Shelby Foote Quote on Lee and Gettysburg

[wausaubob]

In agreeing, I would say that Grant's army CAUSED Lee's army to disintegrate.

Note: the poster that stated that Lee stopped Grant "cold" from taking Richmond was totally incorrect. Grant's army (part of it) literally marched into Richmond unopposed after Lee's army fled.ric

Richmond and Virginia paid a very heavy price for the successful defense of the Confederate capital.

 

[wausaubob]

Except the crisis was postponed from 1850 to 1861 precisely to avoid that contingency. Webster and Clay agreed to many things to postpone the secession crisis.

I do see your point, @genbeau! I am a fan of General Lee, and believe that if he had owned the same resources that the Union had we would have two separate nations today, which in my opinion would be unfortunate. I am also a fan of Grant because he used his superior resources to defeat a highly capable, dangerous opponent.

t

 

[genbeau]

If you take all the credit, you have some responsibility when the wheels come off.
McClellan, Burnside and Hooker were not Meade or Grant.
What happened when Lee faced determined enemy who wasn't intimidated be Lee?
Cheat Mountain?

Those of us in the Lee column do take credit for his defeats. I have always said the Lee lost Gettysburg mostly because of Pickett's Charge, a bad choice Longstreet strongly advised against. However, I believe going to Gettysburg was a good gamble for the confederacy. If it had succeeded it might have turned the war around. There was no good in just fighting a defensive battle in Virginia as we saw how that war of attrition worked out later on.

 

[genbeau]

In agreeing, I would say that Grant's army CAUSED Lee's army to disintegrate.

Note: the poster that stated that Lee stopped Grant "cold" from taking Richmond was totally incorrect. Grant's army (part of it) literally marched into Richmond unopposed after Lee's army fled.

I am the one who said Lee stopped Grant "cold" etc etc
I won't look up my actual comment, but did I not make it clear I was referring to the end of the Overland Campaign. In any case that's what I meant. I would never say Grant didn't eventually march into Richmond after a year's attempt.

 

[damYankee]

Those of us in the Lee column do take credit for his defeats. I have always said the Lee lost Gettysburg mostly because of Pickett's Charge, a bad choice Longstreet strongly advised against. However, I believe going to Gettysburg was a good gamble for the confederacy. If it had succeeded it might have turned the war around. There was no good in just fighting a defensive battle in Virginia as we saw how that war of attrition worked out later on.

Lee lost many battles, that is always over looked by those who worship the man.
Besides Cheat Mountain where his 5,000 man were defeated by 3000 Yanks, there was July 1, 1862 attack at Malvern Hill, when as a primer for Gettysburg, Lee ordered his men to march across open fields into well prepared Union lines supported by artillery, leave 5,300 CSA casualties in the wake.
The Second Battle of Rappahannock Station ( Nov. 7, 1863) when Meade tricked Lee into thinking his advance was only a diversion, so Lee sent no help to Early's isolated units. On that night under cover of darkness, "Union troops fixed bayonets and surged over the Confederate earthworks, taking the defenders by surprise. Hundreds fled into the icy river to escape. It was one of Lee's worst mistakes, costing 70 killed or wounded and between 1,600 and 1,900 captured, while Union forces suffered 419 casualties. Two of Lee's finest brigades, irreplaceable veteran troops, were taken off the board."
And yet there are those who still insist he was better than Grant. While Grant was securing control of the Mississippi, an invaluable asset for the CSA, Lee was losing half of Virginia. We all know that Lee's victories in Maryland all resulted in Lee returning to Virginia, while Grants victories at Shiloh and Vicksburg resulted in the loss of CSA control of vital resources.

