Bruce Catton's Grant and Lee: a study of contrasts

Grant and Lee

Bruce Catton thinks the meeting between Grant and Lee that worked out the terms of surrender of Lee's army marked a new chapter in the lives of Americans. This is true because this meeting brought to an end a four-year civil war. Catton adduces that the signing of the papers between Grant and Lee that culminated into the end of civil was a contrast in itself. These were two men with opposing personalities who fate had brought together.

Robert Lee was of the opinion that the lives of Americans should integrate elements of aristocracy after all his background was synonymous with family, culture, and tradition (Catton 668). His was an embodiment of knighthood and English country squire. Lee never subscribed to a belief that all men should have equal rights and equal chances in the world; not in America, a country he regarded as beginning all over again. He believed in pronounced inequality in social structures. He believed in social profiling where the leisure class owned land. To him, land was supposed to be the chief source of wealth and influence (Summary of Grant and Lee: A study in contrast 1).

Members of the leisure class were supposed to have a strong sense of obligation to the community. These men were never to gain advantage for themselves but to ensure they live up to the obligations entrusted to them without forgetting that they were a privileged lot. The country actually looked up to them for leadership. Because of Lee's aristocratic ideals, the nobles who had vast pieces of land ferociously fought to uphold them (Catton, 668). It was difficult therefore to separate Lee from the Confederacy because he was the Confederacy. Lee was indeed a legend in Virginia. It was difficult to understand why poor and malnourished soldiers could do anything in the name of Lee.

Grant was a sharp contrast to Lee. His was a tough upbringing the father having been a tanner in the Western Frontier. Grant had much trust in his capabilities and cared less about the past. He; however, had a sharp eye for the future. Grant's neighborhood was a sharp contrast to Lee's tidewater abodes. Because of their implicit dissatisfaction with the past, Grant and his ilk stood for democracy not just for mere ordering of human society but because many aspects of their lives had been defined by democracy. Grant knew how democracy worked. He believed in sheer competition. Grant had a sense of national community ingrained in his heart because he saw his own fate within the context of the nation's destiny. When a nation's horizons expanded, his horizons also expanded.

Where as Lee saw himself in relation to his region Grant saw himself within the context of the greater nation. Lee's static society was allergic to change. He was loyal to his local community and would do everything possible to defend it because it's this locality that gave deeper meaning to his life (Grant and Lee: A study in Contrast 1). Grant on the other hand would fight with the broader picture of the society in perspective because of his belief in growth, expansion, and constant widening of horizons. He could not stand the idea of destruction of the union and would use every available resource to combat that.