Grant Did Grant Really Pursue a "Strategy of Attrition"?

A lot of US Military history was based on Cornwallis being cutoff by the French fleet, and being forced to surrender. I think Lincoln, and other US military figures were very concerned about the British returning the favor, and cutting off McClellan's army. The probability of it happening was hard to judge. But the threat gave the British bargaining power.
They were all taught Napoleonic military history. Some of them were aware that Napoleon either did not do his logistical calculations, or ignored the implications when the central Russian serfs pulled back from Moscow. The Virginia farmers were not going to withdraw their support for the Confederate army, but Grant gradually made it very difficult for them to provide that support.
 
The other part of military history that weighed on them was the success of US against the organized forces of the Mexican government, which led to the prospect of an extended guerilla war. It seems as if the negotiator Trist, and General Scott, were both concerned about a prolonged and expensive commitment to occupying Mexico, and took an early settlement affecting the lands the Mexicans probably could not govern.
Napoleon's conquest of Moscow did not work, but Scott's occupation of Mexico City worked as far as producing an agreement which achieved limited war aims.
 
Back
Top