Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Had the North realized or been told of the slaughter at Cold Harbor and the Army of the Potomac's attrition rate thru Grant's opening phases against Lee, may this have changed the Election of '64?
I due not believe Grant was a great general. I due believe he was the man to finish the job. Grant was not afraid to press ahead however, the incredible slaughter wrought on his own army to this day is amazing.
Without Grant i'm sure the war would have lasted at least until sometime into late '65 or early '66. And then the question remains would Lincoln have been President? And if not would the new President have went to the peace table or finished the job?
First of all I disagree that Grant wasn't a great general, but that is definitely a thread in itself. So I will skip my comments in this post. Any time you want to go there,however, let me know.
An excellent book covering the election of 1864 is <u>Reelecting Lincoln</u> by John C. Waugh. It examines the issues in depth.
Lincoln was the first sitting president to stand for reelection in time of war, and the first to get a second term since Jackson. To avoid the intrinsic problems of a campaign many advised him to call Congress into session to pass a resolution deferring the election until after the war. It would have passed since by then Lincoln had Congress eating out of his hand. Lincoln, however, refused stating that such a move would harm the nation. Pretty gutsy since he believed that McClellan would defeat him.
It is also a misconception to believe that the northern populace was unaware of Cold Harbor. Every battle and every move Grant made was reported and any opportunity to stir up trouble and sell papers by skewering the administration or generals was always played out.
By the time of Cold Harbor, however, the home front had become desensitized to bloody battlefields. Antietam and Shiloh had already happened, the Wilderness had happened, Chancelorsville had happened. While the events at Cold Harbor produced a uniform gasp, it barely registered on the horror meter. We chew on Cold Harbor much more than they did.
It is also incorrect to say that Lincoln won because Sherman toppled Atlanta. While Sherman's win and Grant's steady moves towards Richmond helped, Lincoln had already won the soldier vote. McClellan assured that when he took on Pendleton and the Peace Platform. Soldier letters are almost unanimous in their condemnation of peace at any cost.
It is also incorrect to think that McClellan despite the platform he attached his name to would have negotiated peace without reunification. He didn't give a fig for slavery and would have taken slavery off the negotiating table, but McClellan was an avowed and commited unionist who would not have recognized the Confederacy as a separate country.
By 1864 another factor was at play and that is Grant's popularity. Grant not Lincoln was the most popular man in America. The fact that Lincoln backed him, worked with him and chose him assured Lincoln of the support of the country and the soldier vote.
Ironically, in 1861 the South was unanimously united in their focus and the North was splintered. By 1864, the Confederacy was suffering all sorts of inner turmoil in the form of dissatisfaction - Toombs/Stephens/Joe Brown among others, but the Northern home front had truly united with only a few pockets of discontent to mar the surface. Sure there were the NY riots, but that was led by immigrants rather than by a viable or significant grass roots movement and certainly did not reflect the rest of the voting public in the North.
The funny part was the noisy pundits up North didn't recognize this fact. They were still predicting trouble in the election. In other words, the election turned out to be a mandate proving a consensus that the Northern people were solidly behind Lincoln both at home and in the trenches.
My opinions for what they are worth. Any time you are ready for Grant as a General, I am.
Well said however, Grant's own report to Washington stated at Cold Harbor he had gained no "decisive advantage." Additionaly he added his losses were not "severe" roughly 6000 casualties not severe? Grant later would admit in his memiors he had always regretted the last assualt on Cold Harbor was ever made.
I agree they had become accustomed to the losses however, Grant never placed any casualty totals in the official report to Washington, I am aware of. In fact, several reports I have read stated the Command stopped sending casualty reports to Washington.
Grant was aware of exactly what you stated those against Lincoln would attempt to stir up trouble. Thus reports were "lost" or "changed" to insure the populace/Media was unaware of the real slaughter being inflicted on the Army of the Potomac, in early '64.
This is really no different than what the military and government(Of our and other Nations) have done for thousands of years. Call it the, "If ya want the story ya play by our rules" game.
A Great Series of Books to read are the Civil War Extra (A Newspaper History of the Civil War) If we lived in the 1860's we would be led to believe Grant died in '64 due to a sniper shot, Lee marched on Baltimore after winning Gettysburg, and my favorite Longstreet, Hill, and Ewell captured at Gettysburg! The Funny thing is these were all Northern papers! lol!
Sorry for the spelling kinda busy with kids and wife
First of all kids are not conducive to either good spelling or good grammar. Love the tykes though and never get tired of being around them.
I really think that Cold Harbor belongs into a thread of its own. May I recommend Gordon Rhea's new book just released in August. He carefully with exacting scholarship dismantles many of the myths of the battle and puts all the numbers under a microscope. Course, he ends before the nightmare that brought no glory to either Lee or Grant when they had a spat over a truce to gather the wounded. He also doesn't get into the country's response to the battle. He's leaving that to his next book which will start there and takes us into the Petersburg trenches.
Getting back to the thrust of this thread, if Cold Harbor had turned into the controversy in 1864 that it did in the ensuing decades, I think it would have harmed Grant's popularity and possibly hurt his ability to perform in the field. I suppose that could have lost some votes for Lincoln and sent some to the Peace Democrats.
I do believe that with or without a Cold Harbor scandal erupting in 1864, Lincoln would have still won. The northern voting heart had hardened into a solid core determined to both end the war and reunite the nation.
