On this date in 1864

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

neither of which happened. They did fire on Fort Sumter though.

Their official orders said that they would. How foolish of the Confederates to believe that official orders would be followed.

[Bull Snipe]

The official orders were that force was not to be used if the Charleston authorities did not interfere with supplying the Fort with provisions. This is also what Lincoln told Governor Pickens in the letter sent to him by Seward.

[DiogenesLamp]

The official orders were that force was not to be used if the Charleston authorities did not interfere with supplying the Fort with provisions.

Nobody believe that would happen. As rustbucket has so kindly posted much of the dialogue going on in Lincoln's cabinet, it is clear that everyone expected Lincoln's fleet to start a war.

[Bull Snipe]

It would not have mattered what Lincoln’s intent was. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be resupplied under any circumstance. To do so would be a political disaster for him. Lincoln could have sent open canoes loaded with hardtack, salt pork and coffee, Davis would have fired on them. He knew firing on the fort or any resupply vessels would be war. To not fire would just kick the can down the road. Sumter and Pickens were the last vestiges of the old Union left in the new Confederacy. He was determined to end that presence, if it meant war, so be it.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "Indeed, but....Antietam?"

Appomattox Court House, obviously.

[jmacusa]

Yeah, but not before he and his girlfriend threw something off that bridge.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "He was also smarter than King George III in that he believed one war at a time was enough."

DiogenesLamp: "The British were trying to run an empire, and they were spread a bit thin.
Their arrogance may have occasionally bit them in the @$$, but it is a large part of why they were so successful at building that empire."

Bull Snipe: "Fully agree."

Fellows, I hate to join a love-fest with DiogenesLamp, but we're all Britophiles today, seriously.
We love the Brits in the same way we love our grandparents, yes, we know our parents had a, ahem, problem with them, back when our folks were teenagers, but all that is over now and we admire the Brits for qualities we hope we've fully inherited.

On the specific comparisons of Revolution to Civil War, by my estimations, the Brits did indeed put as much military & economic efforts over seven years as the Union did over four years, relatively speaking.
The British problem was, as DiogenesLamp suggests here, they were spread too thin.
Where Lincoln fought just one enemy on one continent already tied together with railroads, steamships, waterways and telegraph, the Brits in 1775 to 1781 fought not only Americans but also Europe's other super-powers -- France & Spain, plus Dutch & Asian Indians -- on four continents (North America, Europe, Africa, Asia-India) and three oceans/seas (Atlantic, Indian, Caribbean).
And all that without benefit of industrialization, rail, steam or telegraphs.

The importance of allies to our Founders can be seen in the fact that in 1776, soon after declaring independence, they sent their most world-renowned & beloved ambassador, a man of infinite charm and intelligence, a, ah, if you will, "propagandist" for Americans of the highest skills -- they sent him to the court of the one European super-power who could challenge the Brits on both land and sea.

Of course, you know it, they sent Franklin to France and Franklin's diplomacy in effect added roughly 50% to George Washington's military capabilities.

So, DiogenesLamp, while you are busy reimagining the US Civil War, you should fantasize that Confederates too had a Benjamin Franklin they could send to woo the Brits & French to their side in 1861.

What a difference one man can make!

[DoodleDawg]

I'm saying by the time the Rhoda Shannon came along, they really had no reason to trust anything Lincoln said or did.

And since Lincoln had no reason to believe there was any peaceful intent on the part of the Davis regime then he really had no choice but to use armed ships to resupply Sumter.

There was no such ship, or collection of ships that could have accomplished that. Porter rightly said that the Sumter expedition was doomed to failure from the beginning, and that if they had attempted to accomplish their mission, they would have all been sunk.

Only because the Confederacy wanted war.

[excalibur21]

The way Lincoln went through generals, there is enough evidence to argue that Grant simply came along at a time subsequent to a number of years of attrition. In other words, while he certainly wasn’t ignorant, he happened to be in the right place at the right time. If he was a genius, he would have also been a President with memorable accomplishments. Instead he was a one termer. He and General Sherman orchestrated Sherman’s “March to the Sea” which was a scorched earth policy that instituted a war on civilians in order to cut off supplies to the Southern armies. There was no Southern invasion of the North and there was little to no Southern support for it until Gettysburg. That only took place after Sherman’s March.

[excalibur21]

See post # 89.

[RightGeek]

Grant served 2 terms

[central_va]

I’ve been to Antietam in the day time and it gives me the creeps.

[central_va]

the USA would probably have become the CSA.

The end goal of the CSA was to never conqueror the USA. It's goal was to leave the union, not conquer it.

[central_va]

“When you have a four to one manpower advantage, and a huge industrial base to back you up, it’s inevitable that you will win in the long run.”

The lesson about the industrial base has been taken to heart by the Chinese.

[DoodleDawg]

In other words, while he certainly wasn’t ignorant, he happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Only if you ignore his performance prior to that. Grant had commanded armies since the beginning of 1862, had outmaneuvered his opponents and captured two whole armies in the field at Fort Donalson and at Vicksburg, cut the Confederacy in half, and beaten every general Davis sent against him.

If he was a genius, he would have also been a President with memorable accomplishments. Instead he was a one termer.

Grant served two terms.

He and General Sherman orchestrated Sherman’s “March to the Sea” which was a scorched earth policy that instituted a war on civilians in order to cut off supplies to the Southern armies.

And your point is?

There was no Southern invasion of the North and there was little to no Southern support for it until Gettysburg.

You seem to be forgetting Lee's campaign in Maryland in September 1862.

That only took place after Sherman’s March.

Gettysburg was July 1863. Sherman's March was the autumn of 1864.

[DiogenesLamp]

And since Lincoln had no reason to believe there was any peaceful intent on the part of the Davis regime then he really had no choice but to use armed ships to resupply Sumter.

Because sending 8 ships to be sunk in Charleston Harbor was a great idea.

What would have been the point of getting all those ships destroyed and all those men killed?

Explain this to us in a way that makes any sense.

[DiogenesLamp]

The end goal of the CSA was to never conqueror the USA. It's goal was to leave the union, not conquer it.

That is true, and if the CSA had actually had the necessary military might to have done it, they would have likely refrained from doing so because they had respect for the idea of self determination and would not seek to impose their governance on those who did not want it.

But my point was to reject the silly assertion that only those with sufficient military capabilities deserve freedom.

Everyone deserves freedom, regardless if they have the ability to win a fight for it or not.

[DiogenesLamp]

Only if you ignore his performance prior to that. Grant had commanded armies since the beginning of 1862, had outmaneuvered his opponents and captured two whole armies in the field at Fort Donalson and at Vicksburg, cut the Confederacy in half, and beaten every general Davis sent against him.

Having groups of Naval vessels which he could use to ferry his troops across the river made that possible. Once again, his great victory is more of a function of having superior assets to call on, and not so much due to his own abilities.

What would he have been able to do to take Vicksburg without those ships?

[Bull Snipe]

The simple fact is Grant conceived the plan, coordinated with the navy, carried out the plan and captured Vicksburg.
That’s what capable generals do. They plan, used the assets available and execute the plan.

[DiogenesLamp]

The simple fact is Grant conceived the plan, coordinated with the navy, carried out the plan and captured Vicksburg.

The simple fact is that Grant had a big Navy on which to call, and without which the plan would not have been possible.

That’s what capable generals do. They plan, used the assets available and execute the plan.

And a General with much greater assets almost always wins, but not as a consequence of their generalship. They win as a consequence of their much greater assets.