Civil War history re-examined

Times Herald ^ | 13 August 2002 | JUDY BACA

[wardaddy]

I would not lay all of the blame at Bragg's feet but I would grant him the lion's share. He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory more than once. His subordinates mistrusted his judgement with good reason.

[wardaddy]

Well said.

[wardaddy]

Nice synopsis.

[Non-Sequitur]

Grant had no more resources than McClellan or Hooker or Burnside or any other Army of the Potomac commander had. The thing that places him above Lee is the fact that Grant knew exactly what it would take to defeat Lee and then he divised a plan to do just that and stuck to it. Grant went after Lee in the spring of 1864 and put Lee on the defensive. Then he never let Lee up. From the time the two armies firs met in the Wilderness until he surrendered at Appomattox, Lee never once held the initiative. He constantly reacted to Grant rather than the other way around. The fact that it took Grant almost a year to finally finish Lee off speaks to Lee's abilities as a general. But in the end, Grant was the victor and for these reasons he has to be rated above Lee. IMHO, of course.

George Thomas was an able corps commander and army commander, but he never made his mark commanding a campaign on his own. He was under Rosecrans at Chickamauga, under Grant and Sherman at Chattanooga, and under Sherman at Atlanta. His actions during Hoods last campaign in Tennessee were good, but not good enough to break into the top 5 or so.

As for the rest, Sherman was good. I rank him number 4. Hooker, Buell, Rosecrans? Same level as Bragg, Johnston and Hood. Nowhere near the top 10. Meade was overshadowed by Grant so it's really hard to judge him on his own. He may have been an able army commander, but didn't match up with Lee. Grant did. Burnside? Even Burnside thought he had been promoted far above his abilities. Porter is a might-have-been, like Reynolds and a whole host of generals on both sides who were killed or had their careers derailed at some point. Who are we missing? We're missing a lot, on both sides. Sherman had a whole raft of excellent corps and division commanders who nobody hears of because they fought in the west. Logan, Blair, McPherson, Crittenden were but few.

All in all, I think that the Union Army was every bit as strong, or stronger, than the confederacy at the brigade, corps and division level. At the army level, I have to give it to the Union because looking at the confederat Generals then it's clear that it's Robert E. Lee and the seven dwarfs. No other confederate general came close to Lee, and damned few Union ones. That's why Lee is third, and I don't mind ranking confederates 2 out of the top 3. But it's Grant at number 2 that made Northern victory inevitable.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think you are too harsh on the confederate army. In spring of 1864 they were certainly as strong as they had been the year before. The difference was Grant knew how to beat them. He took them on the moment he made contact and never let up. He took a bloody nose and instead of retreating and allowing Lee to regroup, he went back on the offensive and tried to flank him. Lee never once held the upper hand for the rest of the war. He reacted rather than acted. In Grant he had the one opponent that he feared the most. One he couldn't out-think.

Grant won many of his victories against lesser men. The same can be said about Lee, with the exception that Lee also lost to lesser men. Grant didn't. Grant took on all comers and fought them to a standstill before beating them.

Grant took risks where risks were called for. In 1863 he crossed the Mississippi south of Vicksburg, severing his line of retreat. He proceeded to fight seven battles in nine days, winning every one of them, and pinning Pemberton into Vicksburg where he surrounded and finally forced him to surrrender. That is a heck of a risk, one which could have resulted in disaster for a lesser commander. But Grant pulled it off.

Forrest was a great cavalry commander, winner of battle after battle, and a general who embarassed the Union tima and again. And for all that, Memphis still fell, Vicksburg still fell, Atlanta still fell. His individual heroics don't disguise the fact that from a strategic standpoint he accomplished very little. Put Forrest in command befor Sherman or Grant and he wouldn't have done any better than Lee or Johnston or Hood.

