Lee Just What Kind of General Was Robert E. Lee?

?

Sherman had no battles with Lee.
Sherman’s campaign was an integral element of Grant’s strategy to destroy Lee’s army. Unlike Lee, Grant was leading a continental army. The battles between the AoP & AoNV were just one piece of the plan Grant was executing. The closing of the last blockade runner ports was another action aimed directly at Lee’s army. With the war in Tennessee effectively over, Grant was also busy ordering the cavalry raids that polished off what was left of Confederate forces in the Deep South. The war Grant was fighting bore little resemblance to the one Lee was fighting.
 
Not everybody agrees with what you claim, or those numbers.

Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.

The numbers of Civil War dead were not equaled by the combined toll of other American conflicts until the War in Vietnam. Some believe the number is as high as 850,000. The Civil War Trust does not agree with this claim.



A recent paper written by Binghamton University professor Dr. J. David Hacker argues that the true cost of the Civil War is somewhere between 650,000 and 850,000 lives. This is an increase from the traditional figure of 620,000 put forward by Union veterans William F. Fox and Thomas Leonard Livermore in 1889 after an exhaustive study of the army documents and pension records available at the time.

Dr. Hacker used census records from 1850-1880 to construct a pattern of survival rates throughout the troubled decades. His research revealed that the period of 1860-1870 was approximately 750,000 men and women short of the normal survival pattern in the non-war years.

Applying the tools of modern demographic and statistical analysis is immensely valuable to furthering our understanding of the Civil War--we are always striving to add new threads to the tapestry of our shared historical experience. Dr. Hacker provides important insight into the tragic loss of life from 1860-1870. However, his final estimate is very broad, includes civilian casualties, and is not directly linked to the war years of 1861-1865. The Civil War Trust will continue to use Fox's and Livermore's calculation of 620,000 military deaths in the Civil War. We look forward to continued research from Dr. Hacker and others.




Hackers' method is flawed, & doesn't distinguish between Confederate deaths vs Union deaths as you allude. Nor does it account for civilian deaths vs military service deaths. Another source says the same:

Although this census-based method does not distinguish between Union and Confederate deaths, Hacker was able to discern patterns for various regions of birth.


I typed in exactly what you suggested, & only got 171,000,000 "results". However, it's worth noting, the sources I quoted, & shared in this post were on the first page.
Not my claim, not my numbers, it is the number that historians I respect believe is the most accurate. I don’t know enough about statistical analysis of populations to have an educated opinion. That is why I posted the reference, which I found enlightening.
 
Sherman’s campaign was an integral element of Grant’s strategy to destroy Lee’s army. Unlike Lee, Grant was leading a continental army. The battles between the AoP & AoNV were just one piece of the plan Grant was executing. The closing of the last blockade runner ports was another action aimed directly at Lee’s army. With the war in Tennessee effectively over, Grant was also busy ordering the cavalry raids that polished off what was left of Confederate forces in the Deep South. The war Grant was fighting bore little resemblance to the one Lee was fighting.

They were absolutely fighting the same war, and Grant's presence in front of Lee's army showed which opponent he considered most important.

Lee only had control over his own army for most of the war, and by the time the Congress appointed him to General in Chief on February 6, 1865, so he had equivalent control as Grant, there really was no point. Lee himself said, and I can't remember the exact quote, that if he had the position sooner he might have made their situation better than it was, but at that point there was little that he could do with the new authority.
 
Sherman’s campaign was an integral element of Grant’s strategy to destroy Lee’s army. Unlike Lee, Grant was leading a continental army. The battles between the AoP & AoNV were just one piece of the plan Grant was executing. The closing of the last blockade runner ports was another action aimed directly at Lee’s army. With the war in Tennessee effectively over, Grant was also busy ordering the cavalry raids that polished off what was left of Confederate forces in the Deep South. The war Grant was fighting bore little resemblance to the one Lee was fighting.
Actually, I think it was basically Winfield Scott's strategy. Grant may have fiddled with it a bit & he certainly let Sherman have his head. But the idea is still basically Scott's. Now Scott, for all his vanity, really was a great general.
 
Actually, I think it was basically Winfield Scott's strategy. Grant may have fiddled with it a bit & he certainly let Sherman have his head. But the idea is still basically Scott's. Now Scott, for all his vanity, really was a great general.
Wasn't the Anconda Plan just common sense? The Southern economy is based on the export of just a few monocultural crops. If the USN controls the Rivers and severely curtails Confederate maritime commerce the Confederate economy will and in fact did collapse.
Leftyhunter
 
They were absolutely fighting the same war, and Grant's presence in front of Lee's army showed which opponent he considered most important.

Lee only had control over his own army for most of the war, and by the time the Congress appointed him to General in Chief on February 6, 1865, so he had equivalent control as Grant, there really was no point. Lee himself said, and I can't remember the exact quote, that if he had the position sooner he might have made their situation bi think you will find thatetter than it was, but at that point there was little that he could do with the new authority.
I think you will find that Grant was with the AoP because he had to stay on top of Meade & company. As the poor performance of the deadwood in the AoP’s commanders demonstrated, that was the correct decision. Grant knew full well what it was going to take to destroy the AoNV, implementing it with the commanders at hand was a very clumsy process. One thing for sure, Grant was not going to let up until Lee was beaten.
 
