Lee Gary Gallagher Dispells Myths About Robert E. Lee

Good video, I enjoyed it. Not really sure what "myth" was dispelled by it, though. That Lee had private feelings that he subjugated to his public persona is really not surprising. He did the right thing and I think most of us know that.

One thing that continues to bother me, though. Gary Gallagher and others jump to casualty figures between Lee and Grant and insist on invoking percentages of their respective armies lost.

Fine, but that is a way of circumventing the reality of the butcher's bill that Grant paid. His Army of the Potomac lost more dead and wounded chasing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia than the latter lost. I'll have to dig up the numbers (if anyone else has them, please post), so historians spinning percentages, nature of wounds, etc., is really an attempt to re-write this thing, if you ask me.

It was murderous as all get-up, but attempting to portray Grant as the kid-gloved general to Lee's Boogeyman is just wrong. That's not what happened.
 
Good video, I enjoyed it. Not really sure what "myth" was dispelled by it, though. That Lee had private feelings that he subjugated to his public persona is really not surprising. He did the right thing and I think most of us know that.

One thing that continues to bother me, though. Gary Gallagher and others jump to casualty figures between Lee and Grant and insist on invoking percentages of their respective armies lost.

Fine, but that is a way of circumventing the reality of the butcher's bill that Grant paid. His Army of the Potomac lost more dead and wounded chasing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia than the latter lost. I'll have to dig up the numbers (if anyone else has them, please post), so historians spinning percentages, nature of wounds, etc., is really an attempt to re-write this thing, if you ask me.

It was murderous as all get-up, but attempting to portray Grant as the kid-gloved general to Lee's Boogeyman is just wrong. That's not what happened.
Plus the size of the battles that involved Grant in 1862/3 were much smaller then those in the East. Ft. Donelson, Champion's Hill versus Seven Days and Gettysburg.
 
Plus the size of the battles that involved Grant in 1862/3 were much smaller then those in the East. Ft. Donelson, Champion's Hill versus Seven Days and Gettysburg.

The Seven Days were a series of battles. It's not a fair comparison to compare a campaign with two specific parts of two campaigns. Look at Champion Hill as a part of the larger Vicksburg Campaign that went from Grand Gulf to the Siege and fall of Vicksburg. Grant was actually outnumbered in that theater and through his maneuvering he ensured that he faced only a portion of the confederate troops and prevented them from ever uniting against him. In a sense, you're using Grant's genius at doing so to say he wasn't such a genius after all.

Compare Shiloh with Gettysburg.

Shiloh
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tn003.htm
Union Forces: 65,085
Union Casualties: 13,047
Percentage 20.05%
Confederate Forces: 44,968
Confederate Casualties: 10,699
Percentage: 23.79%

Gettysburg
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/pa002.htm
Union Forces: 83,289
Union Casualties: 23,000
Percentage: 27.61%
Confederate Forces: 75,054
Confederate Casualties: 28,000
Percentage: 37.31%

We use percentages so we can get closer to comparing apples to apples. At Shiloh, Grant inflicted 23.79% casualties while suffering 20.05% casualties. At Gettysburg, Lee inflicted 27.61% casualties while suffering 37.31%. Of course, all things are not equal. At Shiloh, Grant was on the defensive on the first day. Lee was on the offensive all three days of Gettysburg.

Let's look at the six battles of the Seven Days. Singly, they don't seem like large battles at all.

Mechanicsville (Beaver Dam Creek)
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va016.htm
Union Forces: 15,631
Union Casualties: 400
Percentage: 2.56%
Confederate Forces: 16,356
Confederate Casualties: 1,300
Percentage: 7.95%

Gaines' Mill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va017.htm
Union Forces: 34,214
Union Casualties: 6,800
Percentage: 19.87%
Confederate Forces: 57,018
Confederate Casualties: 8,700
Percentage: 15.26%

Savage's Station
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va019.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefield...june-29.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Union Forces: 26,600
Union Casualties: 1,038
Percentage: 1.82%
Confederate Forces: 14,000
Confederate Casualties: 473
Percentage: 3.38%

Glendale
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va020b.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/glendale.html
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/glendale.html?tab=facts
Union Forces: 40,000
Union Casualties: 3,797
Percentage: 9.49%
Confederate Forces: 45,000
Confederate Casualties: 3,673
Percentage: 8.16%