[Non-Sequitur]

The confederate army in the west was a snakepit of mediocre commanders who all thought that they could do a better job that whoever was in charge at the time, true enough. But Bragg was a notoriously difficult person to get along with and one whose health was more precarious than A.P. Hill's. Bragg fails as a leader of an army, even though he was a very sound tactician.

[PirateBeachBum]

Your opinion has validity, but players on losing teams are still recognized for their individual accomplishments.

[stainlessbanner]

The thing that places him above Lee is the fact that Grant knew exactly what it would take to defeat Lee

Yep - the numbers game. Lee knew it, Grant knew it. The Southland was losing her supply of young men and great leaders!

[Non-Sequitur]

He wasn't wrong, was he? He also knew that he couldn't allow Lee time to catch his breath and regroup. That was another inidcation of the genius of his strategy.

[stainlessbanner]

Grant was no genius. He looked at his predecessors and their reluctance to "finish the job"; he counted the number of soldiers on both sides and the Union had more.

He slammed against Lee, time after time at a horrible cost. Determined, he was; effective, too.

But a genius, Grant ain't!

[x]

Lee was accused of butchery and taking unnecessary losses during the battles which saved Richmond in 1862. When it matters to them commanders will suffer those losses. That was also the case with Grant (and Lee) in 1864. There was a lot at stake. Also, one has to take into account the fact that Lee had the home advantage in most of his battles and Grant had to overcome it.

More interesting, perhaps, are this "Captain Happypants" and "Woody." Do tell more ...

[Non-Sequitur]

If your complaint is about the body count, then compare Lee's body count with that of the Union army when Lee was on the offensive. I think you'll find that Lee's was higher there, too. But that is the price you pay to maintain the upper hand. With Grant constantly attacking he forced Lee to react to him rather than the other way around. An army forced to react rather than act is not going to win, regardless of who is in charge. Lee was never able to gain the initiative over Grant. That wasn't due to bad luck on the part of the confederates, but good generalship on the part of the North.

[sonofron]

"Hannibal, having won four great unanswered victories, suddenly found himself in a bad jam because of the latent power of the Roman patronage system -- a political problem that required large applications of silver solvent, which the Carthaginians reneged, to their ultimate ruin."

I would venture to say Hannibal's forces were the closest anyone evercame to defeating Rome. Of course he assumed the romans in Italy would greet him with open arms once he showed up and whiped a few legions. Yes, his backside was left open(no support from Carthage) and the romans countered with a direct attack on carthage. But History immortalizes Hannibal because he was the worst enemy the romans had, besides themselves. Unlike the germanic or gual tribes before and after him, he was aiming to occupy Rome and make it a province of carthage, instead of seeking to plunder the city and leave. I compared Lee and Hannibal only on a similarity in which the wars went for them(success through most of the war and defeat in the end) and why people remember how they were great generals, not their personal lives before or after the wars they fought. That is a totally different thing. The battles Lee won are enough to conclude he was the best general of the civil war on both sides.

[sonofron]

yes, you are right. Simply winning battles doesn't win the war, But those victories are damn important. Would the british have kept fighting the american rebels for eight years had they not won any battles? Would the French have jumped in and supported the rebels had saratoga not been won? Winning battles is the next most important thing to winning wars. Winning battles is the way most field generals are measured. Of course other qualities help, like in Washington's case. Washington inspired his men and kept moral up, loss after loss. I believe Washington only won two battles, trenton and yorktown(washington was a great general, but not the greatest general of the revolution).

[Conan the Librarian]

Many Moon ago....in the dark days of the impeachment, someone here called Clinton and AlGore "Captain Happypants and his sidekick 'Woody'" It kinda stuck.

[Colt .45]

Whereas Lee may not've shone brillance at a few things, he was a master of large troop movements and tactics. Still, the Napoleonic tactics he was using were what was the norm during that time. Yes, his junior Generals were essential, but without Lee's mind and experience they couldn't have accomplished half of what they did! Grant on the other hand was not known for caring too much for the welfare of his men. How many men did he waste at Cold Harbor in useless frontal assaults against fortified positions? Meade?! Pretty timid and cautious. Hancock was a good leader.

