-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There's a good argument for trench warfare and siege warfare being effectively the same-as the Allies discovered in WWI, the techniques required, and the difficulties faced, are so similar as to be indistinguishable.....................and had to be relearned by armies conditioned to the idea of maneouvre victories.
I agree that he was one of the best generals in the war...
<Camper ducks under his desk and covers his head waiting for the Southern counter attack>
I think Sherman got lucky in Alanta, Jonstone was causing him casulties, but he was reluctant to share his plans with his superiors and Jefferson Davis was getting fustrated because Johnstone was ceding land and retreating, so he relieved him, the guy he replaced him with wasnt fit for command, Lee warned Davis about this also. Had Johnstone been in command they would be in a stalemate in alanta, until Johnstones supplies run out would he actually capture the city, but at that time Lincoln was in danger of losing, Lincoln's plan was to get a decisive victory over the south to regain popular support but if could not he would retire the secone he lost and let McCellen call for peace as he planed too do. Sherman is hated by southerners, he desroyed anything in his path just like the Mongol hordes did, i dont blame them for hating him.
Grant was willing to assult with as much men as possible, he did in Vicksburg and destroyed half his army (50,000 men lost), the Germans did this in WW1 and it was very disasterous, Grant was unusally sucessful with trench warfare, had the Germans had him on there side they might have one.
Grant was willing to assult with as much men as possible, he did in Vicksburg and destroyed half his army (50,000 men lost), the Germans did this in WW1 and it was very disasterous, Grant was unusally sucessful with trench warfare, had the Germans had him on there side they might have one.
I think that since the original question was values the answer is:
Lee: 6-3-5-0
Grant: 5-4-4-2
Lee never did any sieges, although if he had to, I am fully confident they would have suceeded.
I have never been a Grant fan, I think he was a butcher. However, in his defense, he won, and unlike Lee, he learned from his mistakes. After the debacle at Cold Harbour, he never frontally assaulted trenches again. Grant suffered a problem most northern commanders suffered, the inability to remove politically influential incompetant commanders in important positions. Just take a look at any of the Union Division and Corps commanders throughout the course of the war. When Franz Sigel leads troops from start to finish and Burnside is sacked only after the failure at the Crater in Petersburg, its not surprising the war took so long. Obviously there were some good ones, Reynolds, Meade (in division and corps command), Sedgwick, and Hancock, but the bad ones are so much more abundant that their incompetance blinds out the brilliance of some of the northern leaders. Tactically, Grant's plans were sound, not brilliant but when you outnumber your enemy 2-1, they don't have to be. The problem was in the execution of those plans...the union commanders just couldn't carry out and coordinate simple orders.
The south on the other hand, at least in the ANV, had some brilliant and very competant commanders. Jackson, Lee, Longstreet, the Hills (AP and DH), Ewell, Alexander (artillery), Hood, McClaws, Gordon, etc..
The main difference in why the south was so successful in the east at the beginning is this difference in commanders. The south didn't succeed because it had better soldiers, it succeeded because the men believed in their commanders, something the northern troops couldn't lay claim to, and when they did (McClellan), the commander was so incompetant that it didn't matter.
Oh well, thats my take, of course I haven't included any specific details, but if anyone wants them regrding any claim I've made, please say so and your patience will be rewarded.
jbs
Lee: 6-3-5-0
Grant: 5-4-4-2
Lee never did any sieges, although if he had to, I am fully confident they would have suceeded.
I have never been a Grant fan, I think he was a butcher. However, in his defense, he won, and unlike Lee, he learned from his mistakes. After the debacle at Cold Harbour, he never frontally assaulted trenches again. Grant suffered a problem most northern commanders suffered, the inability to remove politically influential incompetant commanders in important positions. Just take a look at any of the Union Division and Corps commanders throughout the course of the war. When Franz Sigel leads troops from start to finish and Burnside is sacked only after the failure at the Crater in Petersburg, its not surprising the war took so long. Obviously there were some good ones, Reynolds, Meade (in division and corps command), Sedgwick, and Hancock, but the bad ones are so much more abundant that their incompetance blinds out the brilliance of some of the northern leaders. Tactically, Grant's plans were sound, not brilliant but when you outnumber your enemy 2-1, they don't have to be. The problem was in the execution of those plans...the union commanders just couldn't carry out and coordinate simple orders.
