- This topic has 10 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
Thanks H.H. for your explanations; I wish my prof had been as forthcoming. The Southern generals have always intrigued me more than the Northern generals. I've read about Grant and like him – my father refers to him as the “workhorse of the Union Army”. Whether that's a correct assumption or not, I don't know. Personally, Longstreet is my favorite but there again, many would have arguments with my opinion.
Daniel:Lee's objective was never to "win" the war, but just not to "lose" it. Lee took the offensive because he hoped for a psychological blow to the Northern support for the war on the homefront. Lee wanted to push into Pennsylvania to show Northerners that the South was not the aggressor in the war, and that all they wanted was to be left alone. He wanted to fatigue the Northern people by showing them that Southern resolve was too strong to be broken. Lee never wanted to invade the North for conquest...that was Grant's objective though. Lee invaded the North as a gambit to get the civilian population to turn on Washington and cry for a cessation of hostilities...the only legitimate and obtainable military objective Lee could hope for. Gettysburg was a botched chance at striking a significant blow to the Army of the Potomac at a time when Lincoln was facing political defeat in the upcoming election year. Even with the victory at Gettysburg, Lincoln faced a very strong challenge from Clement Vallandingham who wanted to end the war. Vicksburg was the most important victory for the North strategically and Gettysburg was the most important victory politically. Both came at the same time and turned the tide of the war irreversibly to the North. Lee knew the war was lost from that moment on, but fought on until it was pointless.
DonnieI was also told that Gettysburg was an attempt to relieve pressure on Vicksburg since it would have been hard to move adequate numbers of troops to Vicksburg in time to help.In course that I took on the CW several years ago the professor said the beginning of the end for the South occured with the loss of Ft Donalson. That eventually enabled the Union to control the Mississippi and cut the Confederacy in half.
DonnieI was also told that Gettysburg was an attempt to relieve pressure on Vicksburg since it would have been hard to move adequate numbers of troops to Vicksburg in time to help.In course that I took on the CW several years ago the professor said the beginning of the end for the South occured with the loss of Ft Donalson. That eventually enabled the Union to control the Mississippi and cut the Confederacy in half.
Yet Longstreet nearly turned the tide again at Chickamauga. The war was lost for the South when it fired on Ft. Sumter. When it did so, the South lost all hope of getting any help from Europe.
I believe that Jefferson Davis was more interested in not loosing the war than in winning it. I?m not sure that is also true of Robert E. Lee. Lee was wise enough not to express an opinion that went contrary to what Davis thought. Davis wanted Lee to help rescue Vicksburg. Lee proposed a more aggressive plan: the invasion of Pennsylvania. I think Lee saw this as his opportunity to win the war. He was schooled in the Napoleonic tradition that nations fell after an overwhelming defeat. (It was true in Napoleonic times because following a major loss a nation lacked the men and material to fight another campaign. It wasn?t true in the Civil War era; the men and material strength of both sides made it impossible a single victory could determine the outcome.) Also,--as stated above?Lee hoped that following a resounding victory Lee could expect the North to compel Lincoln to sue for peace. (This was far more realistic that winning the war with a single victory. It might have happened.)I do think Lee wanted to win the war. But ?Jeffy D? held him back.
Lee's professed goals were to defend Virginia his section, then his loyalties were to the rest of the Confederacy when it was either convenient or ordered of him (such as when he loaned Longstreet out to fight at Chickamauga and Knoxville). Lee wanted to arm the slaves to offset the huge disparity in manpower the North enjoyed…and many of the slaves were willing to don the gray, but Davis and the Richmond Congress said no way. I understand, Daniel, why you want to say Lee wanted to win the war, and I agree he did want to and hoped to win the war, but his idea of victory was not defeating the entire Northern army, instead, he hoped to inflict enough damage to the North that the people would become appalled at the carnage to the point of pressuring an end to the war. Lee was no fool. He fully understood that a war of attrition was unwinnable for the South, and that only a quick and decisive blow early in the conflict was the South's greatest hope…that and persuading France to join in the war (which the French were never really that close to joining as some have argued). Perhaps Lee began to believe in his own legend by the time of Gettysburg...and why not? He whipped MacCllelan, Halleck, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker...why not Gordon Meade too? I'm sure we would all be confident in our abilities with such a record of success to boast.Finally, you are right, Daniel, Jeff held Lee back, and he pushed too hard for Bragg and Hood who were incompetent at the Corps level of command. But I digress......
The war was lost for the South when it fired on Ft. Sumter. When it did so, the South lost all hope of getting any help from Europe.
