Grant and Lee

Grant and Lee

            Ulysses Grant and Robert Lee were the leaders of two warring groups of soldiers during the Civil war (1861-1865). The fact that the leaders shared different ideologies concerning leadership did not mean that they were completely different in character and decision making. Lee used to lead using narrow Eastern perspective and over-aggressiveness during campaigns whereas Grant was interested in building a different reputation to cover the whole nation. The end of the Civil War is attributed to the leaders’ ability to put away their differences and utilize their similarities for the benefit of the entire society.

Grant and Lee had odd differences and hence the severity of the civil way. Lee was a tidewater Virginia aristocrat who only made decisions in the interest of his region. Lee embraced the belief of a society that would commit to anything else except allowing for change. The ideology shared by Lee was that human beings could not be treated inequality and that differentiation should happen in terms of social classes. According to Lee, the society needed a leisure class of privileged people who would possess a great sense of obligation to serve the community and are selfless enough to meet the obligations set on them by the fact that they were privileged. “[Grant] would fight with an equal tenacity for the broader concept of

Society…,” p. 390. Lee led by justifying aristocratic nobility that led the soldiers from the southern states into fighting for Lee in a bid to support his cause.

On the other hand, Grant was brought up in a hard way and supported everything that Lee was not. Grant had grown believing that men should be interested in matters affecting the entire society and not regional exclusion. Even though Grant grew up in a society that taught him that life was a competition, Grant grew to have a feeling of national belonging. Generally, Grant was interested in growing beyond the mountains and moving further beyond the region of origin. Lee and Grant represented two diagrammatically different and opposed groups in American life.

However different they were, Lee and Grant had their similarities as well. The two leaders were marvelous fighters with much similar fighting skills. “Under everything else, they [Lee and Grant] were marvelous fighters…,” p. 394. Lee and Grant had gone through difficult circumstances in their journeys of life. Grant had to push his way down the Mississippi against a cause faced with much discouragements and military sanctions. Lee, on the other hand, had to survive through a thin cause of hope that could only be conceived by him. The two leaders were often faced with daring situations that required fast decision-making and quick response to outdo the enemy, and they both had the qualities to perform well to win the different campaigns. Initially, it was a doubtful matter of events that Lee and Grant would ever sit in one meeting to discuss on matters of peace. However, the leaders showed a great bit of similar character in that, turning immediately from war to peace was possible for the two leaders and this similarity led to the immediate end to shootings. The similarities led to the writing of great history at the expense of the differences that only led to the continuance of the Civil war.

The end of the Civil War (1861-1865) is attributed to both Lee and Grant’s ability to put away their differences and utilize their similarities for the benefit of the entire society. The differences between the two leaders on whether to embrace regional or national interests were the main cause of the civil war. The similarities between Lee and Grant played a great role in writing history by ending the civil war.

Reference

Catton, B. (1951). Grant and Lee;A study in contrasts. In American Story (pp. 392-394).