re: Born on this day 202 years ago…

She had tons of family in the CSA army from Lexington. This is her nephew. 1stKY Cavalry CSA. Killed at Baton Rogue.

quote:

---

The union army was twice the size as the confederate army and had the benefit of superior logistics.

---

So does that mean we have to discount the exploits of such storied American commanders as Leonard Wood, John Pershing, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, Chester Nimitz, etc. because they had superior logistics and manpower to their enemies? If that's the case then we have to go back to William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 to find an American commander worth a shite.

His "greatness" as a commander was just all about having more. More men. More equipment. More guns. More food. More horses.

He knew he had enough to eventually overwhelm southern forces no matter what it cost the north. No matter how much you lose, just keep pressing forward until you drown them.

I mean, it works. The Red Army used the same strategy against Germany. But there's nothing "great" about it.

Most of us on here could have done the same.

quote:

---

Mary Todd Lincoln

---

As if that woman’s word carries any weight

Conversation between Lee and Jackson after the first day's engagement at Chancellorsville:

Hotchkiss returned to where Lee and Jackson had resumed their discussion and traced the route. There was a moment of silence. Then Lee said; “General Jackson, what do you propose to do?”

Jackson: “Go around here.” He pointed to the line Hotchkiss had shown.

Lee: “What do you propose to make this movement with?”

Jackson, without hesitation: “With my whole corps.” [31,000 men]

Lee: “What will you leave me?”

Jackson: “The divisions of Anderson and McLaws.” [14,000 men to face the 60,000 man Union army]

Lee: "Well you had better get on."

quote:

---

No

Just means they werent as brilliant as Washington, Winfield Scott, Jackson, etc.

---

Based on what?

quote:

---

Conversation between Lee and Jackson after the first day's engagement at Chancellorsville:

Hotchkiss returned to where Lee and Jackson had resumed their discussion and traced the route. There was a moment of silence. Then Lee said; “General Jackson, what do you propose to do?”

Jackson: “Go around here.” He pointed to the line Hotchkiss had shown.

Lee: “What do you propose to make this movement with?”

Jackson, without hesitation: “With my whole corps.” [31,000 men]

Lee: “What will you leave me?”

Jackson: “The divisions of Anderson and McLaws.” [14,000 men to face the 60,000 man Union army]

Lee: "Well you had better get on."

---

It was definitely an iconic moment but Jackson's flanking march and attack on May 2 did very little to alter the tactical picture of the battle when you actually look at what it did. Hooker had position his army poorly and done a bad job of making sure Howard's lines were secure and entrenched (none of which were true). While Jackson bloodied Howard pretty good that afternoon, in the end it was a move that made the Union position stronger and more compact. It also put Lee at a tactical disadvantage because his army was now split in half and the only way to bring it back together was to proceed with a costly, frontal assault against entrenched Union lines on May 3. Lee lost over 10,000 men in the fighting that day and while he succeeded in reuniting his army, he failed in his main objective to destroy the Union army before it could retreat back across the river.

Chancellorsville is Lee in a nutshell. He would win Pyrrihic victory after Pyrrihic victory, suffering high casualties, with little in the way of strategic success to show for it. Before the Battle of Chancellorsville Lee's army was occupying Fredericksburg while Hooker's army was occupying the town of Falmouth from across the river. After the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee's army was occupying Fredericksburg (less Stonewall Jackson and 13,000 men) while Hooker was occupying the town of Falmouth from across the river. Nothing had changed strategically and one could definitely argue that Lee's costly victory at Chancellorsville set the stage for his ultimate defeat at Gettysburg two months later.

quote:

---

It’s true that US Grant had a “Soviet style” of warfare,

---

It is not. Lee lost more men at a higher ratio in the war than did Grant.

quote:

---

But you have to admire the audacity

---

Oh certainly. The balls on both men were huge that day. However, I do like to note that while that plan was very audacious, another - more audacious - march was starting around that same time below Vicksburg in Mississippi. Grant had cut himself off from his communications and supply base, entered enemy territory, and marched quickly through the state while outnumbered, fought and won five separate battles, before besieging an entire army within Vicksburg.

Not happy about, but Grant was a superb general. His Vicksburg campaign was a masterpiece. He defeated Confederate armies largely with maneuver until he bottled them up inside Vicksburg, accomplished some massive engineering to cut through the swamps, reduced his own logistical train. His Ft Donelson campaign was also expertly led. He was a master strategist, great leader, logistical expert and the best battlefield commander on the Union side.