| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian > U.S. Grant > Grant versus Lee |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian > U.S. Grant > Grant versus Lee |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Grant versus Lee | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10th, 2006 02:05 am |
|
41st Post |
|
Shadowrebel Member 
|
smawsom44, I respect your opinion and your right to it. By the Wilderness Lee was on the downside of his ability to fight. Grant faced Lee when a series of Union commanders, bad as they may have been, had worn the South down. Grant had easier pickin's compared to the other commanders. Grant being at Chancellorsville vs Lee and Jackson would have made no difference as the Union army at the time was not as good as the Confederate army fighting wise. Grant was not at Chancellorsville because he was not deemed to be good enough to command the army, he ultimitely prove to be good enough. I do not see where Grant took "risks" at Vicksburg. The Confederates had to fortify Vicksburg and did not have the man power to mount much of an offensive, especially with the commanders they had. Regard, Shadowrebel
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 11th, 2006 04:44 pm |
|
42nd Post |
|
David White Member 
|
Double post sorry Last edited on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 04:45 pm by David White |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 11th, 2006 04:45 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
David White Member
|
ShadowReb: Do you see the risk Lee took at Chacellorsville? If you do, Vicksburg was very similar in that regard. Lee and Grant were both outnumbered had the two wings of the opponent's armies acted in concert and aggressively the risk taken by Lee/ Grant could have been disastrous. Instead the opponent acted like a stunned duck instead, due to the audacity of Lee/Grant.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 12th, 2006 01:37 am |
|
44th Post |
|
Shadowrebel Member
|
David, I realize the risk Lee took at Chancellorsville. Grant at Vicksburg never face a force the size Lee did. He was not outnumber nearly as badly as Lee. Vicksburg had to be held, by order of Davis. The Confederate forces at Vicksburg never united and were not the same threat. The campaign lasted longer beginning in 1862 and ending July 4, 1863. Grant was never at risk the way Lee was. Lee and Grant were both outnumbered had the two wings of the opponent's armies acted in concert and aggressively the risk taken by Lee/ Grant could have been disastrous Theoretically, you are right. Regards, Shadowrebel
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 12th, 2006 02:12 am |
|
45th Post |
|
COOK_R_S Member 
|
In some ways a larger force is more difficult to control. Add on the political and otherwise cumbersome nature of the aotp, and you have part of Grant's problem in Virginia. (same for previous commanders). On the other hand, Davis gave Lee a lot of power to streamline and customize the aonv, which included getting rid of dead wood. But by the same token, the confederacy was unable/unwilling to go for broke in it's prosecution of the war. (sort of like the U.S. in 2 or 3 wars I could mention). Lee knew that, and told Davis that a situation like Petersburg was pretty much inevitable as the aonv was ground down by union numbers and desertion by southern troops. Grant knew that too. A reb officer told Lee that Grant was a butcher, and Lee's response was "General Grant knows exactly what he is doing."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 12th, 2006 06:28 am |
|
46th Post |
|
smawson44 Member
|
Shadowrebel: I believe that you have some good points, and admittedly it is hard to compare the two commanders because there greatest successes came when they were fighting each other, and when they finally did face off Lee's army was a mere shadow of what it once was. I am just trying to make the point that Grant should not be considered an overrated commander. After all, his early successes came when the Union most needed victories. Also it wasn’t just Grant who defeated Lee; it was the army that he had sculpted. I think it would be hard to deny the contributions that he made to the army of the Potomac, including revitalizing the Cavalry arm, instilling an offensive mindset, and finally making it into the army that, after Petersburg, kept up a tireless pursuit which finally ended the war. Also Grants move at Vicksburg was risky. He had failed on all other tries, and he did not know that Pemberton wasn’t going to throw his whole force at him, while Johnston was always a danger in the rear. If he hadn’t captured Vicksburg, he undoubtedly would have been removed from command. Those are all risks worth noting
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 13th, 2006 12:36 am |
|
47th Post |
|
James Longstreet Member 
|
COOK_R_S, I really don't believe having great numbers on your side is a disadvantage, especially when your opponent is so small and ragged it cannot afford to supply its soldiers with adequate foot wear and rifles, as Lee's army was.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 13th, 2006 02:55 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
Interestingly enough, there is no evidence that the CSA was ever short of arms and ammunition. Josiah Gorgas may be the best Ordnance chief of any army, any country and any time... HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 14th, 2006 02:30 am |
|
49th Post |
|
James Longstreet Member
|
Wow, I didn't know that, HankC. I always thought they were mostly self-supplied, armed with squirrel rifles and such.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 05:45 am | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian > U.S. Grant > Grant versus Lee | Top |
