U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2019, 01:01 PM
 
437 posts, read 284,386 times
Reputation: 494

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Okay, I see now that the problem is that you have a limited knowledge of what actually happened, otherwise you would not be writing the above. Grant, as directed by President Lincoln, had a firm understanding that at all times, the target was to be Lee's army, not Richmond. The loss of their capitol would have hurt the Confederacy, but it didn't necessarily have to be a mortal blow. The capitol could be shifted. However, if Lee's army was eliminated, it would not matter where the capitol was or in whose hands. As long as it had a martial army in the field, the Confederacy could claim that it was viable. Remove that army and you remove the viability of the government which it was protecting.

Lincoln had reached the conclusion that a war of attrition was unavoidable if the Union was to be saved. It was Lincoln who came up with the term "the terrible arithmetic" to describe the dynamic which was needed. After the Union loss at Chancelorsville, Lincoln pointed out that despite having lost the battle, if it was fought again the next day, and again the day after that, the northern army would remain a formidable host, while the rebel army would be reduced to almost nothing. Lincoln was frustrated with his generals who fought, and then retreated, he wanted someone who would be relentless in his pursuit of Lee's army. He wanted someone who understood that "terrible arithmetic." Grant understood.

How is it that Lee got pinned into Petersburg? Answer, because he couldn't let the north take Richmond. Think about it, Grant could of still gotten to Petersburg without the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor and the same thing would have happened. He didn't need to destroy Lee's army. I know that's what the history books read, but what actually happened? The siege destroy Lee's army. I give Grant credit for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2019, 08:25 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,104 posts, read 9,857,633 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjinnj View Post
Where did I say without bloodshed? I did not. You are making up your own narrative.


If Grant was so brilliant why could he have not maneuvered Lee down to Petersburg without costly charges such as Cold Harbor? McClellan managed to get much closer to Richmond with the Peninsula Campaign without major losses. How is it Sherman could take Atlanta with any direct engagements and Grant not only had direct engagements, but 3 out of the top 11 of the war? To answer your question, Grant could have maneuvered him down there. After each senseless battle, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor, he did just that.

If you bother to reply, don't duck my questions.
A lot of what you are asking has to do not so much with Grant but with the difference between the two top Southern commanders, Robert E Lee and Joseph E Johnston.

Johnston was a good defensive commander, a decent army organizer and was loved by his men. Johnston thought his most important mission was to keep his army intact and was only willing to launch a major attack (he did launch smaller attacks) if Sherman made a major mistake. However, because Johnston was primarily defensive and Sherman made few mistakes, Sherman was able to take his larger army and maneuver parts of it around Johnston, slowly forcing Johnston back to Atlanta. In my opinion, both generals fought the Atlanta campaign very well.

In contrast, Lee was much more willing to launch costly assaults then Johnston. If I remember right, it was not Grant that attacked at the Wilderness, it was Lee. Grant was just trying to get through the Wilderness quickly and break into open ground. Lee decided to attack Grant while the Army of the Potomac was still traveling through the forest.

Here is the DIFFERENCE with Grant. Lee won a victory over Grant at the Wilderness as he did a year earlier to Fighting Joe Hooker. The difference was that while Hooker retreated, Grant kept going. Lee beat him in a tactical victory but Grant realized that he still had the bigger army, better artillery, better supplies and more replacements then Lee. None of the other Federal commanders of the Army of the Potomac realized or acted upon that fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2019, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Elysium
6,510 posts, read 3,588,947 times
Reputation: 4513
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjinnj View Post
and the Army of Tennessee wasn't?
Nope the Army of Northern Virginia threatened Washington DC. While the Confederacy could abandon its capitol and survive the Union probably could not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:15 PM
 
7,242 posts, read 3,743,047 times
Reputation: 3747
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat View Post
George Custer anyone ?

Talk about a jerk.....his wife once gave him a red flannel shirt for his birthday, a Hand Made one at that, he gathered his friends around and publicly mocked her saying that a red shirt will make him a stand out target on the battlefield.....

Talk about ego....does anyone who was around during the civil war victory parade of 1865 remember his showboating with his horse, trick riding more fit for a circus than a solemn national event?

Smarts? He was last in his class at West Point when the Civil War Started, but hey, at least he was there.

Talk about Losing a war........Don't have to.The Indian I mean the NATIVE AMERICANS tell it better than I could and rightly so.

Custer has slipped in the level of heroism and continues to do so.


Although I do not know if He qualifies for the list. While he was mustered out as a Major General in 1865 he was a Lt COL when he was put back into the Infamous 7th Cavalry.
I won`t defend the indefensible Custer but he was last in his class at West Point mostly because of his demerits. He was a brave man who led form the front but often lost good men by the dozens taking a position that he could have taken with a flanking maneuver. He was all about Custer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,366 posts, read 18,468,173 times
Reputation: 18551
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
I won`t defend the indefensible Custer but he was last in his class at West Point mostly because of his demerits. He was a brave man who led form the front but often lost good men by the dozens taking a position that he could have taken with a flanking maneuver. He was all about Custer.
Custer's Civil War record was actually outstanding, and while he was an aggressive commander, he was certainly not some reckless charge-every-problem sort. He kept his men under discipline in the field, and was especially talented at extracting his command from dicey situations. I suggest you read some material about his Civil War career, you will see that he was successful and well respected, not the one tactic fits all maniac which seems to be promoted by those unfamiliar with the actual facts.

His record as an Indian fighter is something else, but he was an excellent Civil War general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 05:37 PM
 
7,242 posts, read 3,743,047 times
Reputation: 3747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Custer's Civil War record was actually outstanding, and while he was an aggressive commander, he was certainly not some reckless charge-every-problem sort. He kept his men under discipline in the field, and was especially talented at extracting his command from dicey situations. I suggest you read some material about his Civil War career, you will see that he was successful and well respected, not the one tactic fits all maniac which seems to be promoted by those unfamiliar with the actual facts.

His record as an Indian fighter is something else, but he was an excellent Civil War general.
I never implied that he was a reckless charge-every-problem sort and I`ve probably read 600-800 CW books and his name and his deeds I`ve read often. I`ve been to East Cavalry Field In Gettysburg more than once and I do have an appreciation for his accomplishments on that field and others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top