Despite what your assertion is, Lee is much better than this author is trying to make him out to be.

[Brices Crossroads]

"I think you are too harsh on the Confederate Army"

On what do you base your assertion that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was as strong in the spring of 1864 as it had been in the spring of 1863. Do you think it was stronger for having lost Stonewall Jackson? Dorsey Pender? John Bell Hood?( severely wounded at Gettysburg and never really the same) Do you think that the 28,000 irreplaceable casualties sustained at Gettysburg made it stronger? In Pickett's division alone,of the 13 colonels, 7 were killed and 6 were seriously wounded. Two of the three brigadier generals (Armistead and Garnet,both fine commanders) were killed.In truth,the Gettysburg campaign destroyed the last offensive striking power of the ANV. It was, from that point on, a one dimensional force, that is: defensive.

After Gettysburg, no longer would the Union Commander(whoever it might be) have to fear a Confederate counterstroke such as those delivered at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville.

The army Grant faced had fewer than 55,000 men to his army of 120,000. How in the world can you say that it was "certainly as strong as the year before."

"He took a bloody nose"

Correction,my friend. Grant did not take a bloody nose. His troops did. In the first month of the spring 1864 campaign,he lost over 50,000 men, half as many as the Army of the Potomac had lost during th previous 3 YEARS of the war. Mary Lincoln called him a butcher and opined that she could fight an army as well herself.

"Grant won many of his victories against lesser men."

That's true in a sense. But he won ALL of his victories against lesser armies. He had superior numbers every time. You can't personify these things unless you want to even the odds. Grant did not personally win any battles.The Union Army did and, under Grant, they took horrendous casualties to do so. A great general does not turn in long casualty lists. Lee can be faulted too in this regard for his bloody frontal assaults during the Seven Days and at Gettysburg,but he can be excused as well because he felt the imperative to drive the Yankees away from Richmond and to win the big victory on Northern Soil,respectively. There is no way to excuse Grant's excesses in the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor,unless he was waging a war of attrition (2 yankees sacrificed to kill one rebel). And waging a war of attrition does not qualify one as a great commander. Especially against an Army that has no offensive striking power. Had Grant faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and had he prevailed, he would perhaps deserve the praise you heap upon him. Had he faced Jackson, it is just as likely that his predictable tactics would have resulted in the demise of his army. He was willing to commit his army totally, unlike the previous Union Commanders, who were concerned(and justifiably so) with Jackson's Corps. Had Grant charged into Virginia and begun his flanking maneuvers, he might have found that a confederate counterstroke by Jackson would have bloodied more than his nose.

"Put Forrest in command before Sherman or Grant and he would not have done any better"

Of course, this is pure speculation. I, and many military historians, think that Forrest was one of the very few authentic military geniuses produced by the Civil War. At Chickamauga, for example, do you doubt that Forrest would have pursued the Army of the Cumberland, which was in disarray, and retaken Chattanooga? Forrest was exasperated with Bragg and pleaded with him(as did Longstreet) to pursue Rosecrans, but Bragg did nothing.

"From a strategic standpoint, he accomplished very little"

If, by that, you mean he did not defeat Union Armies numbering 70-80,000 men, you are right. No one could do that with 3500 cavalry. But, if he had been given an Army of 40,000, it is entirely likely that he could have slowed, if not reversed, the Confederate disasters in the West.

[Non-Sequitur]

On what do you base your assertion that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia was as strong in the spring of 1864 as it had been in the spring of 1863.

