re: History Channel's 'Grant' Is a Timely Reminder of Which General Actually Won the Civil War

quote:

---

The war was over for Lee once he was driven into trenches at Petersburg. Lee's biggest advantage was in being able to manuever in open ground. Rather difficult to do that in trenches.

---

That’s also the source of some of Grant’s biggest criticisms.

He knew he had Lee and the Confederate Army on the ropes. His desire to apply constant pressure on the Confederates, exploit any perceived vulnerability, and full frontal attacks on trenches led to heavy Union casualties.

quote:

---

The fun part about discussing topics is the varying viewpoints.

Life would be too boring if we all agreed.

---

You're entirely too even-keeled for this website.

quote:

---

He wasn't just a heartless general who expended his men in frontal assaults like his caricature would have you believe.

---

Exactly.

And if you actually study Lee and his battles/campaigns, the man was just as guilty as Grant is accused of being in regards to launching frontal assaults. When he first took command of the Army of Northern Virginia, he launched a series of offensives that became known as the Seven Days' Battle. At Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines' Mill, and Malvern Hill, Lee launched frontal attacks that cost his army severely. Only one of those (Gaines' Mill) was a victory.

At Chancellorsville, Lee launched costly frontal attacks that caused him to lose more men than he could afford to lose and would have launched an even costlier assault had it not been for Hooker withdrawing back across the river. And then of course you have the infamous frontal assault on Cemetery Ridge on the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg that Lee never recovered from.

quote:

---

The romance of Pickett's Charge is one of the most Lost Cause-ist things about the Civil War.

---

Contrast how Pickett's Charge is viewed in history and memory with Grant's failed assault at Cold Harbor 11 months later. Grant is labeled as a butcher while Lee gets a pass. Grant's attack on June 3, 1864 was a much better calculated assault than Pickett's Charge could have ever conceived of being. Lee was outnumbered and his back was to the Chickahominy River - more of a swamp than an actual river. If Grant breaks Lee's line at Cold Harbor, there is no where for Lee to go but into the swamp. He is then forced to surrender and Union soldiers enter Richmond that same day. Had the entire Army of the Potomac gone forward as it was supposed to, it would have been the largest single assault of the entire war and likely would have caused a crack somewhere in Lee's line. As it happened, poor coordination and downright insubordination caused the attack to go in piece meal.

But had it worked the war likely would have been over. Contrast that with Pickett's Charge which never had a prayer of accomplishing anything close to what the Cold Harbor assault did.

quote:

---

That's not necessarily true. One side could have all the advantages of industry and population but lack the will to see the contest through to the end. On numerous occasions, lack of support for the war in the North nearly broke the Union war effort. Key victories at opportune times kept the Lincoln administration afloat.

---

I mean, it’s 100% true. Especially considering that the Confederacy couldn’t manage to get any outside support and outside the south, the greenback was essentially worthless. All due to Scott’s anaconda strategy.

Now, the south could’ve been victorious with the quick victories ala what the Germans tried to do in 1914. But once the momentum of the initial southern assault died down, it was only a matter of time before the north’s vice squeezed the life out of the confederacy.

quote:

---

The Civil War was never a foregone conclusion.

---

It was once the southern momentum was stopped. The south needed a quick victory. A prolonged conflict was never not going to be won by the north.

quote:

---

The thing is, if Grant doesn't take those short term losses, the war doesn't end as quickly.

It's what previous Union generals like McClellan didn't see. When you're fighting an outmanned enemy, if you don't apply pressure for fear of immediate losses, you can extend the war by years and incur long term losses that are far greater.

---

Or you could do what Hooker did but not stop,

He left a formidable army in front of Lee in defensive positions and flanked Lee. The problem is his plan was not executed properly, he didn’t push it through and he let Lee off the hook.

I’m surprised Grant never tried something similar. Instead he grinder Lee down.

quote:

---

The south needed a quick victory.

---

Incorrect. The South could have never won a quick victory. The key for the South was to prolong the conflict long enough to where the people of the North eventually would grow tired of the bloodshed. They came very close to achieving that aim on more than one occasion.

quote:

---

Wasn’t the South going to lose regardless of who its top general was? I was under the impression that the North had all the industry and was only a matter of time before the South was completely shut off and out of supplies. Disclaimer here, I’m by no means well versed on the topic, just what I remember reading somewhere.

---

That's one of the reasons Jeff Davis opposed secession. He knew from his time as Secretary of War that the North had an overwhelming advantage in both industry and railroads.