Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Go figure. There are too many people with too little to do populating this planet. If more people had to crawl under the truck to keep the dang thing running, there would be fewer people to object to what a flag looks like.
On the issue of Sherman and Patton, I've just finished a wonderful book that discusses the two generals at length. In "The Soul of Battle", Victor Davis Hanson actually discusses and analyzes three great democratic generals and their campaigns of liberation: Epaminondas (a Theban general who invaded Sparta and freed the Helots in 370-69 B.C.), Sherman and Patton. There are great similarities in their visions and strategies. I'll give you a taste:
"All three epic marches for freedom -- hostilities were to cease immediately after each reached their objective -- were led by eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by many of their superiors. These sometimes repugnant generals kept prodigious amounts of information in their heads, were keen students of history, gifted impromptu orators, devised entire tactical plans alone, and often told few of their ultimate intentions; contemporaries remarked more on their outlandish personal behavior than on their brilliance in battle. All three generals were censured by their own governments, threatened with loss of comand, and ridiculed for their belief that a militia could make its way into Sparta, the South and Germany in a matter of months. But Epaminondas did more than any Athenian to destroy Sparta; no abolitionist did as much as Sherman to dismantle slavery; and the most die-hard antifascist could not match Patton's destruction of Nazi military power."
There were obviously differences between Sherman and Patton, the most noteworthy being that Patton was kept on a very short leash by Eisenhower and Bradley; once Sherman (and Epaminondas) disappeared down the rabbit hole, they were incommunicado and free to do what they wanted.
Although not strictly relevant here, I'll add that the short leash on Patton was a tragic mistake. Had Eisenhower and Bradley let go of the leash, Patton might well have broken the "shell" of Germany and won the War in September 1944, avoiding thousands of Allied casualties incurred later during the Battle of the Bulge and assaulting the Siegfried line, and sparing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions from the death camps, which the Nazis were operating at a frenzied pace as the end approached.
Hanson argues that these allegedly bloodthirsty and insane commanders were actually among the most humane of warriors, using speed and misdirection to avoid murderous head-on clashes, thereby saving the lives of both the enemy and their own soldiers while bringing the wars in which they were involved to far speedier conclusions than if they had not done so.
i will never understand how Beauregard managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at Shiloh. if he had merely pressed his advance on the first day instead of stopping to eat gourmet food and drink wine then he would've easily routed the entire yankee army at Shiloh. Beauregard is a disgrace who should've been dismissed from the Confederate Army.
Neo-CS... don't go hog wild blaming Beauregard for the failure of of Shiloh. I'm more inclined to blame poor planning, exhausted CS troops and the Union Army. That last line of Grants was strong, perhaps the strongest of the War to that point. Dotted w/ arty, some of it siege guns, fresh troops (the majority Veterans) were arriving by the minute and most importantly the men who held that line had a tendency to shoot back. By the end of the 1st day at Shiloh the CS troops had pretty much shot their bolt, they had endured a long march to even get to the battle and they had fought a day long battle. If the attacks had been more coordinated throughout the day victory might have been grasped; but they were not.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
it may be that Beauregard would not have been able to drive them back any further but i think he should've at least tried. if he had suceeeded it would've been well worth the cost and the lost probably would've ended Grant's career, or at least his command. so i think it was definitely worth trying.
{pressed his advance on the first day instead of stopping to eat gourmet food and drink wine }
Beauegard didn't just stop to allow his men to eat. They did it on their own, hungry as they were, without food for 2 days. And considering the length of the battle lines he was powerless to stop all from doing this.
To the long marches and heavy fighting all day, you might add, having to endure sleeping, or trying to sleep, in the rain. Some material I've read shows that even though many did get a little sleep, there were many more that got none.
Then there was the terrain of the battlefield itself. Brutal area to try and fight in all day. Some might have been able to stay more on the ridgetops, but most had to climb and crawl thru the gullies and hills the area is filled with. I spent 3 1/2 days there doing that, but luckly without someone shooting at me. And I was tired at the end of each day, but had a good nights sleep before starting my 1st day. They didn't have that pleasure.
Another factor was troop control on the battleline. Many units were separated from their larger commands. Many officers were down, and no one knew much of what was going on at other points on the line. Look at Forrests problem in trying to find Beauregard that night. And some units were completely stopped, both by terrain and enemy units in front of them.
To have a 'last major' push against the Union Line, Beauregard would have had to pull all his officers together to give them a command, disengaged his men temporarily, line them up, make sure they had ammo, all of which also gives Grant further time to set his own lines.
Now, by this time Beauregard had the impression he had won the battle, and would only need to 'mop up' the remaining enemy in the morning. So he called off the units still fighting. However, by the time he actually did this, there were units, or maybe I should say, areas on the field, that had already stopped fighting. Adding to all this, was large numbers of men that, by mid afternoon, already were celebrating their victory of the day, by looting the Federal camps and.......heading back toward Cornith. Plus the numbers of men that just quit, or that used helping a wounded friend to exit the battlefield.
Beauregard may have used the wrong reason to stop what fighting was still going on, but it did save some of his men for the fighting on the 2nd day.
Just a couple quick observations by myself.
Chuck in IL.
It may be understood that Grant's line was formidible enough to have stopped any Confederate effort that night. Beauregard's dilemma, even if he were so inclined to attack, was that he had no contact with the bulk of his army. For this, I place the blame on the weather, terrain, and some really slipshod planning.
Some of the planning can be forgiven if you will allow that the main point was to get to Grant's troops before Buell's could show up. Haste, then, provides some excuse.
Weather made the march to Pittsburg Landing extreme. Add that to the fubar routes specified and orders issued. Beauregard somehow managed to take a fine collection of men and throw them willy-nilly against an equally fine collection. AS Johnston? He more or less let Beauregard run the show -- and that's his primary faulty involvement in the fiasco.
Why didn't he at least try? Chuck made a perfectly rational observation. He couln't. Had he tried, there would have been no resistance to the Federal advance on the second day.
Hope this all helps.
i will never understand how Beauregard managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at Shiloh. if he had merely pressed his advance on the first day instead of stopping to eat gourmet food and drink wine then he would've easily routed the entire yankee army at Shiloh. Beauregard is a disgrace who should've been dismissed from the Confederate Army.
Don't be too tough on Beauregard. He didn't stop to gorge, his tired and starving troops did. The sesesh also had to contend with two Union gunboats raking their flanks with massive double canister. The Confederates had no idea the Union troops would be so heavily reinforced after the 18th. The first day was not easy on either side. You ever tried to subsist on a handful of dried parched corn for days on end?
Calicoboy
__________________ My dear mother:- I have come safely through two more terrible engagements with the enemy, that at South Mountain and the great battle of yesterday (Antietam). Our splendid regiment is almost destroyed. We have had nearly 400 men killed and wounded in the battles. Seven of our officers were shot and three killed in yesterday's battle and nearly 150 men killed and wounded. All from less than 300 engaged. The men have stood like iron....Maj. Rufus Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers
Actually, the gunboats didn't fire canister into the flanks of the rebs, either during the days fighting or overnight. After the lines did stabilize, the gunboatd fired cannon into their area, however, this did little more damage than keeping many on both sides from sleeping very well. Canister would have been of little value due to the terrain and tree coverage, as well as only being effective at closer range.
Chuck
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
