Myths of Cold Harbor

Both of these statements ... that the entire day cost 6,000 USA losses and that the stories about the cost of the initial assault are wildly exaggerated ... may be true. After all 7,000 is more than 6,000.

. . . and how do you feel about the authenticity of Porter's recollection of Grant's regret in the face of Comstock's diary?
 
Very interesting perspective; thanks cash.

I note that McPherson (pg. 735) uses the word "mistake" with regards to Grant's June 3 assault at Cold Harbor and also says the "Yankees suffered 7,000 casualties..." He cites Porter and Meade as his sources for the casualty numbers. Gallagher says the Union casualties were 7,500.

I wonder what McPherson would have to say regarding the "myth" ? I always believed it because it's in all the books by all the noted historians. I'm not saying it's right, just that it sure seems to be accepted by folks who have a claim to know.

I do agree with the guy in the video about Grant being called a butcher (we've had at least one thread about that). Grant got a raw deal in the press on that issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
I visited this battlefield for the first time in 2010. A NPS Ranger at the visitor center explained the layout of the battlefield and gave a brief synopsis of the conflict. He stated, "Almost 7,000 Union soldiers were slaughtered in less than an hour during their frontal assault." This number struck a cord with me. This number seemed embellished but I made the mistake of believing this statement. I posted some pictures last year of the Cold Harbor National Battlefield. Underneath one of my photos, I placed "7,000 Union soldiers were killed or injured in less than an hour during this frontal assault." Cash highlighted my post and explained this number was fabricated based on resources he provided. After my own research, I believe the Union causality numbers are closer to the numbers explained by the NPS Ranger in the OP video.

I will be visiting this battlefield in May.

Bill
 
* Cold Harbor Battlefield (Union Frontal Assault)

Simply HDR_1454265387382.jpg
 
The 7,000 number of federal casualties seems to be the one that gets most quoted. But I believe that Gordon C. Rhea in his book about Cold Harbor felt that these numbers were exaggerated. I may be wrong about this since its been awhile since I read the book. Would appreciate any update.
 
So, is your take home message that overweight people lack credibility? Now that you mention it, Santa Claus never did come through with the HO train set he promised. You might be on to something.
Overweight people and Gore-tex boots appear to bother Drew and have become ways for him to measure the accuracy of historical interpretation. To each his own. I sure hope there aren't any other overweight posters here.
. . . and how do you feel about the authenticity of Porter's recollection of Grant's regret in the face of Comstock's diary?
Grant could have regretted the June 3 assault because it became a fruitless sacrifice while looking to renew operations immediately. So one observation does not necessarily contradict the other. I say this despite the fact that it's easy to raise questions about the accuracy of a memoir published in 1897 offering word-for-word quotes from 1864 ... but that's a different matter.
 
The 7,000 number of federal casualties seems to be the one that gets most quoted. But I believe that Gordon C. Rhea in his book about Cold Harbor felt that these numbers were exaggerated. I may be wrong about this since its been awhile since I read the book. Would appreciate any update.
You have summed up Gordon Rhea's position.
 
I visited this battlefield for the first time in 2010. A NPS Ranger at the visitor center explained the layout of the battlefield and gave a brief synopsis of the conflict. He stated, "Almost 7,000 Union soldiers were slaughtered in less than an hour during their frontal assault." This number struck a cord with me. This number seemed embellished but I made the mistake of believing this statement. I posted some pictures last year of the Cold Harbor National Battlefield. Underneath one of my photos, I placed "7,000 Union soldiers were killed or injured in less than an hour during this frontal assault." Cash highlighted my post and explained this number was fabricated based on resources he provided. After my own research, I believe the Union causality numbers are closer to the numbers explained by the NPS Ranger in the OP video.

I will be visiting this battlefield in May.

Bill

There's still at least 1 sign on the battlefield that puts that as a fact too. Maybe someday the NPS will back off that claim and change the sign.
 
* Cold Harbor Battlefield (Union Frontal Assault)

View attachment 90758
Spooky.
Very interesting perspective; thanks cash.

I note that McPherson (pg. 735) uses the word "mistake" with regards to Grant's June 3 assault at Cold Harbor and also says the "Yankees suffered 7,000 casualties..." He cites Porter and Meade as his sources for the casualty numbers. Gallagher says the Union casualties were 7,500.

I wonder what McPherson would have to say regarding the "myth" ? I always believed it because it's in all the books by all the noted historians. I'm not saying it's right, just that it sure seems to be accepted by folks who have a claim to know.

I do agree with the guy in the video about Grant being called a butcher (we've had at least one thread about that). Grant got a raw deal in the press on that issue.
These are fair questions. The best answer is that people kept repeating the same old stories and took the numbers at face value. Rhea started digging, as did some other people, and the data they uncovered did not sustain the traditional story.
 
There's still at least 1 sign on the battlefield that puts that as a fact too. Maybe someday the NPS will back off that claim and change the sign.

If I recall correctly, you live close to the Richmond Battlefields.

How long will it take to completely tour this battlefield.

I only completed the driving tour stops in 2010.

In May, I plan on completing the driving, walking and cemetery tour.

