Is it correct to conclude...

[Yankeedave]

Tangible mistakes.

 

[Yankeedave]

I am not trying to be smart when i say. MaCarthur said all defeats come to 'to little to late'.

 

[W. Richardson]

If you want details about the battle, Carman's
The Maryland Campaign of September 1862. Volume 2: Antietam, edited by Tom Clemens, is about as detailed as you can get, I would think.

Yes they are !!!

Isn't there suppose to be a 3rd Vol. coming out ? Or maybe I miss-read about it.

Respectfully,
William

 

[civilken]

Freeman was guilty of the same sort of bias toward his subjects as mere recently Robertson toward his. He probably wasn't analytical or critical enough with either Washington or Lee but to his credit with both he was very thorough and well-documented. A common problem with biographers like them is that of identifying or sympathizing too much with their subjects; of course, why shouldn't they - few would go to the trouble to document the life of a bounder! But that's one reason my favorite book by Flexner, The Traitor and the Spy - a triple biography of Benedict Arnold, John Andre, and Peggy Shippen, the woman who brought them together - was so interesting.

I couldn't agree more and apparently you have done your homework, well thank you have a nice weekend.

 

[TFSmith121]

Depends, I guess, on how you view things. I approach wars and battles primarily from a tactical viewpoint. It's just my training and my interests lead me in that direction. If you look with an unbiased eye at Donelson, Shiloh and especially the entirety of the Vicksburg campaign it is easy to see why the Continental European militaries didn't really see us as a proper military power. Vicksburg was handled so poorly on both sides as to be seen as a tragicomedy. Now don't misunderstand me, I consider Grant a fairly good general and his Appomattox Campaign, from Petersburg to the courthouse was handled very well. I just can't place him among the truly great leaders in history.
As to Westy he was actually winning his fight but he simply took too long and he did make some poor decisions which, in the end, cost him his job.

Well, the US won its war, decisively, t0 the point the enemy was utterly destroyed, and under the political leadership of Lincoln and the military command of Grant, essentially; one would think that should count for something; Clausewitz would have...

On could compare, say, the square miles of territory inherent in Virginia-North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia-Florida-Alabama-Mississippi-Tennessee-Louisiana-Arkansas-Texas with, say, Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig-Holstein, Silesia, and/or the Transvaal and Vrystaat to get a sense of the scale of the American victory.

The European conflicts in roughly the same period - call it 1850s-1870s - never came close to that level of decision. There are reasons the same powers were (generally) back at each other's throats within decades, after all, and largely over the same issues - primacy in Western Europe (Franco-German), or Central Europe (German-Austrian), or Eastern Europe (Russo-German), and/or the Balkans (Russo-Turkish), that the conflicts in Europe in the same period as the Civil War were fought over - except in the Twentieth Century, these conflicts led to general wars between alliances, not simply (for the most part) between nation states.

And then 20 years after the second go-round, there was a third, and largely over the same issues.

Not something seen in the Americas, obviously.

Grant's commands destroyed three rebel armies in the field in the space of 36 months, including the single enemy force that had, essentially, maintained and defined the confederacy as a military power for most of its political life. None of the European field or political c-in-cs really compare, with the conspicuous exception of Hohenzollern Germany, and even Wilhelm I, Bismarck, and Moltke et al were unable to destroy (for example) the French as a great power.

Lincoln and Grant et al most definitely destroyed the confederacy.

And given that, it demonstrates the level the Americans were functioning at; certain far and above anything comparable in Europe, especially from any of the European powers other than the Prussians-turned-Germans, and even the Kaiser's men never achieved anything comparable to what Lincoln et al managed.

Best,

 

[Andrew]

Yes they are !!!

Isn't there suppose to be a 3rd Vol. coming out ? Or maybe I miss-read about it.


View attachment 105439
Respectfully,
William

Yes, in December.

 

[BillO]

Well, the US won its war, decisively, t0 the point the enemy was utterly destroyed, and under the political leadership of Lincoln and the military command of Grant, essentially; one would think that should count for something; Clausewitz would have...

On could compare, say, the square miles of territory inherent in Virginia-North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia-Florida-Alabama-Mississippi-Tennessee-Louisiana-Arkansas-Texas with, say, Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig-Holstein, Silesia, and/or the Transvaal and Vrystaat to get a sense of the scale of the American victory.

The European conflicts in roughly the same period - call it 1850s-1870s - never came close to that level of decision. There are reasons the same powers were (generally) back at each other's throats within decades, after all, and largely over the same issues - primacy in Western Europe (Franco-German), or Central Europe (German-Austrian), or Eastern Europe (Russo-German), and/or the Balkans (Russo-Turkish), that the conflicts in Europe in the same period as the Civil War were fought over - except in the Twentieth Century, these conflicts led to general wars between alliances, not simply (for the most part) between nation states.

And then 20 years after the second go-round, there was a third, and largely over the same issues.

Not something seen in the Americas, obviously.

