 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 11th, 2006 02:22 pm |
|
21st Post |
calcav
Member
|
Casey (Longstreet),
As for Mr. White's statements, I didn't think Fort Donelson, though important, was not a HUGE battle of the Civil War
I think it's time to hit the books my friend. There are few Civil War battles that had such far reaching results as those that come from the Union victory on the Cumberland River. An entire army is captured, nearly 17,000 men. Two rivers are lost, both of which lead into the southern heartland. Gen. A.S. Johnston's defensive line is pierced and he is forced to withdraw into norhtern Mississippi, losing the capital at Nashville as well as all of southern Kentucky and most of central and west Tennessee. I would suggest the book "Where the South Lost the War: An Analysis of the Fort Henry-Fort Donelson Campaign" by Kendall D. Gott.
He couldn't beat Lee tactically, so he just pinned him against the wall and gradually wore him down.
But forcing a mobile opponent into a fixed position IS a tactic, as is attrition. As you point out, the cost of the Overland Campaign in human lives could not be sustained. General Grant adapted his tacticts and was successful. General Lee could not adapt and was defeated.
Last edited on Fri Aug 11th, 2006 02:23 pm by calcav
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 11th, 2006 03:20 pm |
|
22nd Post |
David White
Member
|
Longstreet:
You also need to revisit your casualty figures on Cold Harbor and check out the casualty figures for 1862 and see that Lee was a "butcher" too, wasting men he could ill afford to lose.
Also look at what Grant did at the North Anna River and James River. Those two events alone ought to convince you he was not just a heads down attritionist. Lee laid the trap he wanted to lay for Burnside at the North Anna and Grant recognized it and avoided it-- a true bull in the China Closet would not have avoided the trap there. He stole a march on the vaunted Lee crossing the James and would have had Petersburg if Butler and WF Smith hadn't botched that operation
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2006 02:54 am |
|
23rd Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
I didn't say Ft. Donelson was unimportant, I was saying it was no Gettysburg. I still cannot understand how the entire Civil War was lost at Donelson, so I guess I will have to hit the books. Attrition IS a tactic, but I was pointing out how costly a tactic it is. Lee, at Seven Days, did suffer many casulties, but the casulties Lee suffered were not as large, and it Lee didn't exactly hurl men over and over and try to break enemy lines in the way Grant or Burnside did. The Confederate casulties suffered were high, but the Union casulties were also high. This is not the case at Cold Harbor, or the Wilderness. Granted, in first year of Lee's command, he did waste effort on frontal assaults, but I think he learned his lesson at Gettysburg. But then, he taught Grant that lesson at Cold Harbor. I don't know that Lee could not adapt...I think he just did not have the man power to fight Grant's kind of war. But that doesn't make Lee any less of a commander.
--Casey
Last edited on Sat Aug 12th, 2006 02:58 am by James Longstreet
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2006 04:05 am |
|
24th Post |
| Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2006 02:07 pm |
|
25th Post |
calcav
Member
|
Longstreet,
I think I am going to bow out of this "discussion". What at first seemed to be a promising debate has gone nowhere. I come into each new thread with an open mind and enjoy sharing and learning facts. But this conversation seems to be no more than a schoolyard argument of "my big brother can lick your big brother."
No one holds a higher opinion of General Lee than myself. In addition no one holds a higher opinion of General Grant. Two extrordinarily gifted military men. Your comparsion of General Lee to Jesus Christ in the other thread, joke or not, and your labeling his opponent as a butcher and drunk bring way too much bias to the discussion than I am prepared for. If you wish to deal in facts, I'm always available. And before anyone jumps on the Grant bashing bandwagon and says it is FACT that he was an alcoholic and he did order bloody assaults, I know and I agree. If merits and faults can be discussed and supported by facts without stereotypes I'm all for it. But if it becomes merely an impassioned argument for the "best man" I just get weary.
Best regards,
Tom
Last edited on Sat Aug 12th, 2006 03:23 pm by calcav
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 12th, 2006 05:37 pm |
|
26th Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Tom,
I agree with your statement that this has turned into a type of school yard argument, but if you will recall, though I referred to Grant as a butcher, I never once called him a drunk. The comparison of General Lee to Jesus Christ was purely sarcastic, and I am sorry it caused such an outrage.
--Thanks, Casey
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14th, 2006 07:52 pm |
|
27th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
James Longstreet wrote: Hey everyone, I'm new to this site. But anyway, I think Grant is overrated as a commander and only defeated Lee by brute force, not tactics, any thoughts?