Lee took 57,500 men into the field at Chancellorsville. He took 62,000 into the Wilderness. Losses in commanders were high on both sides during the period. It wasn't the loss of commanders like Pender and Armistead that put the ANV into a defensive mode, it was the actions of Grant and his unwillingness to let Lee rest and regroup. As a result, Grant paid a high price. That was true on both sides during the war. In 1862-63 the confederate army was on the offensive in 6 of the 9 major battles. Two of the six were clear confederate victories (Chancellorsville and Chickamauga) and one (Seven Days) was a strategic victory. In those 6 battles, confederate casualties outnumbered Union casualties by a rate of 3:2. Were Lee and Johnston bloody butchers? Does this mean that they weren't great commanders? Or was if forgiven because they won? Likewise when Grant was on the offensive his causalties were much higher than Lee's. But in the end he won.

Had Grant faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and had he prevailed, he would perhaps deserve the praise you heap upon him.

McClellan faced the ANV at its height, with Longstreet and Jackson, and he won. Meade faced the ANV at its height with Lee and Longstreet, and he won. Lee lost against lesser commanders. Grant didn't.

But, if he had been given an Army of 40,000, it is entirely likely that he could have slowed, if not reversed, the Confederate disasters in the West.

To use your own words that is pure spectulation. The history of the war is replete with examples of men who were outstanding division commanders but failed at corps commands, or who were great corps commanders but who were not up to running an army. To say that Forrest would have made a mark running an army is pure guesswork.

[lentulusgracchus]

Besides, if Lee was so "bad", why do they honor and teach him at West Point as one of the greatest American Generals?

That's what the self-proclaimed "anti-Neo-Confederates" want stopped. They want an official campaign of demonization of all former Confederate states and all the Confederates who served them, all monuments to be demolished, all favorable mention expunged -- what the Romans called "damnatio memoriae".

Why, would require someone better versed in Marxist theory than I am to explain.

Their spleneticism reminds me of the Neo-Nazi sites I've seen, their vigor and hostility toward both Christianity and Judaism. Real rancor like that leaves a taste in the mouth.

[Brices Crossroads]

McClellan Faced the ANV with 90,000 men and a copy of Lee's battle plan. Lee had less than 40,000 and the battle was a draw. In bloody battles of attrition such as Antietam, it is the numbers that distate the outcome, not the skill of the Generals.

The Confederate Army in 1864 lacked an offensive capacity. Lee actually had 75,000 men at Chancellorsville. He left 15,000 at Fredericksburg and took 60,000 with him to the West. But he could draw on those reserves. Also, Longstreet's corps of 20,000 was detached during Chancellorsville and out of the theatre, but Hooker did not know this. Grant knew that Lee's strength did not appraoch what it had been a year before. And it did not. I cannot believe you do not realize this. Your thesis is that Grant was great, and I suppose you do not want any facts to interfere with that proposition. Unfortunately, the facts are the facts.

Your thesis that being on the offensive yielded higher casualties is not true. Confederate casuaties at Chancellorsville and Second Mannassas were lower than the Union. I do not know how you are classifying offensive versus defensive battles. I think your stats are way off. Only in the 7 days and at Gettysburg were Confederate casualties higher than those of the Union and not by much even then. I do not know where you are getting your 3:2 ratio. It does not square with the facts.

Grant faced a significantly weakened army with far fewer excellent commanders. All the PR in the world cannot make him a great general. If MacArthur had attacked each of the Japanese held Islands instead of devisisng his island-hopping strategy,at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, he would by your claculation be a great general because he WON. Had he attacked the North Koreans down the peninsula instead of the brilliant Inchon landing behind their lines, he would have won, had he had a large enough American force, but with huge casualties. But if he won, he would receive the Grant award as a great general. There is one salient problem with your thesis that Grant is a great general. He has a bad habit of creating "Gold Star Mothers". For myself, I would prefer MacArthur, Patton, Jackson, Forrest and other truly great generals who use their wits to spare their men's lives. Leaving aside the 7 days and Picket's Charge, I think Lee would qualify as well. Although I do not rate him as high in military abilty as Jackson or Forrest.