[Old Teufel Hunden]

"This is too vague a description."

If you would like specifics, okay. Fredricksburg is one. He fought them to a standstill and some say a moral victory at Antitiem. Both of these battles, he got the Union Army to fight on his ground.

"extremely bloody frontal assault on Hooker's fortified position, while Jackson flanked the Union position."

Thanks for making my point. What won Chancellorsville? It was the flanking manuever by Stonewall that eventually cost him his life. This was exactly what I was thinking about when I talked about winning by guile and deception.

"leaving aside the fact that this is precisely the successful strategy that Grant pursued against Lee."

You called me out for being vague then you come back with a vague answer. That's funny. However, there is truth to the fact that Grant pursued a very bloody and frontal strategy. However, his bloody strategy in the end was combined with the fact that the south ran out of supplies to fight with. Lee could not get re-supplied and was outmanuevered and surrounded.

"So you've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy and also that seizing territory is a bad strategy."

No, I've argued that destroying armies is a bad strategy for winning a war. Wars are won by defeating the enemies will and or ability to fight. Defeating them politically or cutting off their ability to fight. Which goal would have achieved that more, you tell me? Defeating Meade's army or sacking Washington or Pittsburgh.

[wideawake]

This was exactly what I was thinking about when I talked about winning by guile and deception.

The frontal assault at Chancellorsville was accompanied by a flanking movement from Jackson.

The frontal assault at Gettysburg was intended to be accompanied by a flanking attack by Hampton and Stuart.

There was "guile and deception" at Gettysburg too. It was unsuccessful.

You called me out for being vague then you come back with a vague answer. That's funny.

It's not vague at all. Grant's strategy was quite specific: destroy the ANV.

However, his bloody strategy in the end was combined with the fact that the south ran out of supplies to fight with. Lee could not get re-supplied and was outmanuevered and surrounded.

Lee began Grant's Overland campaign with 65,00 men.

28,000 men surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

If Lee had been supplied in time and lived to fight another day, Grant would have pounded him again and made the ANV smaller again.

Lee running out of supplies was a good break for Grant, but if it hadn't worked out, Grant would have continued to pursue his strategy: destroy the ANV.

Which goal would have achieved that more, you tell me? Defeating Meade's army or sacking Washington or Pittsburgh.

Defeating Meade's army, which may have forced an evacuation of Washington.

Even then, I see no scenario under which the South would have won the war.

[X Fretensis]

Doubt that lee could have “sacked Washington DC” The city was heavily fortified and well manned. Besieging the City would have required a steady supply line for ammunition, provisions. It would also have locked lee into a position that he could not defend Richmond from the Union forces already on the Peninsula. Lee probably would not have even considered attacking Pittsburg, geographically 150 miles from Gettysburg over the Alleghany mountain. No line of communication with the Confederacy and no clear retreat path back to Virginia. Though he would probably endorsed this action by Bragg and the Army of the Tennessee.