The south on the other hand, at least in the ANV, had some brilliant and very competant commanders. Jackson, Lee, Longstreet, the Hills (AP and DH), Ewell, Alexander (artillery), Hood, McClaws, Gordon, etc..
The main difference in why the south was so successful in the east at the beginning is this difference in commanders. The south didn't succeed because it had better soldiers, it succeeded because the men believed in their commanders, something the northern troops couldn't lay claim to, and when they did (McClellan), the commander was so incompetant that it didn't matter.
Oh well, thats my take, of course I haven't included any specific details, but if anyone wants them regrding any claim I've made, please say so and your patience will be rewarded.
jbs
sherman only dit it once -kennesaw moutain.
He never admitted it was a mistake, but he never did it again.
He never admitted it was a mistake, but he never did it again.
sherman
sherman 6-6-6-6
Lee was incompetent at Gettysburg, not to mention 7 days battles where he lost 20,000 men in frontal assualts. he is the most overrated general in history, not to mention he broke his oath to the United States, was a slave owner and a racist. He is idolized in Va. For heros I prefer General Thomas(rock of chicamauga), Booker T. Washington, or nat Turner.
sherman 6-6-6-6
Lee was incompetent at Gettysburg, not to mention 7 days battles where he lost 20,000 men in frontal assualts. he is the most overrated general in history, not to mention he broke his oath to the United States, was a slave owner and a racist. He is idolized in Va. For heros I prefer General Thomas(rock of chicamauga), Booker T. Washington, or nat Turner.
Lee was incompetent at Gettysburg, not to mention 7 days battles where he lost 20,000 men in frontal assualts. he is the most overrated general in history, not to mention he broke his oath to the United States, was a slave owner and a racist. He is idolized in Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To good an ompurtunity to pass up here, i think im going to have ask for reasons for these comments.
Hannibal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To good an ompurtunity to pass up here,
i think im going to have ask for reasons for these comments.Hannibal
Re: sherman
And respected in a lot of other areas-like Britain, for example (for those who've heard of him!) You'll have to do a little better than that if you want to change people's minds about the South's finest strategist.
Good to see HB girding for battle...................
And respected in a lot of other areas-like Britain, for example (for those who've heard of him!) You'll have to do a little better than that if you want to change people's minds about the South's finest strategist.
Good to see HB girding for battle...................
Re: sherman
A few points about Lee...
- He freed his slaves (inherited from his father) before the Civil War. This doesn't matter if you try to apply 21st century moral standards to him; I don't think you should try.
- He was personally opposed to slavery, and advocated freeing and recruiting slaves to fight for the Confederacy towards the end of the war. Was he a racist? Sure, in the same way virtually every North American and European living during the 1860s would today be considered a racist. The same point applies here.
Also... You may be interested to know that George Thomas, also a Virginian, bought a slave in 1857 (apparently at the urging of his wife) and kept her throughout the war. See http://www.aotc.net/article5.htm. As a person he seems to have been as open-minded as any, but this just goes to show how hard it can be to make personal judgments about people in that time and place...
A few points about Lee...
- He freed his slaves (inherited from his father) before the Civil War. This doesn't matter if you try to apply 21st century moral standards to him; I don't think you should try.
- He was personally opposed to slavery, and advocated freeing and recruiting slaves to fight for the Confederacy towards the end of the war. Was he a racist? Sure, in the same way virtually every North American and European living during the 1860s would today be considered a racist. The same point applies here.
Also... You may be interested to know that George Thomas, also a Virginian, bought a slave in 1857 (apparently at the urging of his wife) and kept her throughout the war. See http://www.aotc.net/article5.htm. As a person he seems to have been as open-minded as any, but this just goes to show how hard it can be to make personal judgments about people in that time and place...
Re: Re: sherman
His slaves came through his wife's father(Custis). He freed those slaves, as instructed to do in his father-in-laws will, in 1862.
Lee was a man of the 18th century. Many other people of the same time saw the inhumanity of slavery.
His slaves came through his wife's father(Custis). He freed those slaves, as instructed to do in his father-in-laws will, in 1862.
Lee was a man of the 18th century. Many other people of the same time saw the inhumanity of slavery.
laelius..
Please, i have asked before for you expand on this
1,Lee was incompetent at Gettysburg, not to mention 7 days battles where he lost 20,000 men in frontal assualts.
