what are the similarities and differences of RobertE. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant?
409550
Lee had a much better ability to project a good image of himself. Both were butchers, both were willing to expend other men's lives flagrantly, but somehow Lee was always seen as caring more for his men and as being more of a gentleman.
853649
John Janney - link below has the complete scenario outlined and includes a facsimile of entry in the Executive Minute Book of Governor John Letcher, of Virginia, covering the nomination and confirmation of General Robert E. Lee "as commander of the military and naval forces of Virginia."
234567
In 1864 JEB was killed at a skirmish in a place called Yellow Tavern. It's believed that a US cavalry trooper shot and killed him with a carbine from a relatively short distance. \n\nJEB was scouting the area with Rebel cavalry when Union cavalry under the command of Phillip Sheridan (Sheridan was the commander of the overall cavalry, not the immediate unit) encountered and fought them.\n\nThe loss of Stuart hurt General Lee badly, as he had lost his "eyes"
670839
try:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
496259
Grant's Tomb is a mausoleum containing the bodies of Ulysses S. Grant (1822–1885), an American Civil War General and the 18th President of the United States, and his wife, Julia Dent Grant (1826–1902). The tomb complex is a United States Presidential Memorial
139266
Lee was a gambler. He perhaps overestimated his Virginia boys, and he often took risks that other commanders wouldn't have. That's part of what makes him one of America's best generals, but it proved his undoing at this particular engagement. Besides, Pickett's Charge was a sort of echo of the way wars used to be fought. It proved that modern technology made that type of war no longer possible. The bayonet charge was no more.\n\nAlthough other small engagements were fought on Cemetary Ridge, I think you are talking about what is commonly known as Pickett's Charge. \n\nAnd about Fredricksburg: that was a Confederate victory. Burnside was an idiot, and he fought piecemeal. Perhaps Lee thought that if he used his men in one huge attack that artillery could not budge, and his lines would overwhelm the Union soldiers. After all, if a bayonet charge suceeds in gettting close enough to the enemy, the defenders often run. No one likes the idea of cold steel in their belly.\n\nedit: You are certainly correct that James Longstreet and General Trimble played a huge role in the attack. However, Lee gave the direct order to Pickett's brigade. Besides, Longstreet has always been a mediocre commander, despite what history says about him. He lacked initiative, and it cost Lee battles numerous times. However, he was a strong and steady left hand man (well...technically thats Stuart, and Jackson is the right).\n\nI disagree that the Virginians were Lee's best men. States do not define fighting men. Texans, in my opinion, were Lee's greatest asset. It was they that shouted "General Lee to the rear! Lee to the rear!" in 1864, and they fought like demons in the whole war. But that's not really important.\n\nAlso, I just remembered this. One reason Lee might feel a bit cocky is because on the morning of July 3rd, 1863, the Army of Northern Virginia launched the biggest artilley salvo ever heard in the Americas. They actually fired more rounds then the Army of the Potomac did, but the Federals dug in well and didn't retreat.\n\nI think that if more of Lee's men had held out along the flanks, maybe Pickett's Charge would not have been such a disaster. It still would have had ridiculous casualities, but Lee wouldn't neccessarily be forced to end his first and only invasion of the North. After all, Amistead's men managed it over the walls, and there was hand to hand fighting for hours. However, there weren't enough Rebs to make the Yanks run.
302180
I see many similarities between Ancient Rome and America today. Both expanded their holdings using War, and then assimilated the populations into their own, whether they want to be or not. Both rule absolutely depend-less on how their peoples feel, and America shall go down in the hands of "Barbarians" just as Rome did. Everything that is big becomes small. that is Nature.
449041
Abe dealt with civil war while W. has dealt with war abroad.\nAbe had a beard, G.W. doesn't\nAbe was from Illinois, G.W. is from Texas\nAbe is dead, W. is not
237394
He was a very competent general who inspired the Confederates to have high morale and confidence in the face of a tough and relentless oppponent (when the Union finally managed to get going and fight the war instead of sitting at the Potomac planning to fight it). He was a master tactician, and allowed an under-equipped and outnumbered army to hold off a numerically superior and better equipped adversary much of the time. A lot of the credit goes to Lee for this, but I think Beauregard and Jackson did most of the actual work.
543268
The Union Army had much more funding for developing repeating weapons such as leaver action rifles, the Gatling gun and the like.  By the late war their technological advantage was substantial.\n\nThe south acted as 13 different countries for accusations (each state bought stuff for their army) purposes while the north acted as one organization.