I think you will find that Grant was with the AoP because he had to stay on top of Meade & company. As the poor performance of the deadwood in the AoP’s commanders demonstrated, that was the correct decision. Grant knew full well what it was going to take to destroy the AoNV, implementing it with the commanders at hand was a very clumsy process. One thing for sure, Grant was not going to let up until Lee was beaten.
I think you're being very harsh on Meade. There were some very good commanders at corps & division level in the AotP.
Grant was there because it was the most important theatre of the war. Sherman urged him to stay in the west & it was as feasible as going east. But Lee was in Virginia. If the Confederacy was going to win the war, it would be in the east. Put another way, if the Union was going to lose the war, it would be to Lee in the east.
There really was no-one of Lee's ability in the west, in blue or gray. Or in the east for that matter.
 
I think you're being very harsh on Meade. There were some very good commanders at corps & division level in the AotP.
Grant was there because it was the most important theatre of the war. Sherman urged him to stay in the west & it was as feasible as going east. But Lee was in Virginia. If the Confederacy was going to win the war, it would be in the east. Put another way, if the Union was going to lose the war, it would be to Lee in the east.
There really was no-one of Lee's ability in the west, in blue or gray. Or in the east for that matter.
Strongly disagree. The Virginia-centric idea of the war is very common but it's wrong. If Virginia was so important to the confederates, they would have pulled all their troops back there and defended it to the last.

Rhea Cole is right. Grant needed to stay in the East and oversee the AotP and make sure it stayed on the offensive, which it could never seem to sustain in the past. And, Grant was closer to Washington, if needed.

Sherman didn't need any hand-holding.
 
Strongly disagree. The Virginia-centric idea of the war is very common but it's wrong. If Virginia was so important to the confederates, they would have pulled all their troops back there and defended it to the last.

Rhea Cole is right. Grant needed to stay in the East and oversee the AotP and make sure it stayed on the offensive, which it could never seem to sustain in the past. And, Grant was closer to Washington, if needed.

Sherman didn't need any hand-holding.
Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
As anybody who follows the current Civil War scholarship is aware, the 1888 numbers you cite are no longer accepted as accurate. The May 2020 number totals closer to 850,000, the majority of the additional deaths are attributed to Confederate & immigrants.
Yeah 230,000 people died 1861-65, but only after 1888............someone with an agenda is having an awful lot of fun with "estimates"

But feel free to list the 230,000 by name with proof each wasn't counted in the 620,000......knock yourself out substantiating your claim. I'll wait. I suggest might be easier to follow if you do it by state.

I'll settle for a link for the same from whatever "modern scholarship" you claim, because if one really knows how many were supposedly left out in 1888......one would have to know who they are as well, to have an actual accurate count. Otherwise it would be revisionist speculation
 
Last edited:
Yeah 230,000 people died 1861-65, but only after 1888............someone with an agenda is having an awful lot of fun with "estimates"

But feel free to list the 230,000 by name with proof each wasn't counted in the 620,000......knock yourself out substantiating your claim. I'll wait. I suggest might be easier to follow if you do it by state.

I'll settle for a link for the same from whatever "modern scholarship" you claim, because if one really knows how many were supposedly left out in 1888......one would have to know who they are as well, to have an actual accurate count. Otherwise it would be revisionist speculation
I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. I haven’t claimed anything. The modern numbers were arrived at with statistical studies & analysis of 1870 vs 1860 census data, among other things. The authors of these studies are scholars & will, therefore welcome the documentation you have to back up your critique of their work. After all, that is what scholars do.
 
I haven’t a clue what you are referring to. I haven’t claimed anything. The modern numbers were arrived at with statistical studies & analysis of 1870 vs 1860 census data, among other things. The authors of these studies are scholars & will, therefore welcome the documentation you have to back up your critique of their work. After all, that is what scholars do.
Noted you can provide nothing past revisionist speculation, not surprising .

Also noted if your claiming it's census stats, your also now comparing apples to oranges..........
 
Last edited:
Noted you can provide nothing past revisionist speculation, not surprising .

Also noted if your claiming it's census stats, your also now comparing apples to oranges..........
Nothing is provided to back up the "new scholarly numbers".

It's mostly off of research by one dude. Who's method's aren't accepted by plenty of others.

Hackers' method is flawed, & doesn't distinguish between Confederate deaths vs Union deaths. Nor does it account for civilian deaths vs military service deaths.

My previous post (#380) has a few sources that aren't fans of the "new" numbers.
 
Nothing is provided to back up the "new scholarly numbers".

It's mostly off of research by one dude. Who's method's aren't accepted by plenty of others.

Hackers' method is flawed, & doesn't distinguish between Confederate deaths vs Union deaths. Nor does it account for civilian deaths vs military service deaths.

My previous post (#380) has a few sources that aren't fans of the "new" numbers.
Agreed, the 620,000 is A- soldiers and B- died in the war.........

So he quotes a methodology that would include civilian's and a 5 yr non war period :nah disagree:

Indeed apples to oranges..........
 
Agreed, the 620,000 is A- soldiers and B- died in the war.........

So he quotes a methodology that would include civilian's and a 5 yr non war period :nah disagree:

Indeed apples to oranges..........
620,00 also equals: 360,000 Yankee dead vs 260,000 Confederate dead.

I think that's where the real rub is, & why some have tried to "change" the numbers. Or are so willing to accept flawed methodology.
 
Back
Top