- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Location
- Hoover, Alabama
True, by then; I believe that the light had come on in Washington.In 1864-65 the Great Army of the West took the Western Theater east.
True, by then; I believe that the light had come on in Washington.In 1864-65 the Great Army of the West took the Western Theater east.
But in spite of everything I've never heard anyone who denigrates Grant for the heavy losses suffered by Meade's army then go on to explain what Grant should have done differently to inflict maximum losses on Lee's army and minimum losses on Meade's, even with all of the advantages of 20/20 hindsight.
Question; With the force that the CSA had and the limited arsenal ,how could the CSA taken on the forces of the Union army esp. when Grant and Lincoln in '64 changed the strategy of the war to one of duration and maturition {who had the more men to lose} from a wasted strategy of capturing capital or of one general area,being Virginia.Then Grant sending Sherman to make a tour of the Deep South.Due to lack of leadership and the forces that faced Sherman gives him no real credit for his achievement .What he did accomplish was to draw the forces that could have been used against Grant and destruction of supplies ,So, take let the Western army take credit for that ,then that was what was required to bring "Ol' Dixie Down"To sum it up, the Confederacy could have won the ACW in the east, but lost it in the west.
In his best Elvis voice: Thank you very much...Redbob for the win!
Right here is part of the problem. It was Meade's Army when things didn't go well.
It was Grant's Army when they did.
Historical "interpretation" is grand, ain't it?
Question; With the force that the CSA had and the limited arsenal ,how could the CSA taken on the forces of the Union army esp. when Grant and Lincoln in '64 changed the strategy of the war to one of duration and maturition {who had the more men to lose} from a wasted strategy of capturing capital or of one general area,being Virginia.Then Grant sending Sherman to make a tour of the Deep South.Due to lack of leadership and the forces that faced Sherman gives him no real credit for his achievement .What he did accomplish was to draw the forces that could have been used against Grant and destruction of supplies ,So, take let the Western army take credit for that ,then that was what was required to bring "Ol' Dixie Down"To sum it up, the Confederacy could have won the ACW in the east, but lost it in the west.
The eastern theater probably demonstrates that the politicians had no idea how to fight and win the war.
Lincoln was a politician but he at least read books on military strategy.The problem was that he had to deal with the political side of war to appease those who desired that the war be fought certain ways as had been fought namely to seize the capital.Then he had to endure eneficent generals who basical fought the same way ,do a battle ,lose a battle,retreat to Washington and request for more men then repeat. Inquiry; How did Lincoln settle on Grant?iIt was not Stanton or Halleck who recommended him.Then Grant was intelligent to bring Sherman and Sheridan.with their little rag 'o muffin army.If Grant had been in the East in '62 would the war have been any different,shorter or would he have had to use the same plans as other generals?,just imagine Grant,Sherman,and Sheridan vs.Lee ,Jackson and Stuart! But the war had to be fought as Fate directed.read Lincoln's second inaugural address.The eastern theater probably demonstrates that the politicians had no idea how to fight and win the war.
When I became interested in learning about the war on a more detailed level, I tended to focus on the Army of Tennessee's campaigns, and am only now venturing into exploring the Army of Northern Virginia. It's a bit of a culture shock, to be honest. Campaigns being confined to such a relatively small area, the Confederate high command working like a well-oiled machine, Union commanders being defeated, frequent large Confederate forays into Union territory - it's quite a bit to wrap one's head around.
Can some of our Eastern theater experts please try to explain the war in that theater for people like me with a definite "Western" perspective?
Unfortunately, I have to agree with most of you Rebel Boys, Grant was overrated as a whole (on an average). Give Bobby Lee the resources both logistically and militarily that Grant had, smh.... Grant, imo, is atoned to a WWI General just keep sending the boys 'Over the Top' until the CSA is literally overpowered. This isn't much of a 'strategy' Per Se....
The fact is that if any of the previous generals would have used the same strategy of continuous pressure on the ANV then prehabs the war would have been shorter.This is what Lincoln wanted to happen this became the objective of Grant."To continue to Press".Grant had a staff of officers who shared the goal of continuous pressure on Lee and not to let up.The previous generals would retreat after losing in one battle.There is one accomplishment that these generals did ,was to provide Grant with an army that was tired of no real objective to accomplish and Grant was the general that would have the support of Lincoln as long as Grant's goal was the same as his.Grant had a weapon in Sherman while Lee scraper as empty.This two frontal attacks, with the fall of Vicksburg, marked the end of the Confederate force. That was what makes Grant essential in the END.Unfortunately, I have to agree with most of you Rebel Boys, Grant was overrated as a whole (on an average). Give Bobby Lee the resources both logistically and militarily that Grant had, smh.... Grant, imo, is atoned to a WWI General just keep sending the boys 'Over the Top' until the CSA is literally overpowered. This isn't much of a 'strategy' Per Se....