104913
William Lee (1756-1795) was an American diplomat during the Revolutionary War. His brothers, all also active within the Continental Congress, were Arthur, Francis, and Richard Lee. \n\nWilliam Lee, serving as an agent of the Continental Congress, attempted, but failed, to obtain support from Austria or Prussia. An unofficial U.S.-Dutch treaty that he helped draft became the cause of war between England and the Netherlands.*
268468
Technically he died before the hostilities were over, however it has long been considered that when the Confederate Army of Virginia under General Robert E. Lee surrenderred to U.S. Grant on April 9, 1865 that the war was over.  The final Confederate Army surrenderred in late May in the Deep South.  However in April we had siezed the Southern Capital At Richmond, Va. and sent the government running so the war was really considered over with that occurance, Hostilities ended about 6 weeks later.\n\nWhen you study the Civil War you can see that the Northern Forces had many setbacks during the first few years of the war and it looked as if the South were going to win the war.  However with Lincoln's resolve to reunite the Union he kept changing Generals until he found one that was up to the task.  The first major setback for the South was at Gettysburg, Pa. when the South's invasion of the North was turned back and Lee's Army retreated back too Virgina suffering many losses along the way.  With General Grant being placed in charge of the Union Army the tide of the war turned to favor the Union Forces.\n\nThe Civil War was fought over States Rights, each state was sovereign from each other and could pass their own laws and the Southern States wanted that right to be placed before the Federal Governments Rights.  The Southern States wanted strong state government and the North wanted a strong Federal Government.  140 years later and this sometimes is still questioned by people all over the country as to how much right's a state does indeed have.  The freeing of the Slaves became a part of it when in 1862 to obtain political advantage over the South Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which went into effect January 1, 1863.  This was done to keep European Nations from recognizing the South as a free and Independent country.  Slavery by the 1860's had been all but eliminated by the rest of the world and from a humun right's standpoint this made it difficult for any other Nation to give aid to the South by recognizing them as free and Independent of the Northern States.  Only one country had Slavery longer the the U.S. and that was Brazil and they also did away with it in the 1860's.
1022110
Completely opposite.\n\nAbraham Lincoln wanted a large and powerful national government.  Jeff Davis wanted a weak central government.
50726
Strengths:\nSOUTH\n-Trading Relationships with Europe.\n-Best Military officers (Robert E. Lee)\n-Long coastline made blockade difficult.\n-They were convinced they were right.\n-They were fighting for their lives and on their own soil. \n-British and French leaders sympathized with them due to economic reasons.\n\nNORTH\n-Banking, Factories and ships.\n-More railroads to move supplies, men and equipment.\n-Larger Navy.\n-Experienced government.\n-Larger population; 22 million to 9 million.\n\nWeaknesses:\nSOUTH \n-Their smaller Navy left them at a disadvantage due to the Union blockade.\n-Their long coastline, while a benefit in sneaking in supplies was also a detriment in trying to defend it.\n-Southern slaves, a large part of the population, were clearly no help.\n-Little industry and factory production. \n\nNORTH\n-They were not as "into it."\n-Northerners were not in complete agreement over the abolition of slavery.\n-Lost most of their good military officers to the South.
645868
Similarities:\n\nBrutus's purpose was to control the crowd as was Anthony's. Brutus began his speach with a hostile crowd against him as a murderer of the popular Julius Caesar.  When Anthony spoke the crowd had already been swayed by Brutus' words to a point of view opposite Anthony's and were now openly hostile to him.  Both men spoke eloquently and effectively and their moment before the crowd was the key moment in their political lives.\n\nDifferences:\n\nBrutus spoke first, Anthony had the last word.  Brutus spoke directly in abstract terms about an unproven and unprovable shortcoming in Caesar's character and the threat it posed to the future of Rome.  Anthony spoke ironically and sarcastically about the recent murder of the butchered man lain out before them:  as concrete a subject matter imaginable.  \n\nBrutus, as one of the senate assassins, had a lot more to lose: his reputation and life.  Anthony had a lot less personally at stake.   Brutus concentrated on one theme and directly spoke it:  "Caesar was ambitious" and somehow that ambition was bad for Rome.  By stopping over-ambitious Caesar, the assassins carried out a great and noble service for Rome and the people at the funeral.  Anthony facing a hostile crowd that now considered Caesar the great tyrant as propagandized by Brutus had to pick his words carefully and hide his true purpose.  "I've come to bury Caesar not to praise him."\n\nUltimately both men swayed the crowd but Anthony's speech carried the day.  When he was done, no one could 'unsway' them from their hate for the assassin's rekindled inside them by Anthony's speech.  Brutus lost because he had only the crowd's imagination to work with.  Anthony won because logic and pathos and ethos and the 'eloquence' of dead Caesar's wounds were all on his side.
913122
Ulysses S. Grant, poor man, will probably hang on to his worst President ranking for some time to come.\n\nHaving said that, this President has, for all his vaunted business experience, done a particularly crappy job in choosing and managing people.\n\nAnd they, in turn, have done a particularly crappy job in running the Administration.
528349
Abraham Lincoln\nJefferson Davis\nFrederick Douglass\nRobert E. Lee\nHarriet Beecher Stowe\nStonewall Jackson\nUllysses S Grant\nWomen of the civil war(find names at the site listed below)