Explain the incompetence of Lee, and explain the 7 days relavence.
2,he is the most overrated general in history.
Please qualify why this is so.
3,not to mention he broke his oath to the United States.
Explain when, where and why you feel this happend.
4,was a slave owner and a racist.
What slaves were owned by R E Lee?, cite some racism attributted to Lee.
nat Turner
Im sorry i thought we were discussing generals, not convicted mass murders of men, women and children.
Hannibal
Please, i have asked before for you expand on this
1,Lee was incompetent at Gettysburg, not to mention 7 days battles where he lost 20,000 men in frontal assualts.
Explain the incompetence of Lee, and explain the 7 days relavence.
2,he is the most overrated general in history.
Please qualify why this is so.
3,not to mention he broke his oath to the United States.
Explain when, where and why you feel this happend.
4,was a slave owner and a racist.
What slaves were owned by R E Lee?, cite some racism attributted to Lee.
nat Turner
Im sorry i thought we were discussing generals, not convicted mass murders of men, women and children.
Hannibal
Hannibal,
I respect your name, so I will elaborate:
1- 7 days battles in 1862 on peninsula, lee launched frontal attacks on union lines, costing confederates 20K casualties, the last attack, on Malvern Hill, was an unmitigated disaster, and unnecessary, as McClellan was committed to evacuating.
2- I live in VA, everything here is named some derivative from his name, as if he were the most illustrious son of the state.
3- Every Officer takes an oath at West Point, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to defend her from enemies, foreign and domestic
4- see above about slaves from his father-in-law
Lee believed Blacks were racially inferior to whites and that the two races could not coexist. See Book, "Slavery in Viriginia"
5- Turner started the ball rolling to the Civil War. It forced people to see the evil of slavery. Lincoln saw men and women housed, bred, and treated like cattle, and it turned his stomach. If I had been a slave, i would have been willing to kill my master in order to be free.
I respect your name, so I will elaborate:
1- 7 days battles in 1862 on peninsula, lee launched frontal attacks on union lines, costing confederates 20K casualties, the last attack, on Malvern Hill, was an unmitigated disaster, and unnecessary, as McClellan was committed to evacuating.
2- I live in VA, everything here is named some derivative from his name, as if he were the most illustrious son of the state.
3- Every Officer takes an oath at West Point, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to defend her from enemies, foreign and domestic
4- see above about slaves from his father-in-law
Lee believed Blacks were racially inferior to whites and that the two races could not coexist. See Book, "Slavery in Viriginia"
5- Turner started the ball rolling to the Civil War. It forced people to see the evil of slavery. Lincoln saw men and women housed, bred, and treated like cattle, and it turned his stomach. If I had been a slave, i would have been willing to kill my master in order to be free.
well i freely admit that on ocaison i can argue a point quite forcfully, and at the end of the day i hold no ill will or bear no grudge, so perhaps we can disagree on some things and still agree on others, and perhaps understand more than we did than before. Remember im not argueing at you, only near you...
1, G-Burg for another post then, Lee pulled reinforcements from every quarter until he could muster an effective force of about 85,000 men, Mac had some 115,000 and had the advantage of posistion on every field, yet was driven from or yieled them all, however, this had been accomplished at a very high cost. The Confederates lost 20,614 casualties compared to Federal losses of 15,849, not all the attacks were frontal, most also had turning movements. Mac was outgeneralled at every turn,pyshcoligicly he came away thinking that hw was lucky not to have lost his entire army, and there was those in grey who had planned just that and came close to doing so, many books will support this, so incompetant at 7 days, by no means supportable, wastfull of lives, not in comparison with later battles, the cost of achieving what you set out to do is mens lives in war, not to achieve and still lose those lives is incompetant.
2, Lee is a proud name for not just RE Lee, theres light Horse Harry amongst others, and are not Leesburg and others named before he was born, and even if none of that was true, would that not suggest that his achievments were recognised as outstounding and worthy of those acolades by a large number of people?
You have yet to indicate why he is overated, on what basis of performence do you wish to contest his record.
3, Yes that is right, but apon resigning, does that oath hold any weight?, besides lee had always thought in terms of Virginia first, second and third, where she went he would follow. Would not from then on the domestic foe be the North that wished to use force against the south?
