Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
With Gettysburg, you have to take into account that the Confederate forces were in Pennsylvania, and they had greatly extended their supply lines. They couldn't easily get ammunition or food unless they captured it or foraged for it. So they were going to run out of ammunition no matter what, unless they scored a major victory and/or captured plenty of ammunition. So it's really out of Gorgas' hands really.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Grant was a brawler. He used the his troops as a sledgehammer, ignoring casulities to achieve a goal. A good way of winning as long as you have a large amount of cannon fodder. He showed very little flair as a commander, proving Napoleon's maxim that God is on the side of the biggest battilion.
Well, there is no doubt about that. Grant fully recognizes his numerical superiority, but look at the difference between Grant and McCllelan, McDowell, Pope, et al.
All of the latter take hits and back out. Grant takes his lumps and keeps going-he doesn't back out. Even at Vicksburg, the man tries 7-8 different ways to get to it. This is a quality that most Union generals just didn't have.
Coltshooter,
I think you should try to take another look at Grant. He would compel the surrender of three CS armies: Fort Donaldson, Vicksburg and Appomattox. It didn't happen by accident.
And one might also look at the end-of-war casualty lists for the armies and generals. Don't have them handy (but they are buried in the archives here somewhere), but Grant ended the war with an overall casualty rate less than Lee's. If I'm recalling correctly, Sherman's was less than both.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
He showed very little flair as a commander, proving Napoleon's maxim that God is on the side of the biggest battilion.
My welcomes as well coltshooter. Grant's moves, particularly at Vicksburg and the end run to Petersburg, rank among the most brilliant in the world. Some of what he did might appear to have been bone-headed, but he did enough clever maneuvering to rise well above the "sledgehammer" epithet.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
And one might also look at the end-of-war casualty lists for the armies and generals. Don't have them handy (but they are buried in the archives here somewhere), but Grant ended the war with an overall casualty rate less than Lee's. If I'm recalling correctly, Sherman's was less than both.
ole
But Grant wsa not in charge of such large armies for as long as Lee was, was he? This would put him in a lower bracket just on the fact that he didn't have as many to throw into the fray. Maybe some kind of analysis on percentages is in order here.. any takers??? :P
__________________
"In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Seems Grant's commands in the west were generally larger than Lee's ANV. Before he moved east, he was in charge of the AotT, the AotC, the AotO, plus forces in Missouri and Arkansas. Grant also took the field well before Lee did: Belmont, Donelson and Shiloh preceded 7 Pines.
But it would be interesting to resurrect those statistics to determine the basis.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
By percentage, Lee's losses rates were higher than Grant's. In the Overland Campaign, where the AoP took terrible losses, the ANV loss rate was similar or a little lower.
Lee deliberately choose to attack in many fights, and endure the resulting losses. Battles like Fredericksburg were victories that cost the ANV much less, but Lee was dissatisfied. Besides killing a lot of the enemy, the strategic situation wasn't improved. Lee's solution to the dilemna of being outnumbered was to retain the initiative by aggressively looking to strike the enemy.
For the south:
1) The slave oligarchy's (leadership) success in convincing most southerners that their interests in secession were the same.
2) Splitting the Democratic Party in the 1860 Elections.
3) Starting a war to bring Va. into the confederacy.
For the north:
1) Federal Gov't ensuring the south fired the first shot, to start the war.
2) Lincoln's ability to control and lead a strong and fractious administration and wield power through diverse (oftern, personally hostile to Lincoln) factions in Congress.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
