You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
For a long time Lee (for many even now) was considered a superior general to Grant despite Grant's clearly superior record. Does the fact that he was a tanner's son instead of a scion of Virginia help cause earlier historians to dismiss his record as being mere "butchery"? I think it might have. A lot of late 19th century to early 20th century historians (who tended to be upper middle to upper class) may have had problems swallowing the idea that someone with the "working class" background of Grant could beat the "upper class" background of Lee fairly. That he had to "cheat" to win.