4, At what point was Lee and his family acompanied by these slaves, to my knowledge of his carrer he had no slaves around him, nor did he reside on a working plantation, i will in due course read the book if you provide an author.
5, Turner was a common criminal, who heard voices in his head, murderd indiscrimantly of age or sex and sufferd acordingly, certainly not of the calibre of martyr that j brown became.
Hanny
1, G-Burg for another post then, Lee pulled reinforcements from every quarter until he could muster an effective force of about 85,000 men, Mac had some 115,000 and had the advantage of posistion on every field, yet was driven from or yieled them all, however, this had been accomplished at a very high cost. The Confederates lost 20,614 casualties compared to Federal losses of 15,849, not all the attacks were frontal, most also had turning movements. Mac was outgeneralled at every turn,pyshcoligicly he came away thinking that hw was lucky not to have lost his entire army, and there was those in grey who had planned just that and came close to doing so, many books will support this, so incompetant at 7 days, by no means supportable, wastfull of lives, not in comparison with later battles, the cost of achieving what you set out to do is mens lives in war, not to achieve and still lose those lives is incompetant.
2, Lee is a proud name for not just RE Lee, theres light Horse Harry amongst others, and are not Leesburg and others named before he was born, and even if none of that was true, would that not suggest that his achievments were recognised as outstounding and worthy of those acolades by a large number of people?
You have yet to indicate why he is overated, on what basis of performence do you wish to contest his record.
3, Yes that is right, but apon resigning, does that oath hold any weight?, besides lee had always thought in terms of Virginia first, second and third, where she went he would follow. Would not from then on the domestic foe be the North that wished to use force against the south?
4, At what point was Lee and his family acompanied by these slaves, to my knowledge of his carrer he had no slaves around him, nor did he reside on a working plantation, i will in due course read the book if you provide an author.
5, Turner was a common criminal, who heard voices in his head, murderd indiscrimantly of age or sex and sufferd acordingly, certainly not of the calibre of martyr that j brown became.
Hanny
A 3rd Point of View
I don't want to butt into a discussion between 2 such capable writers as laelius & Hannibal Barca, but I was struck by some points:
1 - HB is right that Lee outfought McClellan at every point during the 7 Days' Battles, proving willing to accept the high casualties this would entail. But laelius is right that Lee's attack at Malvern Hill was unwise. If Grant can be called a butcher for his failed attacks at Vicksburg & Cold Harbor, then Lee must be held accountable for his blunder at Malvern Hill, where virtually the entire Union artillery was lined up wheel to wheel in an impregnable position awaiting any Confederate attack. It was suicide to order the attack, & only the fact that Lee's blood was up (much as at Gettysburg) led him to do it. Of course, Lee realized the error of his ways, accepted his repulse, & instead allowed McClellan to go, beginning the manuevers that would result in the victory at 2nd Manassas/Bull Run.
2 - Lee as overrated. While I think it is uncontestable that Lee was a brilliant tactician, he had his limitations as a grand strategist. For example, both of his invasions of the North proved costly & unwise, although I admit that there is an argument to be made for having attempted them. More to the point, his fixation upon the Eastern Theater & the ANV was a major factor in the feebleness of the Confederate response in the region the war was actually won - the West. Although Lee did occasionally permit troops to be detached from the ANV for use in the West, he always resisted the largescale transfers of men & materiel that may have reversed Confederate fortunes in the West. Late in the war, as General in Chief of the Confederacy, in order to keep the ANV able to defend Richmond, he authorized the thinning out of Confederate garrisons throughout the South (making them increasingly vulnerable to Union attack) & left the western Confederate armies as skeletons unable to exert any significant strategic strength. Perhaps Lee had no choice, but he never seems to have seriously considered the alternative to defending Richmond until it became completely indefensible. Grant proved the superior strategist, forcing Lee to commit to this defense, then committing Union troops to take advantage in all the places left weakened by Lee's decision.
3 - Lee swore an oath to the nation. One could argue that he should never have done this if he truly believed that he had a prior commitment to Virginia. While Lee's position was clearly the most common one among Virginians, it was not the only one. George Thomas for one believed that the oath he had sworn to the United States took precedence over his allegience to his home state. It pained him to do so, but Thomas felt he had no choice but to take arms against his fellow Virginians if they elected to take up arms against the Union. But HB is right - once confronted with the dilemma, Lee is morally off the hook by resigning. His oath then no longer had any force. In any event Lee, like Thomas, followed his conscience. No honorable man can do less.
