How is the winner determined?

[Rebforever]

Lee wanted to catch Grant in the flank and drive him back

But Lee just drove him off and defeated Grant's plans.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Yes. He protected Richmond which was one of the goals of Grant.

How did he protect Richmond in the Wilderness?

 

[NedBaldwin]

But Lee just drove him off and defeated Grant's plans.

Expect he didnt. Grant wasnt driven off; he kept moving deeper into Virginia.

 

[NedBaldwin]

You are correct. However I was talking about the goals of Grant.

So was I -- I wrote "Grant's goal was to seize the Weldon Railroad"

 

[1SGDan]

But Lee just drove him off and defeated Grant's plans.

No

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

...and we all know that eventually Grant surrendered to Lee at Appomattox.

 

[gunny]

I'm not gonna read nine pages, but if it hasn't already been said...

Just because a force manages to retain a piece of ground after a battle or departs (surrenders) it may have absolutely nothing to do with determining the victor.

The question is... was the intent of holding or giving up that piece of the terrain supportive of the final preferred outcome?

Take the Battle of Perryville: Great tactical success on the field, but resulted in a complete withdrawal from Kentucky. Result: Union Strategic Victory.

Another example: Franklin, November 30, 1864. I have seen many a person try to spin that one into a Confederate victory. Yes... the Federals gave up the battlefield that night. But tactically, the Confederates were crushed and strategically - the Federals had accomplished their strategic objective of slowing the Rebel advance and allow for safe passage of their army to Nashville. Result: Tactical and strategic Union Victory.

The Rebel objective was not to lose 7,500 men and NOT break the Union line - but to crush them and rout them into the Harpeth River... Didn't happen.

Occupying that bloody ground at Franklin the next day gave the Rebels NO strategic or tactical advantage. Total loss both strategically and tactically for the Rebels at Franklin.

 

[Jamieva]

Please tell why? Why if the South had kept it's capital and government in Montgomery would the fall of Richmond mean the end to the Confederacy?
Richmond by itself could not be anymore important then Atlanta, New Orleans, Savanha, Vicksburg, Mobile, Nashville, Memphis, Chattanooga, or Montgomery.

Tredegar

 

[R. Alex Raines]

Tredegar

Also, does anyone really think all those Virginians stick around or are available for conscription once Richmond is captured?

 

[Rebforever]

...and we all know that eventually Grant surrendered to Lee at Appomattox.

Exactly where was the surrender mentioned? Grant tried 7 times to defeat General Robert E Lee at Petersburg and failed.
The 8th time was a success by the breakout. That was when it was over for General Lee.
It seems Grant used the "Stack" method following Upton's success with it at Spotsylvania to break through General Lee.

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/petersburg/maps/petersburgbreakthroughmap.html

 

[1SGDan]

Richmond was not the real objective. Grant wanted to engage the ANV with constant pressure to whittle them down knowing full well they did not have the resources to maintain an army under those circumstances. Richmond became a focal point because the Confederate leadership decided, against Lee's advice, that is where they wanted to fight. Lee knew and warned them of the eventual consequences if he was forced to fight there. A poor decision by the Confederate leadership fit into Grant's plan. The ANV died on the vine of static warfare.

 

[CSA Today]

Exactly where was the surrender mentioned? Grant tried 7 times to defeat General Robert E Lee at Petersburg and failed.
The 8th time was a success by the breakout. That was when it was over for General Lee.
It seems Grant used the "Stack" method following Upton's success with it at Spotsylvania to break through General Lee.

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/petersburg/maps/petersburgbreakthroughmap.html

And to think that Lee accomplished that despite sending one of his three corps into the Shenandoah Valley for most of the nine month siege and two divisions to the Carolinas in the fall of 1864 – not to return.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

This is such a strange discussion. Grant defeated Lee at Petersburg in a prolonged siege during which any one of a series of probing actions might have resulted in a breakthrough but did not. The ANV responded doggedly to such actions (e.g. the Crater) and held the line, preventing any breakthrough but growing increasingly weaker and less able to respond to the AoP extension of the fight to the west and the vital railroads.

