Sitting Bull
I agree which is why I started this post. They were 2 great generals with one having overwhelming resources behind him and decisions made were based on it. Grant didnât mind losing many troops to achieve his goal. If I had 2 to 1 troop strength in most battles , Iâd be bolder which is what grant did. Lee was just trying to prolong the war sorta like Washington. If Washington would have went head on with British in most cases, we would have lost in 1 or to battles but Washington like Lee wanted to drag the wars out in hopes the enemy would tire. It worked for Washington but logistics were on his side bc the British were overseas vs having home base here with superior forces. So I agree could grant do what Lee did with inferior manufacturing, artillery, lowere troop numbers , no navy for blockades, etc. That is the question.
1 Like
Isnât defending easier in War. Lee wins were on defense. Once he went on the offensive he lost.
Grant was always on the offensive. More impressive.
Generally, an ideal force ratio in the offense is 5 to 1 numerical superiority.
Of course, armies rarely have such an advantage. Grant nearly always had numerical superiority, but not that kind of numerical superiority.
At Shiloh, Grant got surprise attacked by Albert Sydney Johnston, but was able to stave off defeat; ultimately, Johnston was killed, and Beauregard, his replacement, pulled back. The subsequent loss of rail stations in the area made any theoretical Confederate attempts to retake the Mississippi River valley a virtual impossibility, and effectively meant that Grant was going to be able to seize the entire river valley, which was a critical part of Winfield Scottâs âAnaconda Planâ grand strategy to win the war.
In the East, Grant knew he had the manpower and material to win a war of attrition, and unlike McClelland, wasnât afraid to take the initiative and stay aggressively on the offensive.
He did so until he wore Lee down and ultimately defeated him.
Of course, the Union had near total naval supremacy. At first, the US Navy wasnât large enough to effectively enforce a blockade. However, by the end of the war, the Navy had nearly 700 ships, including more than 200 ironclads of the superior âMonitorâ design. By the end of the war, the effect of the blockade WAS being felt, nearly every Southern port was on the verge of lockdown, and the Confederate economy was on the verge of collapse.
Of course, it was the Northâs advantage in shipbuilding and industrial capacity that made that Naval expansion possible.
The South had some ironclads, but they were of the inferior CSS Virginia design, and given their lack of iron works and shipbuilding facilities, they had nowhere near the capacity to match the Union there.
They responded mostly with privateers and foreign built naval commerce raiders like the Florida and the Alabama. These ships did take a toll on Northern merchant shipping, but not enough to be decisive.
The South foolishly believed that it could use âcotton diplomacyâ to gain allies in Europe, and perhaps even convince European powers to intervene, but the European powers simply found new cotton suppliers and moved on. In the end, the loss of US cotton wasnât enough to persuade them to get involved.
1 Like
Iâve always wondered what the North would have done had the South not attacked Fort Sumpter, just let them have the fort, and tried to carry on as a new nation peacefully?
I donât think that Lincoln would have simply allowed the USA to break up under any circumstances.
War would have happened eventually without the firing on ft sumpter. The south did bc Lincoln said all federal forts were union so the south disagreed bc it was on their land so they fired.
I never thought much of Grant. He just had overwhelming numbers and equipment. If everything was somewhat equal, Iâd take Lee.
3 Likes
Pickettâs charge. Any good general would never have made that order. How Lee is considered a good general after such an obvious blunder is strange to me. I can only think of one reason he has been held in high regard all these years. Lee big victories are all defensive. Even in those battles he still lost large amount of troops.
*Fort Sumter
I highly recommend going on the tour if youâre ever in Charleston.
As a kid I visited Vicksburg and touched the Connons there and looked out over the river over the bluff and the confederates had the high point. I wanna go back someday bc itâs it cool to walk around where the action was happening. Iâd like to go to Gettysburg someday. Walking around where it happened blows my mind. I had a friend whoâs dad would collect old civil war guns etc from battle fields and his son sold me a bunch of bullets and a old knife from the civil war which I still have and touching those bullets etc is amazing. Iâm touching bullets from 1861 to 1865.
The horrible part was the bullets were huge so they would hit soldiers and break and shatter limbs unlike todayâs bullets that pass by. Itâs why they had to cut legs etc off bc of the shattered bones.
I read a book entitled Lost Triumph by historian Tom Carhart.
He argues that Lee had a plan at Gettysburg but that it wasnât executed. He ordered Stuart and the Confederate cavalry to circle around to the back of the Union line and disrupt the center while Ewell hit the right flank and Pickett charged the center. The hope was for Stuart and Pickett to cut the Union army in two. But Ewellâs attack didnât work, and Stuart was stopped by George Custerâs Union cavalry.
2 Likes
I feel Lee was a better general but I also think the South had a more talented/experienced/competent officer corp. James Longstreet, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Thomas Jonathan âstonewallâ Jackson, Richard Ewell, A.P Hill, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, John Bell Hood, Lewis Armistead, John Mosby, Bloody Bill Anderson, JEB Stuart, George Pickett are some that come to mind. The union won because they could replace their losses in man and materials the south needed a quick war in order to win but once the war started to drag on the south was overwhelmed.
3 Likes
I read that too. Itâs a great read and really answers the suicide mission of Pickettâs charge. Basically Custer saved the Union but is only know for his famous Last Stand. Truly fascinating read.
1 Like
Did Pickett object to the plan?
I often wonder at that time if Lee also wanted it over and just tried bc Gettysburg was a waste of his troops and didnât fit his mold of survival to carry on by having smaller campaigns. Generally I think Lee was fighting for the south and couldnât help it knowing they couldnât win unless the north grew tired of war. Gettysburg seemed like Lee was saying ok, this is my last stand bc it was out of character for him to engage in that battle outmanned going up hill . The north had higher ground in that battle so Lee might have generally felt letâs just try and and screw it if we donât bc again that battle doesnât fit leeâs overall strategy of smaller battles to carry on. He did carry on after but generally that battle was the last straw.
1 Like
Reason I say this is bc the north had the higher ground and the south was running uphill thru the battle which is a no go . Unless Lee thought he could out flank and go over top it was a suicide mission to maybe try and end it all.
If I recall correctly, Longstreet objected but Pickett did not.
