- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Channel's 'Grant' Is a Timely Reminder of Which General Actually Won the Civil War
Posted on 5/21/20 at 5:59 pm to doubleb
Posted on 5/21/20 at 5:59 pm to doubleb
quote:
It would seem he could have easily out maneuvered Lee with his superior numbers just as he had done to the Rebs in Miss.
My other post address this a bit, there are a couple of things at play. Grant wanted to protect his supply lines, and thus maneuvered very carefully to ensure his lines were never exposed. He also understood that simply capturing Richmond would not cause Lee to surrender. He had to force a surrender in an actual confrontation. This required not only facing Lee but also other Confederate armies who were attempting to draw Grant’s attention away from Lee. Not only this, he realized that a consistent tempo of operations would tax Lee’s men, and by March of 1865, Lee’s army was plagued with desertions.
Grant was willing to win the war bit by bit to ensure Lincoln’s re-election, as a major defeat would sway public opinion. Once Mobile Bay and the Georgia campaign were won, and Lincoln’s re-election was secure, Grant could afford to be more aggressive, as Grant cut off all but two of the Confederates supply lines, which forced Lee’s hand.
Grant’s goal was to win the war, and he was the first to understand how he had to beat Lee, as the other Union generals, to my recall, were convinced that taking Richmond would end the war. Grant understood that he had to isolate Lee from easy escape, reinforcement, and resupply in order to bring the war to a decisive conclusion. It isn’t as though he could simply overwhelm the entirety of the Confederates.
0
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:00 pm to Centinel
I think it boils down to our definitions of legendary.
Napoleon gambling everything by yielding his center and the high ground and defeating the Third Coalition at Austerlitz.
Hindenburg and Ludendorff Double envelopment defeating the Russian Army at Tannenberg ending a ruling dynasty.
Schwarzkopf and his left hook annihilating the Iraqi Army and ending Gulf War I.
It’s a fun topic to discuss and I appreciate your viewpoint.
Napoleon gambling everything by yielding his center and the high ground and defeating the Third Coalition at Austerlitz.
Hindenburg and Ludendorff Double envelopment defeating the Russian Army at Tannenberg ending a ruling dynasty.
Schwarzkopf and his left hook annihilating the Iraqi Army and ending Gulf War I.
It’s a fun topic to discuss and I appreciate your viewpoint.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:11 pm to Centinel
quote:
it's the context
The context of what Grant did is, arguably, as impressive, for the reasons I noted earlier. Individual tactical brilliance is of course, important, but conceiving a cogent strategy on the ground which recognized the older way of fighting was obsolete, and that the new way required unification of tactical, strategic, and operational elements, was revolutionary in context. Grant imposed 37,000 more casualties on his opponents than he took himself, executed vital campaigns which effectively split the Confederacy in two, and balanced political and battlefield considerations which ensured a Union victory.
Lee, I would argue, was fighting the wrong type of war for the situation at hand, and due to that, inflicted unnecessary losses from which he could never recover.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:13 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
think it boils down to our definitions of legendary.
There was another post here that said Grant was the first to understand total war, as though that was a mundane revelation. It was in fact revolutionary, and Grant seemed to understand it innately. And implementing that understanding is extremely impressive, in my view.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:17 pm to crazy4lsu
I’m with you.
It’s been mentioned that prolonging the war is a positive for Lee.
At least as far as Americans go, Washington would be the gold standard to measure against for endurance and facing long odds.
I don’t think Lee meets Washington’s standards.
It’s been mentioned that prolonging the war is a positive for Lee.
At least as far as Americans go, Washington would be the gold standard to measure against for endurance and facing long odds.
I don’t think Lee meets Washington’s standards.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:23 pm to Centinel
quote:
What he did, for how long he did it, with what he had, against what he faced, says otherwise.