4 - Lee's family owned slaves. One might want to note though that for a period so did Grant. When Grant lived in Missouri, not only did his wife's family own slaves, but Grant bought some in his own name. It was extremely hard for a man who lived in a slaveholding state in this era not to own a slave, as it was almost impossible to hire freemen to do the jobs usually associated with the slave labor force. Part of the tragedy of the antebellum South was this social restriction against certain types of labor. Poor Southern whites could not & would not improve their lot by taking certain types of employment as they were just socially unacceptable.
In any event, stating that Lee was racist & believed that blacks were inferior is an almost meritless statement. Only a handful of abolitionists believed any different. Lincoln himself believed quite strongly until very late in the war that, due to black inferiority, it would be impossible for blacks & whites to live together in an equal society. Thus he supported the colonization movement, that proposed to send the former slaves back to Africa after the successful conclusion of the war. Only the success of black soldiers in the Union army changed his mind. The "Cincinnatus at his plow" citizen-soldier paradigm that permeated American society at that time argued that those worthy of citizenship were those capable of fighting to defend it. Black soldiers, by proving themselves capable combatants, demonstrated to Lincoln the capacity of the race to play an equal role in society. But until that point, it was virtually a universally held assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Lee just held the beliefs of the majority of his time.
5 - Nat Turner is a personal project of mine, so it is probably wise that I leave him without comment...
I don't want to butt into a discussion between 2 such capable writers as laelius & Hannibal Barca, but I was struck by some points:
1 - HB is right that Lee outfought McClellan at every point during the 7 Days' Battles, proving willing to accept the high casualties this would entail. But laelius is right that Lee's attack at Malvern Hill was unwise. If Grant can be called a butcher for his failed attacks at Vicksburg & Cold Harbor, then Lee must be held accountable for his blunder at Malvern Hill, where virtually the entire Union artillery was lined up wheel to wheel in an impregnable position awaiting any Confederate attack. It was suicide to order the attack, & only the fact that Lee's blood was up (much as at Gettysburg) led him to do it. Of course, Lee realized the error of his ways, accepted his repulse, & instead allowed McClellan to go, beginning the manuevers that would result in the victory at 2nd Manassas/Bull Run.
2 - Lee as overrated. While I think it is uncontestable that Lee was a brilliant tactician, he had his limitations as a grand strategist. For example, both of his invasions of the North proved costly & unwise, although I admit that there is an argument to be made for having attempted them. More to the point, his fixation upon the Eastern Theater & the ANV was a major factor in the feebleness of the Confederate response in the region the war was actually won - the West. Although Lee did occasionally permit troops to be detached from the ANV for use in the West, he always resisted the largescale transfers of men & materiel that may have reversed Confederate fortunes in the West. Late in the war, as General in Chief of the Confederacy, in order to keep the ANV able to defend Richmond, he authorized the thinning out of Confederate garrisons throughout the South (making them increasingly vulnerable to Union attack) & left the western Confederate armies as skeletons unable to exert any significant strategic strength. Perhaps Lee had no choice, but he never seems to have seriously considered the alternative to defending Richmond until it became completely indefensible. Grant proved the superior strategist, forcing Lee to commit to this defense, then committing Union troops to take advantage in all the places left weakened by Lee's decision.
3 - Lee swore an oath to the nation. One could argue that he should never have done this if he truly believed that he had a prior commitment to Virginia. While Lee's position was clearly the most common one among Virginians, it was not the only one. George Thomas for one believed that the oath he had sworn to the United States took precedence over his allegience to his home state. It pained him to do so, but Thomas felt he had no choice but to take arms against his fellow Virginians if they elected to take up arms against the Union. But HB is right - once confronted with the dilemma, Lee is morally off the hook by resigning. His oath then no longer had any force. In any event Lee, like Thomas, followed his conscience. No honorable man can do less.
4 - Lee's family owned slaves. One might want to note though that for a period so did Grant. When Grant lived in Missouri, not only did his wife's family own slaves, but Grant bought some in his own name. It was extremely hard for a man who lived in a slaveholding state in this era not to own a slave, as it was almost impossible to hire freemen to do the jobs usually associated with the slave labor force. Part of the tragedy of the antebellum South was this social restriction against certain types of labor. Poor Southern whites could not & would not improve their lot by taking certain types of employment as they were just socially unacceptable.