That's an interesting first post. Let me let everyone know that I think Grant is overrated while I introduce myself.
What exactly do you mean by overrated? Would you say that Lee is possibly overrated too, since some people seem to act as though he could walk on water?
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14th, 2006 08:24 pm |
|
28th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
James Longstreet wrote: I have been to Shiloh, and read Shelby Foote's book about the battle. That's how I was led to believe what I posted earlier. Maybe I was wrong, but I earnestly was not aware that there was a different opinion of the battle's course. As for Mr. White's statements, I didn't think Fort Donelson, though important, was not a HUGE battle of the Civil War. And I disagree with the statement that none of Lee's victories were decisive. And if we're talking decisive, where does Ft. Stedman and Mule Shoe come in? He kept the war going for as long as it did, and cost the Union thousands of lives. And Grant WAS a butcher--around 90,000 Yankee boys down from the Wilderness to Petersburg compared to around 40,000 rebels. So I will continue to rant. Feel free to correct my math if necessary. You're right, Grant was determined; he was determined to destroy the Rebels at Cold Harbor and repeatedly flung doomed assaults at Lee's well entrenched men, resulting in 12,000 Union casulties and 1,500 Confederate. Sound like Burnside at Fredricksburg to anyone? Anyway, what I'm saying is, he repeated the basic prinicpal, hurling men at Lee's thin lines, at Spotsylvania Courthouse--only it worked that time. Grant exercised a very simple strategy: A war of attrition. He couldn't beat Lee tactically, so he just pinned him against the wall and gradually wore him down. Grant had troops to waste; Lee did not. It worked, but Grant paid dearly.
By the way, thanks for the suggestions, Tom.
--Casey
Ft. Stedman? Mule Shoe? Ft. Stedman was simply the last assault Lee really made and although a temporary "victory", it didn't last. How is that decisive?
While we're discussing "flinging doomed assaults," what about Lee at both Malvern Hill and Pickett's Charge? (Or do you blame your namesake, Longstreet, for the failure at Gettysburg?)
What would you call the ever moving lines from east to west at Petersburg, that eventually culminated in Five Forks? If you're going to point out Grant's failed assaults at Cold Harbor, why would you fault him for simply wearing Lee down at Petersburg and NOT making wasteful assaults? If you're going to criticize Grant, at least be consistent.
If numbers of men were all it took, why did McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and other Union generals fail?
It sounds like you basically started this thread just to share with us your opinions of both Lee's greatness and Grant's faults.
Last edited on Mon Aug 14th, 2006 08:33 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14th, 2006 11:15 pm |
|
29th Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Indy, I was saying Ft. Stedman and Mule Shoe were not huge battles, not that they were decisive. I also already addressed Pickett's Charge, and I admit that it was entirely Lee's fault, and do not blame Longstreet in the least. I said that Cold Harbor was the only doomed assault worse that Pickett's Charge earlier. Lee was not a perfect general, but who was? Just because I said Lee was a superior commander than Grant doesn't mean Lee is flawless. And, if you'll recall, Lee had a lot more man power when he was against some of the other unsuccessful Yankee generals. He never recovered from Gettysburg, a blow that was not delivered by Grant. Sorry you did not understand my post, but maybe you should've read the whole argument before attempting to discredit me.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 01:04 pm |
|
30th Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
James Longstreet wrote: I dont think Grant shouldve been credited as being such a great general as he now is, I think he should even be criticized for his bloody defeats against Lee, like Cold Harbor. I mean it took Grant a 10 month siege to wear down Lee's scrawny army. If the odds were reversed, with Lee outnumbering Grant two to one, I doubt Grant would last half as long as Lee did.
--Casey
Ah, reality. While we are talking alternate history, what if Grant had been in command of the AOP from the beginning or at least around the time of the Seven Days (that being about the time that Lee took command as well, following Seven Pines?) You think there would have still been the Union losses at 2nd Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, etc.? If somehow the Battle of Antietam had still been fought, would Grant have let the noose loose like McClellan did and pass up the opportunity to crush the ANV?
BTW, once Grant took overall command, he lost fewer men, percentage-wise, than Lee did.
Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 01:05 pm by
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 04:42 pm |
|
31st Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Look, when Grant fought Lee, Lee was outnumbered BADLY. He ended up with what? 30 or 40 thousand men when surrendered? At Seven Days, Little Mac and Lee were pretty much even.(Forces actually engaged in combat) And Lee may not have smashed the Yankees at Chancelorsville as bad as he did if Grant had been in command. But he wasn't. And Lee was outnumbered. And he still won very impressive battles, and kept the war going. I mean, either way, you have to admit Chancelorsville was a masterpiece.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| You have chosen to ignore indy19th. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 06:47 pm |
|
32nd Post |
indy19th
Guest
|
Yes, Chancellorsville was a masterpiece and Lee was a great general, but if you're going to be all gungho about making a point that you think Grant is overrated, you should expect rebuttals.
According to a poll of well known historians in a past North and South issue, they would disagree with your putting Lee ahead of Grant, as 4 of 5 had Grant ranked higher than Lee.
You can do all the what-ifs and make all the excuses you can, but what we do know is that Grant DID beat Lee. And remember that Lee had the luxury of fighting on his own land and didn't have to win, but simply not lose.
If the roles were reversed, who knows. I'm sure Grant would have adjusted his tactics. I don't know that he could have done as well or better than Lee, but there's no reason to think he'd have folded his tent in 2 years.
|
|
Back To Top
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:45 pm |
|
33rd Post |
James Longstreet
Member
|
Look, Grant was a good, solid commander, who was one of the few Union generals to really take advantage of his resources. All I was saying, though maybe I should have made it clearer sooner, was that I would've ranked Lee a notch higher than Grant. But I'm gonna surrender this one before I make too many enemies. You win, Indy. Last edited on Tue Aug 15th, 2006 07:47 pm by James Longstreet
|
|
Back To Top
|
COOK_R_S
Member
|
Grant's Vicksburg campaign is one of the few cw campaigns which can be taught as sound application of principles and tenacity. It was not a matter of luck. By contrast, Lee's tactics at Chancellorsville broke the rules, and his victory was the result of a breakdown on the Union side.
If Grant had been at Chancellorsville, Lee would have been a prisoner of the Army of the Potomac.
|
|
Back To Top
|
smawson44
Member
|
You can't say Grant was a bad commander. He realized his positive, including brute force, and used that as no other Northern commander had. He was the one who defeated Lee. If Grant had been at Chancellorsville one might wonder how much earlier the war would have been won. Just as Lee used his positives, his mobile and solid commanders, Grant used his strengths, his superiority of numbers and equipment. Maybe Grant was a poor commander, but he was the first to realize that Lee could be defeated, which deserves him some credit. Also no one can deny him his mastery of the overland campaign on Vicksburg.
|
|
Back To Top
|
HankC
Member
|
One thing I have come to 'not understand' 
In late 1864, with Lee pinned at Petersburg and Sheridan revealing the lack of fighting prowess in what was left of the ANV, why wasn't a large column directed from Washington into Central Virginia to threaten Lee's rear? Fredericksburg is a good jump off point and many troops could move from the Petersburg front.
I can think of a few reasons: impending winter weather, Grant's dislike of retrograde movements, lack of secure supply.
Sheridan's success at pretty much destroying the 2nd corps in open combat demonstrates (to me) the feasibility of the idea...
HankC
|
|
Back To Top
|
Shadowrebel
Member
|
Cook_R_S wrote:
If Grant had been at Chancellorsville, Lee would have been a prisoner of the Army of the Potomac.
What do you base this on?
smawsom44 wrote:
If Grant had been at Chancellorsville one might wonder how much earlier the war would have been won.
What do you base this on?
If Grant had been at Chancellorsville the outcome would have been the same. Chancellorsville was a brilliantly executed plan. No Northern commander could have seen what was coming, no less, change the outcome.
smawson44 wrote:
Also no one can deny him his mastery of the overland campaign on Vicksburg.
Had Lee and Longstreet been at Vicksburg maybe that would have ended differently. Grant had no one of this caliber to oppose him at Vicksburg. Pemberton and Johnston are not exactly Lee and Longstreet. You can not have "mastery" when your opposition is far inferior.
Regards,
Shadowrebel
|
|
Back To Top
|
Shadowrebel
Member
|
HankC,
Good point, nothing could have stop what you suggest and might have ended the war sooner. The reasons you sight are good ones but, none serious enough to prevent a rear action, well worth the risks.
Regards,
Shadowrebel
|
|
Back To Top
|
smawson44
Member
|
I base my statement on Grants actions after the Battle of the Wilderness. Which much like Chaneslorville was a strategic drawl, and yet instead of retreating across the river as Hooker did, Grant moved foward. Maybe Pemberton was a weak commander, but which other Union commander would have taken the risks that Grant did to get to Vicksburg.
|
|
Back To Top
|
Current time is 12:56 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
|
|
