Posted on 06/03/2019 5:19:21 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Union General George Meade launches 3 corps of his Army of the Potomac against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia’s works near Cold Harbor. Meade’s assault is a failure. Over 7000 Union casualties and not one foot of ground gained. Lieutenant General Grant, in ordering Meade to make the attack, called it the worst mistake he ever made.
Only if the can use those assets properly.
How hard is it to use the Navy to carry your troops and logistics? Did Vicksburg have a Navy to stop those ships?
You have to conceive of the plan first. Grant did that.
Once across he defeated two confederate armies and drove one of them back into the city of Vicksburg.
In the pantheon of stupid interpretations, CVA’s is surpassed only by yours. Only you could raise ineptitude to a fine skill!
Only because he had the Navy to call on. Could he have defeated these two armies without being carried around to the back of them?
If the situation were reversed, could Grant have won when someone brought in their Navy assets to ferry their troops and logistics into a position where they could not get otherwise?
Grant won because he had the Navy. He could not have won with an even contest.
Yes, Admiral David Dixon Porter had a very stupid interpretation. He said every ship would have been sunk, and obviously that's just silly. What does a Union Admiral know about ships and cannons anyway?
Of course those ships would have gone in there, blown the h3ll out of all those Confederate cannon emplacements, and then proceeded to reinforce Sumter. Sure, that's what would have happened.
None of those ships would have been destroyed by the withering fire of those shore batteries which were put in place to destroy ships attempting to enter the harbor.
Admiral David Dixon Porter was just some idiot mouthing off about all those ships getting destroyed.
The operative words are Grant won. Vicksburg fell. A serious blow to the Confederate strategic position in the Western theater. War is never an even contest.
Clearly he won because he had superior resources.
Lee had wanted to push north on several occasions before Gettysburg but had been unable to for one reason or another.
And the Union’s scorched earth policy was simply war at its ugliest, no different than the Allied bombings of Dresden or even the nuclear attacks on Japan. Sheridan was equally brutal in the Shenandoah.
But I agree Grant was in the right place at the right time. Once he assumed command of the Union forces, the war became less about tactics than arithmetic.
It appears to me that it was hard to get Southern support for a Northern invasion. Many southerners obviously wanted to take the fight to the North and Lee knew that it had to be done in order to win, although the majority of southerners didn’t buy off on it. As an alternative, it appears that Lee hoped to hold out until the North would negotiate an acceptable truce. I think it can be effectively argued that Lee was much smarter than Grant but his Army had finally run out of steam by the time Grant came along so, since history is written by those that prevail, Grant is portrayed as a hero and Lee is portrayed as the villain.
So you give Grant no credit for the underlying strategy of running the Vicksburg gauntlet with his war ships and then transporting his army across the Mississippi, cutting itself off from its supply lines, and then outfighting and out-maneuvering both Johnston and Pemberton in a series of battles resulting in Pemberton's army trapped in Vicksburg and Johnston's army impotent in Mississippi? Congratulations! That puts you in opposition with just about every historian to every study the Vicksburg campaign. Not at all surprising.
What would he have been able to do to take Vicksburg without those ships?
Grant took advantage of the tools available, just like every great military commander does.
Given your preconceived notions nobody could explain it to you in a way that would change your thinking.
There’s a lot of truth to that, but I don’t thing Robert E. Lee is seen as a villain, except by a handful of revisionists and bigots who hate America in general. I’m a Yankee and I have nothing but respect for General Lee — and most of the Confederate commanders for that matter.They were, for the most part, honorable men, as were their Union counterparts.
Clearly he won because he had superior resources.
Then would you also say that there were no exceptional generals or admirals on the U.S. side during World War 2? Or World War 1? Or the Gulf War?
Agreed. I have to admit that my view is a little jaundiced though. Since I’m from Oklahoma, I’ve been surrounded by the 5 Tribes who, even though they were very sophisticated at the time, we’re removed from their long held lands because other people wanted what they had. Also, hordes of Southerners went to Oklahoma to escape the reconstruction of the South. Many of them lost everything even though they may have had nothing to do with the war. Interestingly, the Indians are the cowboys and the Cowboys are the Indians in Oklahoma:). When one views the total picture, it simply appears to me that both of these events were instigated by a federal government beholden to greedy men in a quest for power and dominance over others. Kind of looks like what’s happening today.
Vicksburg had batteries on the bluffs above the river to prevent ships from passing. The Union command used daring as well as a dark, stormy night to run that gauntlet. Daring and using the element of surprise do not factor into making a good commander?
If superior resources alone are the reason for winning then why didn't Pope, McDowell, McClellan, or Rosecrans win?
But those same "superior resources" existed for Burnside, Pope, Hooker, and McClellan. How then can you explain that there wasn't much winning accomplished by these Generals ...
I do not rely on the opinions of others, especially others who are part of a "group think" which wishes to believe some particular thing, to form my own opinions.
I take it as a given that the vast majority of historians want to justify everything the Union did, and are not likely to be unbiased.
Grant took advantage of the tools available, just like every great military commander does.
Yes, when one has greatly superior military assets, one uses them. Do not mistake this for great "generalship." It's just a lopsided contest that a mediocre general could win.
Oh, and the Union army was never cut off from it's supply lines. Everything they needed was just a day away in Chicago, and they could have it as quick as they could want by ship.
Grant took advantage of the tools available, just like every great military commander does.
You may not have realized that the word "us" does not mean "I."
Explain to BroJoeK how getting 8 ships destroyed was a good idea.
Yes, it would be hard for you to convince me that sending 8 ships into withering fire power that would have sunk them all, was a good idea, but perhaps BroJoeK can understand how this plan is advantageous.
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.