[Badeye]

I vacationed in Charleston two years ago, and you are exactly correct.

By 1864, the war had evolved from the "gentleman's war" to the precursor to the trench warfare of WW1. The final death throes, like in every war, included unbelievable (to those of us looking back 140 years) actions on both sides.

Bottom line is the Civil War should have ended in a year. The only thing that kept the South in the war for four years was general ineptitude on the part of the Union generals. As Grant noted after the war, had some of the tactics employed by the CSA in the first two year been attempted in the later stages, such as Jackson's valley campaing, the result would have been the complete and total annihilation of the Southern forces involved.

[mass55th]

"The only thing that kept the South in the war for four years was general ineptitude on the part of the Union generals."

I totally agree with you. Although Sherman is reviled by many, he did what no other Union General had before him, that is, take the war to the people. His theory of destroying the South's ability & will to wage war will be debated for ages to come, but it worked.

Sherman utilized Confederate soldiers to remove mines they (the Rebels) had buried in roadways. I also remember reading about his placing Southern civilians on boats that could possibly come under attack of Rebel guns along the river. He did what he had to do to win the war, whether it was popular or not.

[x]

Bottom line is the Civil War should have ended in a year. The only thing that kept the South in the war for four years was general ineptitude on the part of the Union generals.

The Union army did have some very bad commanders, but the South was a large area, and the "science" of warfare still hadn't caught up with the new inventions of the era, like railroads and the telegraph. It would probably have taken more than a year to figure out how to win a modern war, even had all the commanders been as talented as Grant or Jackson.

A shorter war, over in a few months or a year or two would likely have been the prelude to a long guerilla struggle. Four years of war is exhausting and convinces the defeated that their cause is lost. A quicker result isn't as convincing, and doesn't discourage the losers from taking up partisan or guerrilla warfare. That's what we're seeing now.

[U S Army EOD]

If Grant and Sherman had been in charge of the Union Army at the start, the war would have been over in less than a year. It would have been a short blood bath but the Union would have won.

However if Lee had been in charge of the Union Army, which is what Lincoln wanted in the first place, the war would have been over in six months or less.

McCellan fought the early part of the war just like Johnson fought Vietnam.

[AGreatPer]

The thing that sill puzzles me about the Civil War is the great distances these men traveled on little or no roads.

It took me a long time to realize how they fed them, they pillaged farmers, but it must have been hell for both sides.

I live close to Gettysburg and have visited often. It still amazes me how they got there in the first place. I guess they took I-95? Yea, sure.

Just imagine walking from somewhere in the deep south to Pennsylvania. Awesome.