Grant's commands destroyed three rebel armies in the field in the space of 36 months, including the single enemy force that had, essentially, maintained and defined the confederacy as a military power for most of its political life. None of the European field or political c-in-cs really compare, with the conspicuous exception of Hohenzollern Germany, and even Wilhelm I, Bismarck, and Moltke et al were unable to destroy (for example) the French as a great power.

Lincoln and Grant et al most definitely destroyed the confederacy.

And given that, it demonstrates the level the Americans were functioning at; certain far and above anything comparable in Europe, especially from any of the European powers other than the Prussians-turned-Germans, and even the Kaiser's men never achieved anything comparable to what Lincoln et al managed.

Best,

Very reasonable argument. Wrong, but very well stated. When you look at the comparable strengths in a struggle between two opposing forces it seems that as the disparity of forces is increased the opportunity to completely dominate and or destroy increases as well. As to the European models. Logistics, planning, staffing they were far ahead of the Americans at the start of our civil war. We did get better at it but still were behind the Europeans. Even though the Germans beat the French in 1870, and beat them badly, there was still a France. Why? Cause there was still a lot of French power left.

 

[TFSmith121]

Very reasonable argument. Wrong, but very well stated. When you look at the comparable strengths in a struggle between two opposing forces it seems that as the disparity of forces is increased the opportunity to completely dominate and or destroy increases as well. As to the European models. Logistics, planning, staffing they were far ahead of the Americans at the start of our civil war. We did get better at it but still were behind the Europeans. Even though the Germans beat the French in 1870, and beat them badly, there was still a France. Why? Cause there was still a lot of French power left.

None of which belies the point that the US won its war decisively, and none of the Europeans in this same era did.

As far as planning and logistics go, the point is granted in the initial post that the Prussians turned Germans and the US were comparable; the other European great powers - the French, Russians, British, etc - were not, at least based on the problems they all had with mobilizing and sustaining their forces in the field, as demonstrated by the French in Italy in 1859 and against the Germans in 1870-71, the British in the Black Sea in 1854-55, the Russians in the 1853-56 war, etc.

It is worth noting that none of the European powers faced as prolonged a war against a peer competitor as the US did with the rebellion (48 months) over anything approximating the scale of the theaters, between 1815 and 1914; invariably, the European conflicts amounted to border wars of one scale or another. When Europe actually faced a war to the knife, they were no more ready for it than the US was in 1861.

However, unlike the Europeans, the US had fought and won such a war, and within living memory; the Americans had an understanding of what such a conflict would require, in terms of mass mobilization, centralized control of the economy, etc - total war.

The Europeans did not.

Best,

 

[KLSDAD]

The best historian on the Maryland Campaign from the Confederate perspective by far is Joseph L. Harsh. His two works entitled: "Taken at the Flood: Robert E. Lee and Confederate Strategy in the Maryland Campaign of 1862" and "Confederate Tide Rising: Robert E. Lee and the Making of Southern Strategy, 1861-1862" are two of the best civil war books that I have ever read. Gary Gallagher even states: "that Harsh has examined Lee's planning and actions in late summer and autumn of 1862 in greater detail than any other previous historian.....his books belong on the short shelf of essential titles on Lee, his army and the war in the Eastern Theatre"

Don't forget "Sounding the Shallows" which accompanies these two volumes as a book length "appendix".

I'm not at all familiar with Hartwig's contribution to the Antietam campaign but can't imagine that he could do it in any greater detail.

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree to a point. Mac would have been an excellent #2. Give him a task and let him go but simply didn't have the inner drive to take risks. Lee was an excellent engineer but with the heart of a riverboat gambler. Mac was a good engineer with the soul of an accountant.
To say that Grant was a brilliant anything is to say that Gen. Westmorland was as well. They had basically the same strategy just in different wars. The primary reason it worked better for Grant is that Lincoln had more control over hostile politicians and the press than LBJ did.

I think we need to lobby the Moderators for a " compare and contrast Vietnam vs the ACW". Two different wars in two different centuries. It should be an interesting debate.
Leftyhunter

 

[TFSmith121]

I think we need to lobby the Moderators for a " compare and contrast Vietnam vs the ACW". Two different wars in two different centuries. It should be an interesting debate.
Leftyhunter

So if the RVN and the DRV were the two sides in the civil war, than the US was ... Who, exactly?

The Franco-Mexican conflict in 1861-67 seems a better fit for the Vietnam war in 1965-75, which makes Westmoreland the equivalent of Bazaine, I guess.

Best,

 

[Yankeedave]

even the musics good!

 

[kel1985]

I agree to a point. Mac would have been an excellent #2. Give him a task and let him go but simply didn't have the inner drive to take risks. Lee was an excellent engineer but with the heart of a riverboat gambler. Mac was a good engineer with the soul of an accountant.
To say that Grant was a brilliant anything is to say that Gen. Westmorland was as well. They had basically the same strategy just in different wars. The primary reason it worked better for Grant is that Lincoln had more control over hostile politicians and the press than LBJ did.