What he did was shorten the war by taking too many unnecessary losses. It was exactly 13 months from the time he took command in Virginia to the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, so his hey-day didn't last THAT long. What he had was definitely an inferior force, but he made it all the more inferior by constantly assuming the aggressive. And what he faced were some of the worst battlefield commanders the United States Army had to offer at that particular time (McClellan, Pope, and Burnside ranking among the worst of all-time). Hooker was a mediocre commanding general and it wasn't until Gettysburg that Lee finally ran up against someone who could competently lead an army (George Meade).
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:26 pm to Sus-Scrofa
quote:you drunk?
I see no pot shot in that quote. It's all true.
quote:that is a blatant lie.
so it's easy to forget that he commanded the losing side in the Civil War.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:28 pm to RollTide1987
Hooker had Lee by the balls at Chancellorsville then lost his own balls when he heard Jackson was in front of him and retreated back to the Wilderness.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:30 pm to banone74
quote:
Wasn’t the South going to lose regardless of who its top general was?
Yes, the war was over before it started. I'm not being sarcastic, the South didn't have a chance. At best maybe stay defensive the entire time.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:32 pm to windshieldman
The only realistic shot was foreign intervention but that ended after Antietam with the Emancipation.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:33 pm to michael corleone
quote:
The Gettysburg campaign was not well thought out and the decisions to attack the Union position on Days 2 and 3 are the two worst decisions of the war.
I agree, definitely Lee's worst decisions imo. His own generals tried to talk him out of it.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:36 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
Hooker had Lee by the balls at Chancellorsville then lost his own balls when he heard Jackson was in front of him and retreated back to the Wilderness.
Hooker had Lee by the balls even after Jackson hit him on the flank. The Confederate high command was in disarray and Lee's army was split in two. Had he not ordered Sickles to abandon Hazel Grove, Lee likely has to retreat.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:36 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
The only realistic shot was foreign intervention but that ended after Antietam with the Emancipation.
This was decades ago but there were old journals I use to read from confederate soldiers in a book. Even early in the war, most knew it was a losing cause. Even "higher ups" made comments all the time to many of the soldiers they just gonna keep prolonging the inevitable as long as possible.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:37 pm to windshieldman
Lee’s handling, or lack thereof, of Ewell and taking the high ground cost Lee any shot at Gettysburg.
Imagine if Jackson is still alive, it would’ve been Meade attacking Lee on the high ground.
Imagine if Jackson is still alive, it would’ve been Meade attacking Lee on the high ground.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:38 pm to RollTide1987
Couch served as sacrificial lamb. Damn shame to, Couch was a good leader.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:40 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
Imagine if Jackson is still alive, it would’ve been Meade attacking Lee on the high ground.
Assuming Jackson is still alive and he attacks and somehow manages to seize Culp's Hill or Cemetery Hill, Meade doesn't fight at Gettysburg. That wasn't his first choice for battle to begin with. His plan was to lure Lee back into Maryland and fight him on a defensive line behind Pipe Creek, near the town of Union Mills.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:42 pm to RollTide1987
Do you think Lincoln would allow Meade to fall back?
I think pressure from the threat of taking Philadelphia forces Meade to fight.
I think pressure from the threat of taking Philadelphia forces Meade to fight.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:47 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
Do you think Lincoln would allow Meade to fall back?
Lincoln and Halleck had full faith and confidence in Meade. Plus events were happening so quickly within hours of Meade taking command, so much so that there was no way Lincoln or Halleck could have micromanaged him.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:50 pm to RollTide1987
I’ll buy into Lincoln possibly having faith in Meade but Halleck had faith in no one but himself.
It still boggles my mind how he got into the positions that he did. I understand his political friendships, but lord.
It still boggles my mind how he got into the positions that he did. I understand his political friendships, but lord.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 6:56 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Individual tactical brilliance is of course, important, but conceiving a cogent strategy on the ground which recognized the older way of fighting was obsolete, and that the new way required unification of tactical, strategic, and operational elements, was revolutionary in context.
Good post.
I agree with this. Good Generalship was usually defined by battlefield tactics. Grant was ahead of his time in realizing that infrastructure advantages could be exploited to a quicker end.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News