What if: Lee vs. Army of the West Under Grant

[Mr. Debs]

Give me Lee's leadership with Grant's army.

[Daniel]

Give me Lee's leadership with Grant's army.

I'm of a different opinion:  That Lee is overrated and Grant underrated.

Lee was a brilliant tactician, but used the (Napoleonic) tactics of the past.  Grant was a brilliant strategist, who developed tactics of the future. 

When Grant became the supreme commander he moved armies in a coordinated manner so the actiions of each army benefited the other armies under Grant's command as well as contributed to the success of an all encompassing strategy.  Lee held a similar position, but never tried to move armies in a manner that one helped another or an all encompassing strategy.

In the Civil War, the defense had significant advantages.  Twice Lee tried to invade Northern territory and failed both times.  Grant, however, successfully invaded the South in both the West and the East.

Grant’s victories moved the North ever closer to ultimate victory.  Lee’s victories lacked similar long term gains—they only served to prolong the war.



 

[scout1067]

Lee never had command of more than the Army of Northern Virginia.  He could not direct the Army of the Tennessee to do anything.  He could request but not order.  Even the Conf. president had a hard time getting his army's to follow orders.

I personally think Grant would have handed Lee his hat with the Army of the West.  It took Grant months to get the Army of the Potomac into shape and lots of casualties for them to learn their lessons.

[Daniel]

Lee never had command of more than the Army of Northern Virginia. 

Not long before the war ended Lee became General-in-Chief of the Confederate armies.  It was a position similar to that Grant held as Lieutenant General and Lee, like Grant, had supreme command over all the armies of his nation. (If the Confederacy can properly be termed a nation).

IMHO Lee's promotion (which he reluctantly accepted) as the commanding general came so late in the war for it to have made no difference in the war's outcome.  That being said, Lee never tried (unlike Grant) to co-ordinate the actions of the various armies to assist one another.  Unlike Grant, Lee lacked the vision of what strategic cooperation between armies could accomplished. To the best of my knowledge, Lee (unlike Grant) never tried to do anything as a general in chief--which is probably why it is not generally known he held such a position.

-------------------

On January 31, 1865, Lee was promoted to general-in-chief of Confederate forces.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#General-in-chief

An Act to provide the appointment of a General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States:
“The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an office, who shall be known and designated as 'General in Chief,' who shall be ranking officer of the army, and as such, shall have command of the military forces of the Confederate States... General Robert E. Lee having been duly appointed General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States, will assume the duties thereof and will be obeyed and respected accordingly."
-- http://www.manhattanrarebooks-history.com/lee_general_in_chief.htm

[scout1067]

Because of the nature of the Confederate commanders Lee probably could not have coordinated his activities with other theaters even if he had wanted to.  Confederate generals were much more resistant to central authority than Union Generals.  Just look at the problems Davis had with the army of the Tennessee during the Atlanta campaign.  Johnston just did his own thing.

[Daniel]

Because of the nature of the Confederate commanders Lee probably could not have coordinated his activities with other theaters even if he had wanted to.  Confederate generals were much more resistant to central authority than Union Generals.  Just look at the problems Davis had with the army of the Tennessee during the Atlanta campaign.  Johnston just did his own thing.

As the war progressed Davis lost respect and Lee gained it.  As I recall the Confederate Congress passed Lee's request allowing blacks to serve as soldiers because they couldn't deny Lee anything. 

If other commanders would have obeyed anyone it would have been Lee.  Both because of his hero status and his accomplishments on the battlefield.

There were other problems that would have made it more difficult for Lee to have acted as a supreme commander than Grant.  One of these was the North had more miles of railroad track than did the South.

However, I still feel the number one reason Lee did not function as a supreme commander is he lacked Grant's vision of what a supreme commander could accomplish.

[scout1067]

However, I still feel the number one reason Lee did not function as a supreme commander is he lacked Grant's vision of what a supreme commander could accomplish.