Without the sophisticated polls we have today and the ability to analyze the results, the poll watchers of 1864 were behind in their estimates. This led to an idea that Atlanta for instance saved Lincoln. Events were moving so rapidly that no one seemed to have their finger on the pulse of the nation until the votes were counted.
Waugh for instance claims that Lincoln's election barring any significant losses or other equally catastrophic event, was a foregone conclusion by mid-summer. Of course, I am also summarizing Waugh's position since he offers many more significant facts to support this.
Oh fiddle, I want to comment on journalism in the war. This is one of my favorite and passionate areas of research. I have not read the series you recommend (will have to look into getting them though), but have read most of the others on journalism.
CW journalism was pretty funny and editors were willing to report almost any unsubstantiated report in order to get a scoop. Selling the paper was the goal and even if wrong, they could sell another paper correcting it.
However, most people received their news from the big NY papers. Even the South relied on Bennett, Gordon and Greeley. It was common practice for most of the dailies in the hinterland, which could not afford "specials" in the field, to reprint per agreement the war news published in NY.
My point is NY led the distribution of information and in essence controlled how people viewed the events on the battlefields. But I think you are right, even NY bought Grant's and Lincoln's spin on Cold Harbor. Although if IIRC Mary Todd knew as she was the first to call Grant a butcher due to Cold Harbor.
Having said that, I still do not think it would have significantly impacted the election.
I believe General Warren said it best "For thirty days now it has been one funeral procession past me", Warren said, "and it is to much!" This is not to mention other Senior officers comments like Hancock's and Grant's Staff.
The Army of the Potomac that marched south towards Petersburg was no the same that had crossed the Rapidan a month earlier. Grant had lost 50,000 men - (Roughly 45% of his initial force) a total that represented roughly half the casualties suffered by the A.o.P. since the start of the war. His officer corp had been cut to pieces, with the most severe losses among the regimental commanders.
Finally, we all know Grant's loses were replaced within a few months and he retained the initiative and still held the strategic advantage. While Lee could not replace the losses inflicted on him. However, Lee's men did a truly amazing job of holding the Union at bay until '65.
In the West, I would hardly call "Sherman's March" anything noteworthy at this point. True, they had pushed Johnston back (Roughly 70 miles from May 12-July 1)however, by June 27, Johnston had enjoyed the most one sided victory of the Georgia campaign at Kennesaw Mountain.
I see the slaughter wrought on Grant's force in early '64 as having created the possibility of a huge political backlash for Lincoln. In relative terms Sherman's advance really was not anything that would lead voters to think the end was near. Sherman's 70 mile advance was not (compared to Grants losses) going to make that much of a difference politically. Grant was within 100 miles of Washington/Richmond, Sherman was marching (Hmmm, some where in Georgia) on to Atlanta.
It seems the main theme for Johnston and his Army of the Tennessee was a deliberate retreat in order to fight south of the Chattahoochee. If th A.o.T. was defeated they then would withdraw into the Atlanta fortifications (Only partially completed) and face Sherman's army, which they believed would be weakened by losses and far from its main supply hub. Well, we all know what happened thanks to J.B. Hood!
The South lost the War by not better defending the true Heartland of the South. If Richmond had placed more attention on Tennessee,Georgia, ect. we may have had a prolonged struggle. Politically the war was won in the East, economically (for the South) the war was lost in the West. If the Army of the Tennessee had been given even 1/2 half of what the Army of Northern Virginia had stolen in raw materials and men Sherman and Grant may not have held the positions of authority they did in '64.
A great series to read on the West is "Autumn of Glory" by Thomas Lawrence Connely
And Army of the Heartland, by Connelly, both excellent books.
But I think it was more than just material they lacked but a cohesive staff of generals in the West.
I agree, a cohesive staff more concerned with a solid strategy and less with political intrigue and laying blame would have benefited the men in the Army of the Tennessee.
What both the books brought to light was the sheer stupidity of the Richmond Government as to what the West meant to "The Cause." Additionally, I believe the North considered the West a secondary front however successful they may have been in the Western Theatre of Operations.
Man for man, I believe the Southern soldier was, in general, a better fighting man. However, economic strength, military industrial output, and the sheer volume of men the North possessed and brought in from other Nations (Canada being one) nullified any Southern advantage.
Most Union leaders were considered talented and or cutting edge for winning the war. However, most any respectable leader can and should win a war of attrition. This holds true in any historical time period.
However, men at the disadvantage are also remembered for what they may have done with what their field opposition had at their disposal.
In Grants' campaign of 1864, for the first time, the AOP did not have a battle, then retreat to lick their wounds. Finally, they kept attacking, and kept after R.E. Lee. No more would the Confederacy invade the north after a confederate victory, as they had in the 2 previous years.
I wish I could remember the historian (William C. Davis?) who said this: 'From 1861 to spring of 1864, the Army of the Potomac (AOP) endured 100,000 casualties, and was at the same place they started out in. When Grant got there, the AOP endured 60,000 casualties in 6 months, and was besieging Richmond and Petersberg. So, who's the butcher?'
Also, do not ingore the fall of Atlanta. Combined with Grant keeping Lee on the defensive, I think many in the North could see the beginning of the end. It is worth noting that the AOP veterans voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln, not McClellan, who they loved. They loved him, but I think they knew he wasn't the guy to finish it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
