ratwod
Private
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
Lincoln continually wanted a Union commander who would "take it to the enemy". That is, Lincoln wanted very aggressive commanders. He finally ended up with commanders he liked...Grant, Sherman, etc.
However, did that really make sense early in the war? The Confederate Army at the beginning was better prepared and better organized with better commanders.
To assume that a simply having an aggressive general would win the war sounds a little...well, silly. Generals are important, but without an army, they aren't particular useful.
Later in the war when the Union had a clear advantage in material and men, a general willing to fight a war of attrition would be successful. But, early in the war?
I'm specifically thinking of Gettysburg. I'm not convinced at all that Meade made the wrong decision in not chasing the Army of Virginia.
However, did that really make sense early in the war? The Confederate Army at the beginning was better prepared and better organized with better commanders.
To assume that a simply having an aggressive general would win the war sounds a little...well, silly. Generals are important, but without an army, they aren't particular useful.
Later in the war when the Union had a clear advantage in material and men, a general willing to fight a war of attrition would be successful. But, early in the war?
I'm specifically thinking of Gettysburg. I'm not convinced at all that Meade made the wrong decision in not chasing the Army of Virginia.