Posted on 01/17/2019 8:15:01 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Grant used what he had to maximum perfection. His 6 week overland campaign had heavy losses but not nearly as many as if the war had continued. Ultimately he saved lives. Those are the hard decisions a great general must make. And Lee had a higher percentage of casualties. When brilliant tactics were called for he used them. His Vicksburg campaign was the greatest tactical campaign of the war. His whole objective during the Overland campaign was to hold Lees army in place and act as the anvil to Sherman’s hammer. And it completely worked. In every instance he did what was necessary to win.
Don’t know about that - Wallace finally arriving on the field probably gave him what he needed. Certainly the arrival of Buel helped considerably.
“Had Sedgwick reinforced Meade like Meade was begging, Jackson would have been rolled up like a blanket.”
I don’t think so. But, that is why history is so interesting: “What Ifs” and “If Onlys” give us the opportunity to go back in time and “work things out.” I love it.
The point here is that Grant had huge advantages over Lee. If the supporting structures were equal between them, Lee would have likely won.
That’s a point we can certainly agree on. The “what-If’s” in the Battle of Gettysburg alone probably insure it will be the most discussed and debated battle in American history.
There were six other generals who had the same advantages as Grant over Lee and they couldn’t get it done. And Lee had his own advantages which he, and Jefferson Davis, refused to utilyze.
Even Mary Lincoln said Grant was a butcher.
And yet while Grant and Lee commanded armies for about the same length of time - Grant actually commanded them a few months longer - it was Lee who had the greatest number of total casualties during the war. So who was really the butcher?
So this makes Grant better than them, but it does not make Grant better than Lee. To see who is better, it needs must be a fair fight.
Winning with a huge advantage is less impressive than winning with even odds, or worse odds.
Had he Grant's manpower advantage, he would likely have had fewer casualties. Fighting a war of attrition tends to create casualties, especially on the weaker side.
So who was really the butcher?
Lincoln, who forced the war to happen.
And you quickly retreat back to fantasyland.
To all who appreciate nobility in the human character, he will remain a beloved example.
And Lee had the major advantage of being able to fight the entire war on the defensive if he chose, whereas the north had to take the offensive. Had he chose to take advantage of this from the outset and not be so concerned with preserving Richmond at all costs, this would have easily offset the North’s numerical advantages. And it wasn’t numerical advantages that allowed Grant to steal a march on Lee after Cold Harbor, cross the Rappahanpock river unmolested and essentially end the war. Every General enters a campaign with certain advantages and disadvantages. What they do with them is the measure of their generalship.
Meanwhile, today we can celebrate Benjamin Franklin’s birthday.
And you keep dodging my question. Why did anyone want the D@mn slave states anyway?
Not if he wanted to accomplish his objective, which was to win independence for the South. The North could keep sending men at him till his army was destroyed, and Lee knew it. His only hope of accomplishing his goal was to diminish Northern will to keep the war going, and the only way he could do that would be to make them think it was either unwinnable, or not worth the cost of winning. That's what his foray into Pennsylvania was all about. He meant to convince Northern civilians that not only was the South not defeated, it was capable of launching a foray into their territory. The reality was that they were near the end of their rope from resource exhaustion.
Had a few things gone differently, Lee may very well have pulled the whole thing off. He had some compounded bad luck.
Custer actually tried to carry the terms of the surrender to Gen. Longstreet, who looked at him and asked an aide who that twerp was.
Although, while that was presumptuous of Custer, he actually had acquitted himself well during his tenure.
Also Grant is wearing the wrong uniform. On that day he was wearing an informal officers sack coat uniform, not a frock coat.
His normal uniform was a normal infantryman’s jacket, pretty much unadorned. Old wives tale. Grant was wearing an officers “sack” coat. It is similar to the Union Army fatigue coat, in that it is a short loose fitting coat. Grants would have be tailored for him and probably had black velvet cuffs and collars. It would have the buttons double breasted. He would have also worn the shoulder straps of a Lieutenant General. These types of coats became popular Union officers in the latter part of the war.
“His normal uniform was a normal infantryman’s jacket, pretty much unadorned”. Old wives tale. Grant was wearing an officers “sack” coat. It is similar to the Union Army fatigue coat, in that it is a short loose fitting coat. Grants would have be tailored for him and probably had black velvet cuffs and collars. It would have the buttons double breasted. He would have also worn the shoulder straps of a Lieutenant General. These types of coats became popular Union officers in the latter part of the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.