I agree that firing on Ft. Sumter was a strategic mistake by the South. But I don?t think it ended all hope of the South receiving European recognition and aid.Don?t forget the incident where the US navy captured British diplomats. If Lincoln hadn?t ?caved in? Britain would have entered the war.Plus Europeans (leaders) were sympathetic to the South. Given time who knows what might have happened; if the war lasted long enough that alone might have resulted in European recognition. It was the Emancipation Proclamation that ended all hope of European assistance. Injecting the issue of slavery into the war made European support for the South impossible.Ironically, domestically the Emancipation Proclamation was a dangerous move. Many in the North were willing to fight for the Union but not for the abolition of slavery. It lost Lincoln the support of many in the North and nearly cost him the nomination for a second term.
lee's big problem was he was OLD SCHOOL!!!! and this war was a new type of war that he was not ready for…his second biggest was he thought he (and the army) was unable to loose…unfortunatly he had a few BIG defeets before one or two mediocre victories and a starving army so he had his hands full but to say he was overrated i say no he was and still is (and God forgive me for being a blasfemer) godlike to most of the south…well thoughs who know about him
Lee was perhaps the most innovative general to emerge in Western Civilization after Napoleon. Lee and the entire South's problem was they were trying to fight the 400 pound gorilla to the north that could absorb 4 times the casualties of the south and still put the same number of troops in the field. The south lost the war the day they started it as Donnie has said above. Lee was innovative both strategically and operationally throughout the war. What he wasnt was tactically innovative, his agreement to Pickett's charge is a case in point.
Lee was perhaps the most innovative general to emerge in Western Civilization after Napoleon. Lee and the entire South's problem was they were trying to fight the 400 pound gorilla to the north that could absorb 4 times the casualties of the south and still put the same number of troops in the field. The south lost the war the day they started it as Donnie has said above. Lee was innovative both strategically and operationally throughout the war. What he wasnt was tactically innovative, his agreement to Pickett's charge is a case in point.
He depended on Jackson and Longstreet for the "innovations." Jackson was the offensive genius and Longstreet was the defensive guru.
Lee was perhaps the most innovative general to emerge in Western Civilization after Napoleon. Lee and the entire South's problem was they were trying to fight the 400 pound gorilla to the north that could absorb 4 times the casualties of the south and still put the same number of troops in the field. The south lost the war the day they started it as Donnie has said above. Lee was innovative both strategically and operationally throughout the war. What he wasnt was tactically innovative, his agreement to Pickett's charge is a case in point.
He depended on Jackson and Longstreet for the "innovations." Jackson was the offensive genius and Longstreet was the defensive guru.
I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. One thing Lee was that many confederates were not was charismatic. His charisma and the way in which he inspired his army was a definite force-multiplier for the south.
Not sure if he is overrated but wondering what he was thinking when he ordered Pickett to charge the Union forces which held the higher ground at Gettysburg? I mean that was just plain suicide, no? What a huge military blunder that cost them the war.
Not sure if he is overrated but wondering what he was thinking when he ordered Pickett to charge the Union forces which held the higher ground at Gettysburg? I mean that was just plain suicide, no? What a huge military blunder that cost them the war.
welll it SHOULD have worked BUT Longstreet did not deploy his troops in time, the artilery was missing, and the speed of the advance was WAY to slow this was all Longstreets fault...but Lee messed up by trying something new he should have gone around to the union suplie base and made them hit him on ground of his choosing but at that time men arogance was the name of the game.... Meade just lucked out!
As I understand it, Lincoln held off the Emancipation on Seward's suggestion that it could only come on the heels of a great victory. Antietam is more Phyrric in the opinion of many, I think 23,000 casualties on both sides combined, more than D-Day. Although, it was this battle that made Europe back off. Shelby Foote talks about Lee as the "Marble Man" he was loved from the moment he resigned from the US Army to lead the Army of Virginia. Lee sent his own son (artillery) along with his reserves again and again to plug holes in the lines at Antietam, while McClellnan resisted using his, then blamed Burnside for taking too long to sieze the bridge. Lee's hands were also busted up badly and he was in extreme pain the enitire 17 hours, riding horseback made it even worse. (what was Lee's horse named?)I agree Lee did more with much less than Grant, sought to convert rather than conquer the North, witness the Maryland Doctrine, made a huge mistake at Gettysburg (Pickett's Charge) but is not overrated. It is notable that Lee cried and asked for forgiveness from his men after Gettysburg. Grant wept and despaired after the "Wilderness," so many wounded burned alive, but only his aides saw that.