In any event, stating that Lee was racist & believed that blacks were inferior is an almost meritless statement. Only a handful of abolitionists believed any different. Lincoln himself believed quite strongly until very late in the war that, due to black inferiority, it would be impossible for blacks & whites to live together in an equal society. Thus he supported the colonization movement, that proposed to send the former slaves back to Africa after the successful conclusion of the war. Only the success of black soldiers in the Union army changed his mind. The "Cincinnatus at his plow" citizen-soldier paradigm that permeated American society at that time argued that those worthy of citizenship were those capable of fighting to defend it. Black soldiers, by proving themselves capable combatants, demonstrated to Lincoln the capacity of the race to play an equal role in society. But until that point, it was virtually a universally held assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Lee just held the beliefs of the majority of his time.
5 - Nat Turner is a personal project of mine, so it is probably wise that I leave him without comment...
For what its worth, here's my two cents. I think that a number of points can be made and distinguished in the prior postings.
1. I would disagree with the assertion that Grant's Vicksburg campaign was anything less than a complete, utter, and total victory. Grant out manuevered, outfought, and out generalled everyone he faced in the Western Theatre, even more so at Vicksburg. In my estimation, it was the most brilliant campaign of the entire war. Grant's losses were minimal and the result was the destruction of an entire Confederate Army.
2. A distinction can be made between Grant's attacks on Cold Harbor and Lee's assaults at the 7 Days. The distinction comes in the form of looking at the total context of the situation. At 7 Days, Lee's job was to drive the federal army down the Peninsula and off of it. Lee's opponent was McClellan, a man Lee knew to be a weak commander. All Lee had to do was push Mac and he was going to fold faster than a card house. In this context, Lee's attacks were not only effective, but warranted. I will, however, agree with the point that Malvern Hill was unnecessary and a major tactical loss. However, in its defense, the attack, further reinforced Mac's belief that Lee vastly outnumbered his army and hastened his retreat down the Peninsula. In the end the Confederates lost something like 2,300 men at Malvern Hill. While it may have been a tactical defeat, the overall purpose of driving the AoP away from Richmond was a success. At Cold Harbor, Grant tried to force a river crossing at a point that was heavily entrenched and well defended, albeit he had little knowledge of the particulars of the field before ordering the attack. The Cold Harbor debacle cost the federals some 13,000 men while the rebs lost something along the lines of 2,000. Here is the distinction. Cold Harbor did nothing to hasten Lee's withdrawal from Central Virginia. It did nothing to change the strategic position of either army. In effect, the assault was pointless, which is the distinction with Malvern Hill...aside from the massive casualty difference.
3. Many people have argued that Lee was overrated. Generally their reasoning comes this: All of his opponents up until Grant were idiots and once he faced Grant he was beaten. On the first point, it is true that many of Lee's opponents weren't top quality generals. It is also true that a good portion of the reason they have such a poor reputation is the completeness of Lee's victories over them. More than likely it is a combination of the incompetant opponents and brilliant moves on Lee's part. Just imagine these situations and tell me that Lee would not have made a difference. (a) 7 Days: McClellan v. Bragg/Johnston (assuming he never got injured); (b) 2nd Bull Run: Pope/McClellan v. Bragg/Johnston; (c) Chancellorsville: Hooker/Pope/McClellan/Burnside v. Bragg/Johnston; (d) 1864-5 Virginia Campaign: Grant v. Bragg/Johnston. The reason I use Bragg and Johnston is that in 1862 they were the respective commanders of the 2 major Confederate armies in the Western and Eastern theatres. Take away Lee, and the war most likely ends in 1862 or 1863.
Overrated...maybe in the sense that he was/is idolized in the South...but if you're gonna have heros coming out of that war, I can hardly think of a better choice.
On a side note, I also grew up in Virginia, ironically 5 minutes away from Fort Lee (named after the great general) and Petersburg. If any of you get a chance to travel, take a look at the battlefields around Richmond and Petersburg. They are amazing sights.
jbs
1. I would disagree with the assertion that Grant's Vicksburg campaign was anything less than a complete, utter, and total victory. Grant out manuevered, outfought, and out generalled everyone he faced in the Western Theatre, even more so at Vicksburg. In my estimation, it was the most brilliant campaign of the entire war. Grant's losses were minimal and the result was the destruction of an entire Confederate Army.
