An Analysis of Two Civil War Generals and the Surrounding Revisionist History

It’s said that history is written by the winners. That is the only way to explain any comparison between Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. The character of these two men couldn’t have been any different. Ulysses S. Grant is generally considered one of the worst presidents in American history. His problems with alcohol are famous. He was a middle of the road student at West Point with questionable determination. For every great step forward he took there always seemed to be a greater step back. He was an antihero. 

Robert E. Lee on the other hand was a man of discipline and determination. He was a military genius who finished second in his class West Point. He is probably the South’s most dignified personality. He could have commanded the Union Army during the Civil War, but even though he opposed secession, he would not invade his native South. That is probably why the respect for Lee is unchallenged by any other southern figure. 

These two characterizations completely ignore the most important aspect of each man’s life. Each man had to make a decision that impacted the United States in its greatest time of turmoil. One decision was crucial to the Union’s prevail, the other decision was detrimental. But the reputations of these two men don’t reflect their actions. Grant should be the dignified man because he was on the side of the righteous and the victorious and Lee should be the vilified man for fighting against the uniform of the United States, but this is not the way history is told.