Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage...

Mr King

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
I've read this book: Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage by Grady McWhiney and it's an excellent read and an eye opener to me. There is another book called: Irish Confederates by Phillip Tucker who also did a book on the Irish Brigade of the North.

It talks much about who and why the southerners fought the way they did; having strong scottish and celtic heritage and ancestory, their ways and how they fought; favoring the offensive strategies rather than the defensive. I've read that the south fought 70 percent on the offensive throughout the war and nearly bled themselves to death in the first 3 years of the war and had to depend more on defensive strategies in the last 2 years because of low manpower. This is a great and interesting read.

Attack and Die by Grady McWhiney at amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Die-Mi...r=1-1&keywords=attack+and+die&tag=toofyoga-20

Irish Confederates by Phillip Tucker at amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Confede...r=1-1&keywords=phillip+tucker&tag=toofyoga-20
 
I have the book, but last read it at least 10 years ago.....what I wonder is why the north didn't employ similar tactics given the large number of men of Irish extraction in the Army of the Potomac, in particular. I can't recall if McWhiney addresses that question.
 
I didn't like it at all. It stereotyped the Scots-Irish and their influence on Southern tactics. McClellan certainly didn't have it in his blood. To me the most important lesson were the insights into West Point training/education.
 
Where not the majority of Unionist troops from the South Scotch-Irish farmers from the hill country? By definition a war is won on the offense of course the South had to go for broke its just that they did go broke and lost more white men then they could replace. I don't see how being group A vs B ethnic group is going to make that much of a difference. if a person has the proper motivation and equipment plus training and leadership that person ( in the CW there were a few women soldiers) can do some damage. I would think that history has taught that much.
Leftyhunter
 
I have the book, but last read it at least 10 years ago.....what I wonder is why the north didn't employ similar tactics given the large number of men of Irish extraction in the Army of the Potomac, in particular. I can't recall if McWhiney addresses that question.

But the Irish Brigade of the North did fight mostly on the offensive if I'm not mistaken especially at Sharpsburg/Antietam and Fredericksburg
I didn't like it at all. It stereotyped the Scots-Irish and their influence on Southern tactics. McClellan certainly didn't have it in his blood. To me the most important lesson were the insights into West Point training/education.

I don't recall the word "stereotype" being used at all being used at that time. It was very common for a country or state to be educated and raised in the ways of their countrymen. Today we don't do that anymore. Instead the countries are being taught diversity and consider the ways ancient cultures lived as "stereotypes". Countries like America doesn't have a culture anymore but are taught diversity so with the mind of diversity refuses to believe that people actually lived in unity of their country's cultures. If you want to use the word "stereotype" then we can no longer acknowledge the Native Americans and their cultures because that would be considered a stereotype.
 
The South was very traditionally militant and all the military colleges were in the South except one and that was West Point.
 
I read "Attack and Die" and was fascinated by his close analysis of the tactics, and the cultural attitudes towards aggression. The last portion of the book, where he tries to sell the whole "Scots Irish" thing however, I found very unconvincing. I don't think it was supported by the thinking at the time.
 
I have the book, but last read it at least 10 years ago.....what I wonder is why the north didn't employ similar tactics given the large number of men of Irish extraction in the Army of the Potomac, in particular. I can't recall if McWhiney addresses that question.

But the Irish Brigade of the North did fight mostly on the offensive if I'm not mistaken especially at Sharpsburg/Antietam and Fredericksburg
 
An interesting read. The Confederacy would have had halve a chance had they fought a defensive war.


I always liked Professor McW very much and we got along great, but this was one of the weakest CW books ever published. It's disjointed thesis is at odds with the historical evidence of how wars are won, and the final chapter (written by McW's co-author) is a horrible disconnect from the preceding chapters (written by McW).

No modern war---I'm not talking about a single campaign or battle, but rather a war---since the advent of the modern era (marked by the end of the Thirty Years War) has ever been won by sitting on the defensive. It's a subject which is discussed in length in multiple works, mine included.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
An interesting read. The Confederacy would have had halve a chance had they fought a defensive war.

They had no chance and no strategy for winning the war, other than sacrificing lives in suicidal attacks, thereby inflicting as many casualties, hoping the enemy wouldn't have the stomach to sustain the losses and the will to continue the fight over the long haul. McClellan certainly didn't, while Grant basically said, "Fine, you wanna fight dirty, I'll take you on and I'll win." Winning is what it's about, not fighting indecisive battles without a clear strategic end goal based on the mere hope of tiring the enemy, while depleting your own resources against the superior resources of the North. Makes no sense.

Other than trying to make the war so painful for the North that they'll eventually cave (a case of wishful thinking), what on earth did the South hope to achieve? What did winning mean to them? Keep their slaves in the states where they existed? Nobody was threatening to take that away from them. Unite the whole country under slavery? Fat chance. Expand slavery to Cuba and Mexico? Good luck with that. Nothing they did makes any sense.
 
Last edited:
They had no chance and no strategy for winning the war, other than sacrificing lives in suicidal attacks, hoping the enemy wouldn't have the stomach to sustain the losses and the will to continue the fight over the long haul. McClellan certainly didn't, while Grant basically said, "Fine, you wanna fight dirty, I'll take you on and I'll win." Winning is what it's about, not fighting indecisive battles without a clear strategic end goal based on the mere hope of tiring the enemy, while depleting your own resources against the superior resources of the North. Makes no sense.

Actually, the North could have lost the war on several occasions as it turned out. A defensive war had more of a chance of success then an offensive war, since the odds favor the defender.
 
Actually, the North could have lost the war on several occasions as it turned out. A defensive war had more of a chance of success then an offensive war, since the odds favor the defender.

Yeah, but they didn't lose.

What would a defensive war have achieved? With a blockade in the east and control of the Mississippi in the west, the North could starve the South by just waiting them out.
 
Last edited:
They had no chance and no strategy for winning the war, other than sacrificing lives in suicidal attacks, thereby inflicting as many casualties, hoping the enemy wouldn't have the stomach to sustain the losses and the will to continue the fight over the long haul. McClellan certainly didn't, while Grant basically said, "Fine, you wanna fight dirty, I'll take you on and I'll win." Winning is what it's about, not fighting indecisive battles without a clear strategic end goal based on the mere hope of tiring the enemy, while depleting your own resources against the superior resources of the North. Makes no sense.

Other than trying to make the war so painful for the North that they'll eventually cave (a case of wishful thinking), what on earth did the South hope to achieve? What did winning mean to them? Keep their slaves in the states where they existed? Nobody was threatening to take that away from them. Unite the whole country under slavery? Fat chance. Expand slavery to Cuba and Mexico? Good luck with that. Nothing they did makes any sense.

Indeed. Plus, the Southerners had better generals and soldiers.

Better generals win wars, they don't lose them.

:nah disagree::O o::cry::notworthy::pig::sick::sluggish::speechless::frog::eek::help:
 
Yeah, but they didn't lose.

What would a defensive war have achieved?

The Southern armies were how close to DC on how many occasions? A defensive war would have achieved high casualties which the northern states were starting to get sick of.

With a blockade in the east and control of the Mississippi in the west, the North could starve the South by just waiting them out.

Like the Germans did with the British in WW2? Doubtful in my opinion.
 
Back
Top