The Civil War

If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.----who said this
 
nsacpi said:
The list is based on battlefield wins. Not theoreticians of war.
Click to expand...

That's a poor measure of quality leadership IMO, but that's what I would expect from a "modern expert". No, I'm definitely not talking about you, you're a good guy and I value your input and opinion even when I disagree with it.
 
I think Lee was a better battlefield strategist. He consistently went up against superior numbers and won, something incredibly difficult in that era. His victory at Chancellorsville is still studied today.

What Lee failed at and what Grant succeeded at was the overall strategy for victory. Lee went toe to toe with the Union on their own terms and that was a doomed strategy. Lee fought the kind of war he knew how to fight and couldn't conceive of asymmetrical warfare.

Grant, on the other hand, grasped the bigger picture better. He didn't need to crush the Confederates en masse. He just had to keep them from winning and grind them down. The talent of the depth chart would prevail.

I do think the war is much shorter if Lee accepted the command of all Union forces.
 
striker42 said:
I think Lee was a better battlefield strategist. He consistently went up against superior numbers and won, something incredibly difficult in that era. His victory at Chancellorsville is still studied today.

What Lee failed at and what Grant succeeded at was the overall strategy for victory. Lee went toe to toe with the Union on their own terms and that was a doomed strategy. Lee fought the kind of war he knew how to fight and couldn't conceive of asymmetrical warfare.

Grant, on the other hand, grasped the bigger picture better. He didn't need to crush the Confederates en masse. He just had to keep them from winning and grind them down. The talent of the depth chart would prevail.

I do think the war is much shorter if Lee accepted the command of all Union forces.
Click to expand...

I think from the beginning Lee knew the South was doomed if the war dragged on.
 
Runnin said:
I think from the beginning Lee knew the South was doomed if the war dragged on.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, which is why he didn't take advantage of the total disarray the Union forces were in after the disastrous loss at Fredericksburg in December of 1862 has always baffled me. The South also had a similar opportunity after first Bull Run but Beauregard was in command then so I can't hang that one around Lee's neck.
 
nsacpi said:
This list takes a Moneyball approach to rating generals. Wins above replacement (WAR!!). It is a pretty good list imo.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/best-generals-ranked-by-statistics?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

Lee has a negative career WAR number. Sowwy.
Click to expand...
Wow. Takeda Shingen at #4.

I lived in Kofu, Yamanashi, home of Takeda Shingen, for 10 years and have been to Takeda Shrine many times, once for a wedding. It's at the top of a big hill on the north edge of town and I used to jog up there during the summer heat for some unknown reason. I was even lucky enough to once be in the Takeda Shingen annual parade, on horseback and in full samurai armor, including sword and helmet. I unfortunately don't have any pictures of that.
 
Browsing through old photos of confederate officers of late I was struck by how many had the photos taken with the hands inside their vests, ala Napoleon. Dare I say that pose looks rather silly now.
 
Runnin said:
Browsing through old photos of confederate officers of late I was struck by how many had the photos taken with the hands inside their vests, ala Napoleon. Dare I say that pose looks rather silly now.
Click to expand...

It was a super common pose in the 19th century. It apparently showed calm leadership. You see it in a lot of photos of officers of the day.
 
striker42 said:
I think Lee was a better battlefield strategist. He consistently went up against superior numbers and won, something incredibly difficult in that era. His victory at Chancellorsville is still studied today.

What Lee failed at and what Grant succeeded at was the overall strategy for victory. Lee went toe to toe with the Union on their own terms and that was a doomed strategy. Lee fought the kind of war he knew how to fight and couldn't conceive of asymmetrical warfare.

Grant, on the other hand, grasped the bigger picture better. He didn't need to crush the Confederates en masse. He just had to keep them from winning and grind them down. The talent of the depth chart would prevail.

I do think the war is much shorter if Lee accepted the command of all Union forces.
Click to expand...

I think that's the consensus. But Grant's record suggests he was an excellent tactician in addition to have an ability to grasp the strategic situation. The Vicksburg campaign is one of the most audacious tactical feats in the history of war. Although certainly there was an element of luck.
 
nsacpi said:
I dunno. I think the South's best chance was to drag it out and wait for Northern public opinion to turn against the war.
Click to expand...

I think there were two ways to victory for the South, both were based on turning public opinion in the North. One was to drag it out until the North tired of the bloodshed and just let the South leave.

The other was to score a series of audacious victories in the North and turn public opinion to the idea that war wasn't worth it. That's part of the reason Lee invaded the North twice.

Lee's problem was he was too aggressive. He was willing to trade one body for one body to score a victory. Often he was left as the victor in the field of battle but with an army that couldn't replace its losses.

Grant was more than willing to trade a body for a body. He knew he could replace his losses far more easily. He could afford to grind the South down.
 
nsacpi said:
I dunno. I think the South's best chance was to drag it out and wait for Northern public opinion to turn against the war.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a tactic that's been used on the U.S. through the years. It was a war of attrition, either way. What would run out first, the supplies or the will?
 
Here's another question for discussion, was Sherman a war criminal? If not A war criminal, should his campaign be looked on with pride or shame?
 
striker42 said:
Here's another question for discussion, was Sherman a war criminal? If not A war criminal, should his campaign be looked on with pride or shame?
Click to expand...

He invented total war. Which is an awful kind of warfare. I think it is to be avoided if possible. But I would again point to cases where a population or 90% of it lines up behind a regime that is pursuing appalling polices. Not all circumstances are the same in war. Total warfare was pursued against the Afrikaners during the Boer Wars (wars that both my grandfather and great grandfather fought in on behalf of the party perpetrating genocide). The British policy was literally to starve them out. Scorched earth. It seems to me this was wrong. But total war against the Nazis or Confederates. I have a different view. Mind you, it is not a legal view. But it is one informed by ethical/moral considerations.
 
Last edited:
So to circle back, Arthur Harris and Sherman practiced total warfare under circumstances that I think justified such practices (with the objective of breaking the will of a population that was actively supporting genocidal policies, and yes I would put slavery under the heading of genocidal policies). But my ancestors did not have a similar justification in starving out the Afrikaners.
 
Last edited:
Sherman is another that it's difficult to separate the truth from the narrative. He was an arch villain of the Lost Cause movement where he was attributed with wanton destruction and murder. However, the more recent attempts to dispel the Lost Cause myths have perhaps gone too far the other way.

I listened to a podcast discussing his campaign and they focused on his order 120 ordering his men to "forage liberally". The hosts were arguing this was no different than was done by other armies in the war including Lee's men.

If all that happened was his men took food and supplies, Sherman wouldn't have accomplished his stated goal of making the South feel the pain of the war. Sherman's official orders fit the Lieber Code and what was considered acceptable warfare. However, his men went far beyond foraging with no punishment and often on orders.

The rehabilitation of Sherman focuses too much on his stated orders and tries to deflect blame for going beyond them onto his men. In reality, Sherman didn't try to keep his men constrained and almost certainly wanted them to go beyond foraging.

While Sherman probably isn't the monster he's portrayed, there are plenty of examples of his men going beyond what even was acceptable then.
 
Sherman did not sugarcoat what he was doing. He said he was going to "make Georgia howl."

He also understood that the war was against the people of the South: "This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."

He had little use for romantic notions about war: "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

He also gave fair warning to the South about the folly it was embarking upon: "The North can make a steam engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top