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.
Where did I say superior? Oh, that's right I didn't.
But since you asked. How about not doing anything (just holding Lee in Virginia) and just waiting until Sherman's army marched up the coast from Georgia after he took Atlanta and Hood decided to destroy his own army?
Oh, I see. Your grand tactics are....do nothing. And you also seem to think that holding Lee in Virginia did not involve doing anything? Exactly how was Grant to hold Lee in place without having to have first fought his way to Petersburg? The greatest attrition involved getting there, not being there.
I'm going to question the legitimacy of any list of bad American generals which fails to include General William Hull. He is the fellow who during the War of 1812, surrendered his entire force defending Detroit without putting up a fight, to an inferior force which was running a bluff.
But he has an excuse. He had a paranoid fear of having his body mutilated by Indians. they had an unfair advantage because they captured his diary and knew about this paranoia. Psychological warfare at its best.
I do dwell on Grant vs Lee a bit because I don't think the overland campaign was necessary. I agree he was much more successful earlier out West.
Why wasn't it necessary? I'm trying to figure that one out.
Further, comparing the two campaigns is pointless. In the West, you had a sprawling theater with enormous room to maneuver, a large river system, less concentration of forces, and a host of other factors. So it was quite possible to have a war characterized by mobility.
Meanwhile, in Northern Virginia, you had a much larger concentration of forces essentially battering each other on a 60-80 mile front, constrained by the Shenandoah Mountains.
Had Grant not pounded away at the Army of Northern Virginia, straining Lee's forces to the breaking point, the war might have gone on indefinitely and actually cost far more lives. In that sense, Grant was an adept general who understood the unique strategic needs of each individual theater and planned accordingly.
Oh, I see. Your grand tactics are....do nothing. And you also seem to think that holding Lee in Virginia did not involve doing anything? Exactly how was Grant to hold Lee in place without having to have first fought his way to Petersburg? The greatest attrition involved getting there, not being there.
This was the first thought off the top of my head. Did I call it grand? No, you did. So now your "grand" response was Lee was going to leave Virginia defenseless and head south to face Sherman and not expect Grant to take Richmond?
Why wasn't it necessary? I'm trying to figure that one out.
Further, comparing the two campaigns is pointless. In the West, you had a sprawling theater with enormous room to maneuver, a large river system, less concentration of forces, and a host of other factors. So it was quite possible to have a war characterized by mobility.
Meanwhile, in Northern Virginia, you had a much larger concentration of forces essentially battering each other on a 60-80 mile front, constrained by the Shenandoah Mountains.
Had Grant not pounded away at the Army of Northern Virginia, straining Lee's forces to the breaking point, the war might have gone on indefinitely and actually cost far more lives. In that sense, Grant was an adept general who understood the unique strategic needs of each individual theater and planned accordingly.
Why did Grant need to engage Lee in The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, or Cold Harbor at all and not just maneuver his army around and attempt to reach Richmond before Lee? He could of still ended up with same siege around Petersburg without the senseless loss of tens of thousands of men. After all Sherman was able to capture Atlanta with just maneuvering and no full scale engagements.
This was the first thought off the top of my head. Did I call it grand? No, you did. So now your "grand" response was Lee was going to leave Virginia defenseless and head south to face Sherman and not expect Grant to take Richmond?
It doesn't matter what the strategy is called, what matters is that you ducked the question. You obviously have no alternative to offer, at least not one that makes any sense. Doing nothing is not a war winning strategy. Further, I wrote nothing at all about Lee leaving Virginia, you are arguing with a phantom, which I suppose is the only argument that you might win.
No more ducking, no more fake assignments of positions not taken, either you have a strategy that would have ended the war with fewer casualties, or you do not. If you do, you have so far failed to produce it. You suggested "holding Lee in Virginia" while waiting for Sherman to come up, but you failed to provide us with a plan for how this could have been achieved without bloodshed. How was Grant to have cornered Lee at Petersburg without fighting his way south?
Why did Grant need to engage Lee in The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, or Cold Harbor at all and not just maneuver his army around and attempt to reach Richmond before Lee? He could of still ended up with same siege around Petersburg without the senseless loss of tens of thousands of men. After all Sherman was able to capture Atlanta with just maneuvering and no full scale engagements.
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.
It doesn't matter what the strategy is called, what matters is that you ducked the question. You obviously have no alternative to offer, at least not one that makes any sense. Doing nothing is not a war winning strategy. Further, I wrote nothing at all about Lee leaving Virginia, you are arguing with a phantom, which I suppose is the only argument that you might win.
No more ducking, no more fake assignments of positions not taken, either you have a strategy that would have ended the war with fewer casualties, or you do not. If you do, you have so far failed to produce it. You suggested "holding Lee in Virginia" while waiting for Sherman to come up, but you failed to provide us with a plan for how this could have been achieved without bloodshed. How was Grant to have cornered Lee at Petersburg without fighting his way south?
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.
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.
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.
