Could Lee have won a decisive victory over Grant in The Wilderness

[Ter61]

In the Battle of The Wilderness General John Gordon discovered that Grant's right flank was exposed and wanted to make an attack. He did not get permission to make the attack until late in the evening and it became dark before the attack had a chance to be successful. General Gordon as well as many others believe the attack would have been successful if it had been made earlier in the day. What if the attack had been made earlier in the day and had been successful?Grant's right flank is crushed and the Union supply line is cut. Would Grant have been forced to retreat, giving Lee a decisive victory?

[ole]

Grant forced to retreat?!
Ole

[MobileBoy]

I agree with Ole Grant could simply replace his losses and I don't see him retreating.From a numbers standpoint Grant got his butt kicked repeatedly by the Army of Northern Virginia,but he never did retreat after being whipped as previous Union commanders had done.I'm sure a great many mothers and fathers wish he was more concerned about casualties but men were expendable resources to Grant.Also it's the Northern press that dubbed Grant his nickname the Butcher not Confederates.He was no coward though,the man was a fighter.

[samgrant]

Grant hoped to get through that Wilderness area before the Rebs could attack, unfortunately for him, he did not.

To Grant this was just a minor setback.

[whitworth]

the Army of Northern Virginia was a spent offensive army. It could extract heavy losses to a two mile depth, or defending, but the days of any great offensive thrusts never happened to the Army of Northern Virginia.
By the time of the Wilderness, Lee was doing the best he could.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by whitworth

the Army of Northern Virginia was a spent offensive army. It could extract heavy losses to a two mile depth, or defending, but the days of any great offensive thrusts never happened to the Army of Northern Virginia.
By the time of the Wilderness, Lee was doing the best he could.

"Lee was doing the best he could.", and he did darned well, considering, but once he found himself a general/army who would not retreat, but would keep pounding away, it begs the question as to when he first must have realized that defeat was a foregone conclusion.

[trice]

Originally Posted by Ter61

In the Battle of The Wilderness General John Gordon discovered that Grant's right flank was exposed and wanted to make an attack. He did not get permission to make the attack until late in the evening and it became dark before the attack had a chance to be successful. General Gordon as well as many others believe the attack would have been successful if it had been made earlier in the day. What if the attack had been made earlier in the day and had been successful?Grant's right flank is crushed and the Union supply line is cut. Would Grant have been forced to retreat, giving Lee a decisive victory?

IMHO, the attack would have been successful, but Grant's flank would not have been crushed and his supply line would not have been cut. Gordon's immediate commander is the one who turned him down, largely because the situation was unclear and there were no reserves available to give weight to the attack or reinforce success. Gordon did not have enough strength to make a bigger result probable.

Grant was also not the type to retreat. Bad as this situation in the Wilderness might be, it was not as bad as the situation on the first day at Shiloh must have seemed at the time -- and Grant showed little indication of retreating there. Or at any other time, come to think of it.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by samgrant

"Lee was doing the best he could.", and he did darned well, considering, but once he found himself a general/army who would not retreat, but would keep pounding away, it begs the question as to when he first must have realized that defeat was a foregone conclusion.

IMHO, Lee understood that his major offensive ability was gone shortly after the Wilderness, probably by the end of the Spotsylvania battle and certainly by the North Anna misfire. Stuart was dead, Longstreet was lost to wounds, Ewell was unreliable, and A. P. Hill was erratic; Lee now understood only his personal direction could ensure success. Heavy casualties reduced the margin he had to work with in the troops. Only the Union disasters in the Shenandoah and Butler's AoJ flop at Bermuda Hundred allowed Lee to continue his campaign above Richmond.

The ANV could do very well defensively and with limited counterattacks at this point. Lee's defensive campaign against Grant from late May to the Fall is one of hair's-breadth escapes and brilliant little counterstrokes. But the ANV was now too brittle and vulnerable to be risked out of the trenches in grand attacks. Any major offensive failure might mean the end of the war for the Confederacy. With the US election looming, such a risk would seem foolhardy.

This doesn't mean Lee stopped looking for opportunities. But his resources were insufficient to do anything major against Grant/Meade and his means of reinforcing success elsewhere (say in the Shenandoah under Early) were miniscule.

I would guess Lee understood that the Union victories in the Fall (Sherman, Farragut, Sheridan) were nails being hammered in the Confederate coffin. After Lincoln's victory in November, another major campaign in 1865 was inevitable. Not too long after this, Lee seems to be indicating to Davis that things look very bad for the following year, and by early 1865 he seems to be telling them he can no longer hold Richmond once the weather clears.

Personally, with all the advantages of 20-20 hindsight, I feel that after mid-November of 1864 Confederate military defeat was inevitable. Hood's campaign into Tennessee was simply a bad idea running its' course, and Lee had no chance against Grant once the Spring came. The only miracle I can see to change this would involve the destruction of Sherman's Army -- and the Confederacy was doing literally nothing to bring that about as it moved through GA-SC-NC.

Lee certainly saw all of that. It appears to me the only chance he had left -- a thin and seemingly impossible one -- would be to wait until Sherman drew close, then somehow join with Johnson to smash Sherman, then turn to smash Grant. Since both of those Generals would have outnumbered the combined Rebel force, and neither of those generals was likely to fall apart in a defensive battle, I find it hard to believe it could be pulled off. I think Lee understood that as well; he merely saw it was the only chance left.

Regards,
Tim

[whitworth]

the Army of Northern Virginia never won a decisive victory at Chancellorsville.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by trice

IMHO, the attack would have been successful, but Grant's flank would not have been crushed and his supply line would not have been cut. Gordon's immediate commander is the one who turned him down, largely because the situation was unclear and there were no reserves available to give weight to the attack or reinforce success. Gordon did not have enough strength to make a bigger result probable.

Grant was also not the type to retreat. Bad as this situation in the Wilderness might be, it was not as bad as the situation on the first day at Shiloh must have seemed at the time -- and Grant showed little indication of retreating there. Or at any other time, come to think of it.

Regards,
Tim

Trice, I agree...

If Ewell had been bold and thrown all he had into flanking Grants open right side this would have changed the battle but not the outcome. Ewell knew in the early morning hour that Grant's right was open but refused to take advantage of it until late in the day with a half hearted push.

If Ewell had moved in the morning hours before Burnside's Corp made it to the field and with enough force Grant would have been staggered.

I am with the fact that Grant never retreats and with Burnside's Corps on hand. He would have done what he did at Shiloh and pushed the confederates back on their heals.

The AoP had gotten to big and to season for Lee to work his magic anymore....