Probably true, but the discussion ignores the fact that the South did not coordinate their armies.  They tried coordinating the Atlanta and Virginia defensive campaigns if I remember correctly but failed due to the intransigence of both commanders.  Yes, Lee had massive prestige, both in the Confederacy and Union.  That prestige did not lead to him being listened to outside of his immediate command, and sometimes even within it.

The sad fact is that despite the supposed military virtues of the soldiers of the Confederacy, they still could not beat the big battalions.  In military matters the South actually suffered from the same tactical deficiencies as did the North.  The difference is that the Union could replace the massive strength wastage from both battle and campaigning and the South could not.

The Confederacy was doomed as soon as they fired on Ft Sumter, the only question was how long.

[Notch]

Semi-off topic, but Patrick, if I am reading you right you are saying that regardles, because of the manpower resources that the Union had the South had zero chance regardless?

If so, could that same scanrio play out in modern terms? China has a pretty unlimited source of bodies to throw at it's military... that being that case could they be unbeatable due to this ability to replenish their numbers longer than almost any opponent?

[scout1067]

If so, could that same scenario play out in modern terms? China has a pretty unlimited source of bodies to throw at it's military... that being that case could they be unbeatable due to this ability to replenish their numbers longer than almost any opponent?

Interesting Question.

Not really, the possession of Nuclear weapons changes the picture.  Nukes make the big battalions not as important as they once were.  Prior to the introduction of Nuclear Weapons there were no truly society destroying weapons available.  Now, if we stick to just a conventional war against China, that is a different story.  It would take a lot of bullets to beat china and we would have to come up with a 4-1 or greater kill ratio.  Also, keep in mind that China has a higher proportion of military age males in their population than does America because of the one-child policy and Chinese cultural preferences for male children.

[Daniel]

The Confederacy was doomed as soon as they fired on Ft Sumter, the only question was how long.

I agree the South lacked the resources to win a protracted war. Perhaps, however, the South could have won by using a different strategy or if the things had gone differently before Lincoln defeated McClellan.

The Buchanan Administration transferred most of the contents of Northern armories south before Lincoln took office.  Winfield Scott's favoritism resulted in Southern officers being better trained--and holding higher positions--than those from the North.  So at the beginning of the war the South actually had more material and a better officer corps.

As I see it there were some ways the South could have won. 

The first was by invading the North after Bull Run.  A successful invasion might have led the North to sue for peace.  This was, of course, contrary to the will of Jefferson Davis, and IMHO was a huge mistake on his part.  (It resulted, I think, from his belief that not invading the North was necessary to gain the support of England and France.  Another major mistake by Davis and something that Lincoln made impossible by emancipating the slaves.)

The second--which the South tried--was by making the North grow war weary and abandon the struggle.  This stratagem almost worked.  Had McClellan defeated Lincoln the South would have gained its independence.  But Northern victories shortly before the election--especially those of Sherman--thwarted that hope.   

Also, had Lincoln been assassinated before his second election things might have been different.  As I see it, much of the resolve that kept the North in the war came directly from Lincoln.   

As I see it, the South came closer to winning than is usually thought.  Had it not been for Northern victories--which in some ways were nearly miraculous--just before the election McClellan would have beat Lincoln resulting in the South gaining its independence.  (Had Davis not replaced Johnson with Hood the whole outcome of the war might have been different.)

[DonaldBaker]

The South was never in a position to defeat the North militarily.  Their only hope was to prolong the war and make it as miserable as possible to where the Northern people would demand it all to end.  Lincoln survived politically and fortunate events on the battlefield helped to expedite the war's conclusion.  Also, the South was not unified in the war effort.  There were pockets of Northern sympathizers  (East Tennessee, Western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri etc...) that impeded the South's ability to remain defiant.  Finally, the South never galvanized its full force as the individual states usually mustered as Northern troops advanced on their territories.