There were very few generals in that time that were better at fighting a defensive campaign than Lee. However wars are not won on defense, they are won on offense. Grant was an offensive genius, he knew he had to keep constant pressure on Lee and keep advancing no matter how bad the casualties were. Doing this wore Lee down, didn't allow him to resupply, regroup or rest. The only time Lee tried to go on the offensive and take the war to the North he got trounced at Gettysburg. Since all the battles for the Civil War were fought in the South, that put the burden totally on the population of the South. That is an unwinnable situation when the resources begin to run out which is exactly what happened.
Lee was good. Grant was better. If you want some insight into Grant take some time and read his memoirs which were published shortly before his death, He explains his thoughts and reasons for every battle and he fully takes the blame for the ones that didn't work such as the 3rd attack at Cold Harbor where 6000 men died. He said he regretted that decision every day of his life. Those are the marks of a leader, willing to make the decisions and being able to admit publicly if the decision was wrong. I wish Grant had been a better president but he was kind of set up to fail. As a general he expected every order to be carried out but politics don't work that way and like Trump he had a deep swamp to swim in and it beat him. Hopefully it doesn't beat Trump in the end.
On a side note did you notice the difference in the respect shown to Ike in that press conference as compared to a press conference today? The reporters were respectful, didn't argue, didn't show boat, didn't interrupt and basically behaved civilly. Just on observation of how far the press has fallen.
You get out of life what you are willing to accept. If you ain't happy, do something about it!
There were very few generals in that time that were better at fighting a defensive campaign than Lee. However wars are not won on defense, they are won on offense. Grant was an offensive genius, he knew he had to keep constant pressure on Lee and keep advancing no matter how bad the casualties were. Doing this wore Lee down, didn't allow him to resupply, regroup or rest. The only time Lee tried to go on the offensive and take the war to the North he got trounced at Gettysburg. Since all the battles for the Civil War were fought in the South, that put the burden totally on the population of the South. That is an unwinnable situation when the resources begin to run out which is exactly what happened.
Lee was good. Grant was better. If you want some insight into Grant take some time and read his memoirs which were published shortly before his death, He explains his thoughts and reasons for every battle and he fully takes the blame for the ones that didn't work such as the 3rd attack at Cold Harbor where 6000 men died. He said he regretted that decision every day of his life. Those are the marks of a leader, willing to make the decisions and being able to admit publicly if the decision was wrong. I wish Grant had been a better president but he was kind of set up to fail. As a general he expected every order to be carried out but politics don't work that way and like Trump he had a deep swamp to swim in and it beat him. Hopefully it doesn't beat Trump in the end.
On a side note did you notice the difference in the respect shown to Ike in that press conference as compared to a press conference today? The reporters were respectful, didn't argue, didn't show boat, didn't interrupt and basically behaved civilly. Just on observation of how far the press has fallen.
Not sure Grant was better than Lee. He just had a bigger club. The money paid off on Grant.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
Much of MD's population was more slanted towards sympathy for the Confederate cause, than the Union cause.
What little I'd learned about Grant in my younger years, I'd forgotten. Only things that had stuck, were his rep as a boozer, failure as a business man, his later success as Union commander and a corrupt administration, as President. Thoroughly enjoyed the recent History Channel three part series on Grant.
The Confederate cause was doomed from day.one, in rebelling against the Union. Fewer resources, far less manpower, virtually no manufacturing base and reliance on overseas financial support via their cotton crop. Only hope they had, was the eventual wearying in the north, with the war.
If three or more people think you're a dimwit, chances are at least one of them is right.
Someone posted Antietam/Sharpsburg in response to another comment about Lee's invasion of the North being Gettysburg, as if those two battles were a northern invasion.
I stated that since much of MD favored the south, those two battles weren't actually an invasion of the North, since they were fought in an area with plenty of CSA sympathzers. So, what was incorrect? Lee's expectation of picking up more troops in MD, has never been documented, that I know of?
If three or more people think you're a dimwit, chances are at least one of them is right.
Lee was first in line for the job to lead the union invasion of Virginia in 1861 but refused the offer not wanting to go against his home state he chose to defend it just like a lot of non slave owning Virginians did a lot needs to be looked into the valley campaigns of burning homes and taking peoples livestock they had no choice but to defend there homes and property
Its generally accepted that Lee's incursion into Maryland was a play to garner the the support of the Southern loyalists there and gain a lot of new recruits. Had he won at Antietam he felt he would've been seen as a liberator freeing MD from Yankee oppression and that was supposed to result in waves of goodwill from the locals. As it was he dropped his battle plans and ended up leaving the battlefield non victorious. I believe the war was totally winnable right up to the third day at Gettysburg. The North was becoming war weary.
There were very few generals in that time that were better at fighting a defensive campaign than Lee. However wars are not won on defense, they are won on offense. Grant was an offensive genius,he knew he had to keep constant pressure on Lee and keep advancing no matter how bad the casualties were. Doing this wore Lee down, didn't allow him to resupply, regroup or rest..
No. Just no. That's akin to saying Georgy Zhukov was a genius.
Much of MD's population was more slanted towards sympathy for the Confederate cause, than the Union cause.
Incorrect. Lee expected to augment his forces with Maryland pro Confederate sympathizers, which largely did not happen.