White Oak Swamp
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va020.htm
Union Forces:
Union Casualties: 100
Percentage:
Confederate Forces:
Confederate Casualties: 15
Percentage:

Malvern Hill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va021.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/malvern-hill.html?tab=facts
Union Forces: 27,000
Union Casualties: 2,100
Percentage: 7.78%
Confederate Forces: 30,000
Confederate Casualties: 5,600
Percentage: 18.67%

Now let's look at the Vicksburg Campaign [these are the best figures I can find in a short search and are incomplete]. I'd say Champion Hill compares quite favorably against any of the battles of the Seven Days:

Port Gibson
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms006.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/portgibson.html
Union Forces:
Union Casualties: 861
Percentage:
Confederate Forces:
Confederate Casualties: 767
Percentage:

Raymond
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms007.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/raymond.html
Union Forces: 12,000
Union Casualties: 442
Percentage: 3.68%
Confederate Forces: 4100
Confederate Casualties: 569
Percentage: 13.88%

Jackson
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms008.htm
Union Forces:
Union Casualties: 286
Percentage:
Confederate Forces:
Confederate Casualties: 850
Percentage:

Champion Hill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms009.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/champion-hill.html?tab=facts
Union Forces: 32,000
Union Casualties: 2,457
Percentage: 7.68%
Confederate Forces: 22,000
Confederate Casualties: 3,840
Percentage: 17.45%

Big Black River Bridge
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms010.htm
Union Forces:
Union Casualties: 273
Percentage:
Confederate Forces:
Confederate Casualties: 2,000
Percentage:

Vicksburg

Union Forces:
Union Casualties:
Percentage:
Confederate Forces:
Confederate Casualties:
Percentage:

Total
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/ms011.htm
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/vicksburg.html?tab=facts
Union Forces: 77,000
Union Casualties: 10,142
Percentage: 13.17%
Confederate Forces: 33,000
Confederate Casualties: 32,492
Percentage: 98.46%
 
Like most of the readers here, I already have pretty much memorized the army strengths and casualties in all of the engagements you mention, at least within a 5% margin of error. But thanks anyway.

You are hypersensitive about Grant. I wasn't knocking him. But the plain fact is that the armies in the east were generally larger than those in the west. So, when they collided , the raw numbers of casualties were generally fewer.

Gallagher always says "Grant didn't get bloody until he came east and faced Lee. ". That is largely true, but why was Lee bloody? Well, when you take over command with 90,000 Federals within 10 miles of your capital, you have to do something to make them leave. When you have Union armies of between 60,000 and 120,000 bearing down on Richmond every four months, and you have to guard the capital, you are going to get bloody.

Between June 1862 and June 1863, With the exceptions of Malvern Hill and deciding to fight at Antietam, I am not sure what Lee could have done anything different to achieve the successes he did.
 
Like most of the readers here, I already have pretty much memorized the army strengths and casualties in all of the engagements you mention, at least within a 5% margin of error. But thanks anyway.

You are hypersensitive about Grant. I wasn't knocking him. But the plain fact is that the armies in the east were generally larger than those in the west. So, when they collided , the raw numbers of casualties were generally fewer.

Gallagher always says "Grant didn't get bloody until he came east and faced Lee. ". That is largely true, but why was Lee bloody? Well, when you take over command with 90,000 Federals within 10 miles of your capital, you have to do something to make them leave. When you have Union armies of between 60,000 and 120,000 bearing down on Richmond every four months, and you have to guard the capital, you are going to get bloody.

Between June 1862 and June 1863, With the exceptions of Malvern Hill and deciding to fight at Antietam, I am not sure what Lee could have done anything different to achieve the successes he did.

Lee was bloody because he was offensive-minded and threw in as many of his troops as he could. He wasn't wrong to do so, and Gallgher isn't saying he was wrong to do so. Lee knew the confederates couldn't stand toe-to-toe with the Federals in a long war, so he wanted to score a quick knock-out by convincing the loyal state populace that they couldn't win. He wanted to pile up victory after victory to depress loyal state morale to the point where they would force the Lincoln administration to give up the fight. In order to do that he had to attack with as much force as he could muster, and in the Civil War the attacker almost always piled up more casualties than the defender.

The size of the battle really doesn't play into the percentages of casualties. Use of percentage casualties does away with differences in sizes of battles.

The factors that affected casualty percentages most were attacking vs. defending, use of fortifications, proportion of troops using rifles vs. smoothbores, and tactics.
 
Back
Top