 

[genbeau]

Lee lost many battles, that is always over looked by those who worship the man.
Besides Cheat Mountain where his 5,000 man were defeated by 3000 Yanks, there was July 1, 1862 attack at Malvern Hill, when as a primer for Gettysburg, Lee ordered his men to march across open fields into well prepared Union lines supported by artillery, leave 5,300 CSA casualties in the wake.
The Second Battle of Rappahannock Station ( Nov. 7, 1863) when Meade tricked Lee into thinking his advance was only a diversion, so Lee sent no help to Early's isolated units. On that night under cover of darkness, "Union troops fixed bayonets and surged over the Confederate earthworks, taking the defenders by surprise. Hundreds fled into the icy river to escape. It was one of Lee's worst mistakes, costing 70 killed or wounded and between 1,600 and 1,900 captured, while Union forces suffered 419 casualties. Two of Lee's finest brigades, irreplaceable veteran troops, were taken off the board."
And yet there are those who still insist he was better than Grant. While Grant was securing control of the Mississippi, an invaluable asset for the CSA, Lee was losing half of Virginia. We all know that Lee's victories in Maryland all resulted in Lee returning to Virginia, while Grants victories at Shiloh and Vicksburg resulted in the loss of CSA control of vital resources.

It's an interesting debate for sure. Putting Lee aside for a moment, the central, overriding questing is why did it take the federal govt 4 years and 3 months to defeat the confederacy, a dirt poor country? It only took the USA in WWTwo 3 years, 9 months to beat Germany with the help of Great Britain and Russia and Japan with essentially no help. I would call that looking at the forest and not the trees.

This is what southerners look at and the reason for southern pride in the confederate military. Answer that and you have won the game.

 

[genbeau]

I had a friend also from Ga who went to Pittsburgh with his wife. They were visiting his wife's relatives. He said when they went to the bar, no one would let him buy a drink. They all just wanted to hear him talk.

LOL, with my new orleans accent, I get the same.

 

[genbeau]

Sailors on Stone Mountain…. I'd be freaking out too

We often get off the ship. Its called "Liberty".

 

[genbeau]

If Lee would have turned Stonewall loose on Washington and the north we could have put Lincoln in jail with the rest of those Yankees, then negotiations could have gone through. But If that would have happened we could have been the victors, *EDITED* and start tearing down their monuments, destroying their graves. Digging up their cousins. Talk about separating family members.. How much hate must you have to dig somebody up and move them from their family members? Makes me sick

Secession was made illegal when the union won the war. Had the confederacy been able to push the union into a peace settlement and the result was two countries, then secession would have been legal. That's what established secession as illegal, the confederate defeat and not some flimsy judicial activism by Chief Justice Chase in Texas v White in 1869. That was just phony window dressing.

 

[Belfoured]

Secession was made illegal when the union won the war. Had the confederacy been able to push the union into a peace settlement and the result was two countries, then secession would have been legal. That's what established secession as illegal, the confederate defeat and not some flimsy judicial activism by Chief Justice Chase in Texas v White in 1869. That was just phony window dressing.

Your background and undoubted professional experience in interpreting SCOTUS and other appellate decisions must be extensive.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It's an interesting debate for sure. Putting Lee aside for a moment, the central, overriding questing is why did it take the federal govt 4 years and 3 months to defeat the confederacy, a dirt poor country? It only took the USA in WWTwo 3 years, 9 months to beat Germany with the help of Great Britain and Russia and Japan with essentially no help. I would call that looking at the forest and not the trees.

This is what southerners look at and the reason for southern pride in the confederate military. Answer that and you have won the game.

There's nothing special about holding out for 4 years. The American colonies held out for 8 years and won against a legitimate superpower, with French help only coming in the last half. In more recent times, many insurgent groups have held out decades and won against superpowers. And as already noted, the US was definitely not a military superpower in 1861. Trying to consider the confederacy holding on for 4 years into something special to be proud of seems more like a coping strategy for being defeated.

 

[cheesydn]

Lee knew what would happen at Gettysburg, PA. Lee's men needed shoes for starter. This was the turning point of War. With Stonewall gone, his belief in winning the War was suddenly fading.

 

[genbeau]

There's nothing special about holding out for 4 years. The American colonies held out for 8 years and won against a legitimate superpower, with French help only coming in the last half. In more recent times, many insurgent groups have held out decades and won against superpowers. And as already noted, the US was definitely not a military superpower in 1861. Trying to consider the confederacy holding on for 4 years into something special to be proud of seems more like a coping strategy for being defeated.