Grant surrendering to Lee at Appomattox was a fairly obvious joke based upon the notion of Grant "losing" at Petersburg by a margin of 7:1. Might as well declare Gettysburg a rebel victory because they had a good two days and the Union only one. There was one and only one significant result of the siege of Petersburg; Lee lost it; Grant won it.

 

[Rebforever]

This is such a strange discussion. Grant defeated Lee at Petersburg in a prolonged siege during which any one of a series of probing actions might have resulted in a breakthrough but did not. The ANV responded doggedly to such actions (e.g. the Crater) and held the line, preventing any breakthrough but growing increasingly weaker and less able to respond to the AoP extension of the fight to the west and the vital railroads.

That is true. Grant couldn't do what he wanted to do even against a weak position.

Grant surrendering to Lee at Appomattox was a fairly obvious joke based upon the notion of Grant "losing" at Petersburg by a margin of 7:1. Might as well declare Gettysburg a rebel victory because they had a good two days and the Union only one. There was one and only one significant result of the siege of Petersburg; Lee lost it; Grant won it.

Grant did lose at Petersburg 7:1 before reaching the results he had planned for at Appomattox.. I don't do what ifs so you can handle that by yourself as far as Gettysburg is concerned.

 

[NedBaldwin]

That is true. Grant couldn't do what he wanted to do even against a weak position.

Petersburg was a very strong position.

Grant did lose at Petersburg 7:1 before reaching the results he had planned for at Appomattox.

The odds were never 7:1.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's not the odds - it's the claim that Grant "lost" 7 battles at Petersburg and only won one (the last one).

 

[1SGDan]

Just to get everyone on the correct page the NPS recognizes 19 engagements during the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign.
The CSA is credited with 12 victories, the Union 5 , and the Union given credit for gaining ground in two others.

 

[Dmax90]

The southern army heard that the Federal army was going to attempt to attack Richmond Virginia so the south was deployed to Yorktown to hold them back. They retreated to Williamsburg but their objective was to hold off the attacking army long enough for supplies to reach Richmond and then retreat back to Richmond to fight and thats exactly what they did. The Federal army said they won the battle at Yorktown and Williamsburg but they south said they won it because they completed their objective. It's really hard to say who won what battle of the war.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Just to get everyone on the correct page the NPS recognizes 19 engagements during the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign.
The CSA is credited with 12 victories, the Union 5 , and the Union given credit for gaining ground in two others.

Does that include the 1865 battles or just the 1864 ones?

 

[R. Alex Raines]

I'm not gonna read nine pages, but if it hasn't already been said...

Just because a force manages to retain a piece of ground after a battle or departs (surrenders) it may have absolutely nothing to do with determining the victor.

The question is... was the intent of holding or giving up that piece of the terrain supportive of the final preferred outcome?

Frankly, you haven't missed much by skipping the previous comments. My take is that the reasonable people in this forum would agree with your summation, but Confederate apologists take issue with that definition. There's been a lot of special pleading going on.

R.E. Lee's goal was to avoid ever ending up with a beleaguered Richmond. He knew that if it ever came to a siege, Richmond was going to fall because, like Pemberton at Vicksburg, no one was going to be able to lift it. Frankly, by Lee's own metric, he had already lost.

Meanwhile, Grant's ultimate goal wasn't Richmond or Petersburg, it was Lee's army. He wanted to force Lee into a battle on an open field, if at all possible. Petersburg was an end to those means and ultimately, he got Lee out in the open. Lee then surrendered rather than fight a final battle.

Really, by any objective metric, Grant beat Lee. Sure, Grant wasn't facing the AoNV in its full and best form, but wars don't work like that. And I'd note, by the same token, that the AoNV at its best never had to deal with the AoP in peak form.