2. A distinction can be made between Grant's attacks on Cold Harbor and Lee's assaults at the 7 Days. The distinction comes in the form of looking at the total context of the situation. At 7 Days, Lee's job was to drive the federal army down the Peninsula and off of it. Lee's opponent was McClellan, a man Lee knew to be a weak commander. All Lee had to do was push Mac and he was going to fold faster than a card house. In this context, Lee's attacks were not only effective, but warranted. I will, however, agree with the point that Malvern Hill was unnecessary and a major tactical loss. However, in its defense, the attack, further reinforced Mac's belief that Lee vastly outnumbered his army and hastened his retreat down the Peninsula. In the end the Confederates lost something like 2,300 men at Malvern Hill. While it may have been a tactical defeat, the overall purpose of driving the AoP away from Richmond was a success. At Cold Harbor, Grant tried to force a river crossing at a point that was heavily entrenched and well defended, albeit he had little knowledge of the particulars of the field before ordering the attack. The Cold Harbor debacle cost the federals some 13,000 men while the rebs lost something along the lines of 2,000. Here is the distinction. Cold Harbor did nothing to hasten Lee's withdrawal from Central Virginia. It did nothing to change the strategic position of either army. In effect, the assault was pointless, which is the distinction with Malvern Hill...aside from the massive casualty difference.
3. Many people have argued that Lee was overrated. Generally their reasoning comes this: All of his opponents up until Grant were idiots and once he faced Grant he was beaten. On the first point, it is true that many of Lee's opponents weren't top quality generals. It is also true that a good portion of the reason they have such a poor reputation is the completeness of Lee's victories over them. More than likely it is a combination of the incompetant opponents and brilliant moves on Lee's part. Just imagine these situations and tell me that Lee would not have made a difference. (a) 7 Days: McClellan v. Bragg/Johnston (assuming he never got injured); (b) 2nd Bull Run: Pope/McClellan v. Bragg/Johnston; (c) Chancellorsville: Hooker/Pope/McClellan/Burnside v. Bragg/Johnston; (d) 1864-5 Virginia Campaign: Grant v. Bragg/Johnston. The reason I use Bragg and Johnston is that in 1862 they were the respective commanders of the 2 major Confederate armies in the Western and Eastern theatres. Take away Lee, and the war most likely ends in 1862 or 1863.
Overrated...maybe in the sense that he was/is idolized in the South...but if you're gonna have heros coming out of that war, I can hardly think of a better choice.
On a side note, I also grew up in Virginia, ironically 5 minutes away from Fort Lee (named after the great general) and Petersburg. If any of you get a chance to travel, take a look at the battlefields around Richmond and Petersburg. They are amazing sights.
jbs
Re: A 3rd Point of View
The war could be lost in the west, but could it be really won there? it was the "insane" proximity of the opposing capitals that really drew attention to the eastern theatre.
I've always respected Lee as a strategist as much as a tactician. His invasions of the north had to have had Washington as one of their goals, but he planned to do it by manoeuvring around behind the capital etc. The "indirect" approach.
The war could be lost in the west, but could it be really won there? it was the "insane" proximity of the opposing capitals that really drew attention to the eastern theatre.
I've always respected Lee as a strategist as much as a tactician. His invasions of the north had to have had Washington as one of their goals, but he planned to do it by manoeuvring around behind the capital etc. The "indirect" approach.
beg to differ
Agelastus,
You know alot and I respect your responses, but i beg to differ here.
There was no indirect approach used in Picketts charge. Grant was not allowed by Lincoln to try an amphibious landing as he wanted to do. Grant wanted to land in North Carolina and come up from South.
What caused Lee to evacuate Richmond was not Grant, but rather Sherman coming up from South.
Agelastus,
You know alot and I respect your responses, but i beg to differ here.
There was no indirect approach used in Picketts charge. Grant was not allowed by Lincoln to try an amphibious landing as he wanted to do. Grant wanted to land in North Carolina and come up from South.
What caused Lee to evacuate Richmond was not Grant, but rather Sherman coming up from South.