mis-
situation such as to justify his conduct.
| 1t was maxim with the great Napoleon
| chat such rashness is sometimes neces-
sary for the safety, rs we'll as the honor,
| of an army. The sustained vigor and
| timely boldness of Gen. Grant consti-
| tute an important factor in the problem
am studying in regard to his suprem-
acy.
Gen. Lee, from the nature of things,
was constrained to initiate the example
of the Roman FabIus against Hannibal,
and of Marshal Daun against Frederick
the Great. He was defending interior
lines against superior numbers, and be-
ing woefully deficient in transportation,
it would have been madness for him to
sally out beyond the support of lis
ramparts. Some of his critics, how
ever, have fancied that from over eau
ton, on two or three occasions, he
failed to see opportunities offered by
Grant to break through his lines and
harass the invader much more than he
did. 1t is barely possible that such
censure may have been deserved Gen.
Lee was overworked, and so dreadfully
/ oppressed by his responsibilities, that
from time to time nature claimed its
right to repose, and occasionally he
may have fallen into that state which |
call the syncope of the mind; state in
which energy refuses to respond to
external impressions, however obvious
they may be. Where is the man of
action who has never experienced such
state, and seen passing by and be-
yond recovery precious opportunities
and golden prizes, which in his ordi
nary condition he would have easily
appropriated? But, whatever may have
been the faults of Gen. Lee, it is GER
tain that he increased the death rate in
the federal army TO a degree that ought
to satisfy the most ferocious lover of
slaughter.
The series of man9uvres, battles, &C
tions and changes of position i'll the
Wilderness, and until Lee was driven
from behind the defenses of Richmond,
and afterward till the southern confed
eracy heaved its last groan, have no
parallels OIL the continent of America.
They rank with those displays of mar
| tial genius of ancient and modern times
which have been the study OF military
men in all ages, and the wonder of the
world. They remind us of the strug-
giles of Sylla when the Samnite Telles-
enes gave him the slip and placed the
eternal city in such jeopardy that Sylla
appealed to his gods to save him and
Rome, and the contests in Greece be-
| tween Pompey and Caesar before the
battle of Pharsalia, when Pompey's syc-
| ophants felt such confidence that they
lampooned the mighty Julius and called
| him "a vendor of Cities" and more than
all, perhaps, they give an idea of the war
| Of the allies upon Napoleon in France
after the campaign in Russia, when that
great commanders genius shone most
brightly, fighting against fearful odds
| but to fail.
Ours was all intestine conflict, and the
glory of the actors loses portion of its
| luster when we reflect that in the opin-
ion of some men, if good counsels had
prevailed, it might have been avoided,
and the thousands of brave men whose
fraternal blood seethed and impasted
the soil from Petersburg to Richmond
might have been spared.
In determining the relative merits of
Grant and Lee, have been careful to
consider all the qualities and circum-
stances peculiar to each, and not only
the exploits of the two generals, but al
so their dispositions and Compartments.
The fact that the former finally con-
quered the latter is not by any means
conclusive. Ii / were to see man take
up gun weighing 1000 pouads, place
it upon his shoulder and walk away
with it, l should know, without further
investigation, that he possessed ex-
traordinary physical strength; but the
gain or loss of single battle would not
prove a man to be good or a poor
general Hannibal, Turenne, Frede-
rick and Napolean all lost battles, and
yet they are cited.
Wellington never quite lost battle,
out he was seriously checked, and IN
this respect Grant resembles the Eng
lishman. At the approach of Lee
or Sherman, his army would shout
more enthusiastically than for Grant,
but when the latter came up during the
fight the lines became more steady, and
the soldier would adjust his aim with
greater accuracy than before. Sher-
man showed wonderful vigor and sagac-
ity when he pushed Johnson from Chat
tanooga to Atlanta, but Grant would
drive his chariot through passes that
Sherman would not venture to APP
proach. There was an abatement in
Lees audacity during the twenty four
hours preceding the battle of Gettys-
burg, otherwise he would have won it
and gained the southern cause; but
nowhere can I discover debility in
Grants movements or assaults.
Grant could hold his enemy as in
vice, with ruthlessness like that of
ramerlane or the Duke of Alva, and
when he had accomplished everything,
he left upon the mind of his observer
an impression that he possessed re-
serve of force that had not been called
INTO play. am constrained therefore,
to assign to Ulysses S. Grant the high
est rank as a military commander of all
that have been born on the continent
of America.
A GREAT POSTOFFICE.