My opinion of Grant differs, if you look at what he did in the early stages of the war (through the Siege of Vicksburg), it shows him to be much more calculating than he is given credit for being. He was able to adapt to the "modern" warfare that was just evolving at the time (rather than being stuck in the theory of Napoleonic warfare).
I agree about Mac and Lee though.

 

[leftyhunter]

So if the RVN and the DRV were the two sides in the civil war, than the US was ... Who, exactly?

The Franco-Mexican conflict in 1861-67 seems a better fit for the Vietnam war in 1965-75, which makes Westmoreland the equivalent of Bazaine, I guess.

Best,

To do justice to comparing and contrasting Vietnam to the Civil War we need a separate thread.
Leftyhunter

 

[Vicksburger]

The more I read it is evident that with all those men and supplies, it would have been hard for Grant or anyone in charge in the North not to have succeeded, so he is probably overrated. The South was never defeated on the battlefield, they were outnumbered and starved and gave out to attrition. Little Mac was not big on warring against citizenry, like Grant and Sherman, so I think that gets my respect, and is underrated.

 

[rpkennedy]

The more I read it is evident that with all those men and supplies, it would have been hard for Grant or anyone in charge in the North not to have succeeded, so he is probably overrated. The South was never defeated on the battlefield, they were outnumbered and starved and gave out to attrition. Little Mac was not big on warring against citizenry, like Grant and Sherman, so I think that gets my respect, and is underrated.

Never defeated on the battlefield? Almost from day 1, the Confederacy was losing ground in the West.

R

 

[cash]

The more I read it is evident that with all those men and supplies, it would have been hard for Grant or anyone in charge in the North not to have succeeded, so he is probably overrated. The South was never defeated on the battlefield, they were outnumbered and starved and gave out to attrition. Little Mac was not big on warring against citizenry, like Grant and Sherman, so I think that gets my respect, and is underrated.

Keep reading.

McDowell didn't succeed.
McClellan didn't succeed.
Pope didn't succeed.
Burnside didn't succeed.
Hooker didn't succeed.

Seems like the claim that it would have been hard for anyone in charge "in the North" [to use that inaccurate term] is wrong.

Apparently your reading only involves a few battles. Next time include Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Chattanooga, and Atlanta for starters. Then look at the 1864 Shenandoah Campaign.

Nobody warred against citizenry. That's simply showing lack of knowledge about what happened.

 

[Vicksburger]

Keep reading.

McDowell didn't succeed.
McClellan didn't succeed.
Pope didn't succeed.
Burnside didn't succeed.
Hooker didn't succeed.

Seems like the claim that it would have been hard for anyone in charge "in the North" [to use that inaccurate term] is wrong.

Apparently your reading only involves a few battles. Next time include Gettysburg, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Chattanooga, and Atlanta for starters. Then look at the 1864 Shenandoah Campaign.

Nobody warred against citizenry. That's simply showing lack of knowledge about what happened.

Grant and Sherman were about as negligent and clueless at Shiloh as you can get. Let that big of an army sneak up on them. They were lucky Buell made a junction on Monday April 7, and saved them. They came within a whisker of getting cashiered. Only with the vast resources of the North were they able to succeed, by 1865.

Yes they certainly sent many many rounds into Vicksburg killing women, children. I have read about it. Do you dispute it? "War is hell." At Atlanta, Sherman inflicted casualties on civilians and had a correspondence with Hood about it.

And as you can see that down through history, although the war itself was lost to the powerful and populated North, Lee and Jackson and Stuart and their comrades have, in a large respect, been the true winners, for their spirit and true American character, in the hearts and minds of many, if not most, Americans.

 

[cash]

Grant and Sherman were about as negligent and clueless at Shiloh as you can get. Let that big of an army sneak up on them. They were lucky Buell made a junction on Monday April 7, and saved them. They came within a whisker of getting cashiered. Only with the vast resources of the North were they able to succeed, by 1865.

And yet they won the battle. Buell didn't save them. The line was stabilized before Buell got there. Buell's troops made it easier to drive forward the next day, but they were going to win anyway.

Yes they certainly sent many many rounds into Vicksburg killing women, children. I have read about it. Do you dispute it? "War is hell." At Atlanta, Sherman inflicted casualties on civilians and had a correspondence with Hood about it.

Defended cities get shelled. Deal with it. It's not making war on civilians. The confederates could avoid the shelling by surrendering the city. Blame the confederates for that.

And as you can see that down through history, although the war itself was lost to the powerful and populated North, Lee and Jackson and Stuart and their comrades have, in a large respect, been the true winners, for their spirit and true American character, in the hearts and minds of many, if not most, Americans.

Lost causers have been successful at spreading lies about the Civil War. That's changing.

 

[Bee]

although the war itself was lost to the powerful and populated North, Lee and Jackson and Stuart and their comrades have, in a large respect, been the true winners, for their spirit and true American character, in the hearts and minds of many, if not most, Americans.

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.