Yep. Lee didn't get the bump in support that he was hoping for when he moved into the Sharpsburg area. Perhaps there was more pro Confederate support on the Eastern Shore area? Lee didn't get trounced at Antietam either. It was a pretty even fight. Lee did return to Virginia after the battle, giving the Union a tactical victory. Both armies performed pretty darn well at Antietam, IMHO.
Its generally accepted that Lee's incursion into Maryland was a play to garner the the support of the Southern loyalists there and gain a lot of new recruits. Had he won at Antietam he felt he would've been seen as a liberator freeing MD from Yankee oppression and that was supposed to result in waves of goodwill from the locals. As it was he dropped his battle plans and ended up leaving the battlefield non victorious. I believe the war was totally winnable right up to the third day at Gettysburg. The North was becoming war weary.
Agreed. Lee made a bad call and unfortunately, it was a really bad call at a pivotal moment. Ewell not taking Cemetery Hill was a huge missed opportunity.
In the movie Gettysburg, General Longstreet comments to the British observer... "We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter". No idea if he actually said that (sort of doubt it) but had that happened, I think the south would have had it wrapped up in less than a year or Lincoln would have been tossed out on his @ss.
Slavery was a dying institution and would have died on it's own soon enough. And anyone who disagrees I'd remind that today we're so fuggin woke, you're free to pick your own gender.... and you're note even limited to two options.
There were very few generals in that time that were better at fighting a defensive campaign than Lee. However wars are not won on defense, they are won on offense. Grant was an offensive genius,he knew he had to keep constant pressure on Lee and keep advancing no matter how bad the casualties were. Doing this wore Lee down, didn't allow him to resupply, regroup or rest..
No. Just no. That's akin to saying Georgy Zhukov was a genius.
Not quite but nice try. Here's the historical fact: Until Grant took over it was common practice for the opposing armies to disengage at the end of a battle and go lay up to lick their wounds, resupply and regroup. This allowed Lee time to control when and where the next engagement would be and allow him to get set before the Union forces could. Grant said the hell with that and kept constant pressure on Lee to put Lee off balance. Grant knew they would take casualties but he knew by shortening the war he would be saving lives in the long run. So he never gave Lee the respite he was used to. This immediately made Lee fight Grant's war and not his war. Once Grant put the pressure on and didn't let up, Lee was finished.
As I noted, invest a little time are read Grant's memoirs to see how the man thought. It's too bad that Lee never penned his memoirs. Some of his letters and interviews have been published after his death but he never wrote actual memoirs.
You get out of life what you are willing to accept. If you ain't happy, do something about it!
Its generally accepted that Lee's incursion into Maryland was a play to garner the the support of the Southern loyalists there and gain a lot of new recruits. Had he won at Antietam he felt he would've been seen as a liberator freeing MD from Yankee oppression and that was supposed to result in waves of goodwill from the locals. As it was he dropped his battle plans and ended up leaving the battlefield non victorious. I believe the war was totally winnable right up to the third day at Gettysburg. The North was becoming war weary.
I totally disagree with your contention that the CSA could have won the American Civil War up until the the July 3, 1863.
IMO the USA was superior to the CSA in terms of political leadership, population, and logistic infrastructure. The only way that the CSA could have won was if one or more European powers had chosen to support them with the war materials that their feeble infrastructure couldn't product in either volume or quality. Lee's two invasion of the Union were failures that bleed the Army of Northern Virginia of men and materials without producing any tactical or strategic advantage for the CSA. If McClellan and Mead had been half as aggressive as Grant, either of them could have destroyed Lee's Army during its retreat back to Virginia. I doubt the the USA was any more or any less war weary than the CSA at that point in time, probably less so since few people in the USA were facing any shortages and their land wasn't being fought over. The great majority of American Civil War fighting took place on CSA soil, not USA soil, even if all of it was American soil.
Its generally accepted that Lee's incursion into Maryland was a play to garner the the support of the Southern loyalists there and gain a lot of new recruits. Had he won at Antietam he felt he would've been seen as a liberator freeing MD from Yankee oppression and that was supposed to result in waves of goodwill from the locals. As it was he dropped his battle plans and ended up leaving the battlefield non victorious. I believe the war was totally winnable right up to the third day at Gettysburg. The North was becoming war weary.
I totally disagree with your contention that the CSA could have won the American Civil War up until the the July 3, 1863.
IMO the USA was superior to the CSA in terms of political leadership, population, and logistic infrastructure. The only way that the CSA could have won was if one or more European powers had chosen to support them with the war materials that their feeble infrastructure couldn't product in either volume or quality. Lee's two invasion of the Union were failures that bleed the Army of Northern Virginia of men and materials without producing any tactical or strategic advantage for the CSA. If McClellan and Mead had been half as aggressive as Grant, either of them could have destroyed Lee's Army during its retreat back to Virginia. I doubt the the USA was any more or any less war weary than the CSA at that point in time, probably less so since few people in the USA were facing any shortages and their land wasn't being fought over. The great majority of American Civil War fighting took place on CSA soil, not USA soil, even if all of it was American soil.
It is well known historical fact that there was a rapidly growing movement in the North to sue for peace. Hell, McClellan even ran for President on the idea and that was in 64.