That might work at a small scale, especially when one of the combatants has a supply line over an ocean long. Of course you realize the revolution was not one of continuous daily battles over eight years? However, with the civil war, we are talking millions of people fighting constantly and all at once. Additionally, the US federal govt clearly had the ability to raise up a million man plus army quickly, so yes they were a leading global economic and military power. Coping is a good description for the pro union side, as well, no?

 

[genbeau]

Lee knew what would happen at Gettysburg, PA. Lee's men needed shoes for starter. This was the turning point of War. With Stonewall gone, his belief in winning the War was suddenly fading.

Stonewall was killed in the Battle of Chancellorsville where the confederacy was crushing it. Lee certainly was personally and professionally hurt by the death, but hope was fading?? I think not. He still had Longstreet, JEB Stuart and others.

 

[Belfoured]

There's nothing special about holding out for 4 years. The American colonies held out for 8 years and won against a legitimate superpower, with French help only coming in the last half. In more recent times, many insurgent groups have held out decades and won against superpowers. And as already noted, the US was definitely not a military superpower in 1861. Trying to consider the confederacy holding on for 4 years into something special to be proud of seems more like a coping strategy for being defeated.

I also like the notion that the US had some "help" from the USSR in defeating Germany. A little basic reading about the Eastern Front might clarify the level of "help". Then there was also some "help" from the UK in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy, etc. I'll disregard adding "3 months" to the duration of the Civil War - I may have missed all that combat that apparently took place after Johnston surrendered.

 

[damYankee]

That might work at a small scale, especially when one of the combatants has a supply line over an ocean long. Of course you realize the revolution was not one of continuous daily battles over eight years? However, with the civil war, we are talking millions of people fighting constantly and all at once. Additionally, the US federal govt clearly had the ability to raise up a million man plus army quickly, so yes they were a leading global economic and military power. Coping is a good description for the pro union side, as well, no?

Do we really need to rehash the data?
In 1860 the US Army had around 20K members including officers.
In my opinion, after losing 30% of that 20K to those who resigned or deserted to join the rebellion, to by 1861 securing the Mississippi River fort by fort while still recruiting, training clothing and arming an army while simultaneously assembling artillery and building armed riverboats and transport was phenomenal.
Not to mention the reorganization required both in the administrative branch and the armed forces.

 

[genbeau]

Do we really need to rehash the data?
In 1860 the US Army had around 20K members including officers.
In my opinion, after losing 30% of that 20K to those who resigned or deserted to join the rebellion, to by 1861 securing the Mississippi River fort by fort while still recruiting, training clothing and arming an army while simultaneously assembling artillery and building armed riverboats and transport was phenomenal.
Not to mention the reorganization required both in the administrative branch and the armed forces.

Take what you just said and apply that to the confederacy 3 or 4 times fold.
The feds had a standing army. That means something. They had a structure to build a bigger army quickly. The had established supply lines and sources and the factories to produce a great deal. They had a navy from the beginning that could embargo the entire confederacy.
The confederacy had to build an army from scratch including supply sources for military and provisioning needs. The Unions population size and economic advantages with factories was a huge asset from day one extending to the last day of the war.
Finally, you yourself said after a short while the union did a phenomenal job into come up to a high level. Assuming, generously, that happened in a year, what explains the next 3 years, say April 1862 to April of 1864?

 

[BCS1973]

What was that question about Shelby Foote again?

 

[genbeau]

What was that question about Shelby Foote again?

This forum is 16 sheets long now. If we just stuck with the interesting Shelby Foote question, it might be three.
Its unreasonable to expect folks to stay in the very restricted subject types with out seg waying to other related issues. And its both sides pro union and pro confeds that stray.

 

[BCS1973]

This forum is 16 sheets long now. If we just stuck with the interesting Shelby Foote question, it might be three.
Its unreasonable to expect folks to stay in the very restricted subject types with out seg waying to other related issues. And its both sides pro union and pro confeds that stray.

Probably time for a new thread. Perhaps on the secesh forum? You seem to think everyone is either pro union or pro confederate. I'm betting that a lot of ppl on this thread are neither, but rather pro history including the OP.