Bill
 
There's still at least 1 sign on the battlefield that puts that as a fact too. Maybe someday the NPS will back off that claim and change the sign.

What makes it even worse, the term "slaughtered" makes it seem as if all 7000 died. I've seen many people confuse deaths with casualties, but one wouldn't expect the NPS to make such a boneheaded mistake.

I think that Rhea's estimate of 6000 U.S. casualties for the entire day is about right (although almost all of these are due to the initial attacks and the order for the troops to remain between the lines and dig in after the attacks failed, where the men became prime targets for sharpshooting).
 
This was the best opportunity to break the Confederate lines? Then he says the Army was a shadow of its former self.
Well which is it?
The ANV suffered heavy losses also the previous month so what is his point?
Battle field returns were not accurate here?
Very unconvincing video.
 
Thank you for the video I am already a fan of Gen. Grant. I guess the haters will still hate and call him a butcher I have always enjoyed the fact that when Grant moves forward is losing and when Lee retreats he is winning amazing.
 
So, is your take home message that overweight people lack credibility? Now that you mention it, Santa Claus never did come through with the HO train set he promised. You might be on to something.

Let us know when Santa brings you a great Civil War story, won't you? It'l' be fun to know when the Confederates outnumbered the wily Yankees.

Santa brings nice wishes, after all.
 
The original post consisted of a video, in which a person who should seemingly know better cites Gordon Rhea as determining that there were 3500 casualties "all day" on June 3, stressing that he means "24 hours." As I stated, Rhea indicated that 6000 U.S. soldiers were killed, wounded or missing that day.

And the real Horace Porter apparently concocted another myth about Grant's "regret."

"Union casualties have been grossly exaggerated and probably did not exceed 3,500. Commentators have suggested numbers ranging from 7,500 to well above 12,000, all supposedly incurred during a few terrible minutes after dawn. (In reality the assault sputtered on for about an hour, not the eight minutes some writers have claimed.) The 12,000 estimate in fact reflects the official tally of all casualties for the entire Cold Harbor campaign--12,788, to be exact--embracing the cavalry battles of May 31 and June 1, the 6th and 18th Corps attacks at Cold Harbor on June 1, the 5th and 9th Corps fights around Bethesda Church from June 1 forward, and casualties in all Union corps for the remainder of their stay at Cold Harbor and during their movement across the Chickahominy and James Rivers twoard Petersburg. The oft-quoted 7,500 figure derives from attempts by early postwar writers to estimate all Union losses for June 3, a day that included a great deal more fighting than just the grand assault." [Gordon C. Rhea, Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26-June 3, 1864, p. 359.]

Rhea later writes, "All things considered, the grand charge at Cold Harbor on June 3 produced about 3,500 Union casualties." [Ibid., p. 362]

Mike Gorman and Gordon Rhea are talking about the grand assault with respect to the 3,500 casualties.
 
Very interesting perspective; thanks cash.

I note that McPherson (pg. 735) uses the word "mistake" with regards to Grant's June 3 assault at Cold Harbor and also says the "Yankees suffered 7,000 casualties..." He cites Porter and Meade as his sources for the casualty numbers. Gallagher says the Union casualties were 7,500.

I wonder what McPherson would have to say regarding the "myth" ? I always believed it because it's in all the books by all the noted historians. I'm not saying it's right, just that it sure seems to be accepted by folks who have a claim to know.

I do agree with the guy in the video about Grant being called a butcher (we've had at least one thread about that). Grant got a raw deal in the press on that issue.

Check the dates of those historians' writings on Cold Harbor and compare them with the date of Rhea's Cold Harbor book. I think what you'll find is that they predate Rhea's correction of the record.
 
"Union casualties have been grossly exaggerated and probably did not exceed 3,500. Commentators have suggested numbers ranging from 7,500 to well above 12,000, all supposedly incurred during a few terrible minutes after dawn. (In reality the assault sputtered on for about an hour, not the eight minutes some writers have claimed.) The 12,000 estimate in fact reflects the official tally of all casualties for the entire Cold Harbor campaign--12,788, to be exact--embracing the cavalry battles of May 31 and June 1, the 6th and 18th Corps attacks at Cold Harbor on June 1, the 5th and 9th Corps fights around Bethesda Church from June 1 forward, and casualties in all Union corps for the remainder of their stay at Cold Harbor and during their movement across the Chickahominy and James Rivers twoard Petersburg. The oft-quoted 7,500 figure derives from attempts by early postwar writers to estimate all Union losses for June 3, a day that included a great deal more fighting than just the grand assault." [Gordon C. Rhea, Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26-June 3, 1864, p. 359.]

Rhea later writes, "All things considered, the grand charge at Cold Harbor on June 3 produced about 3,500 Union casualties." [Ibid., p. 362]

Mike Gorman and Gordon Rhea are talking about the grand assault with respect to the 3,500 casualties.

As I stated before, Grant had ordered a charge all along the lines (as he was wont to do), and this included attacks by some of Warren's and many or Burnside's troops as well as II, VI, and XVIII Corps. After the attacks failed (and they almost all failed very quickly with the bulk of the casualties in the beginning of each attack), the men were ordered to maintain their positions between the lines. This, of course, increased the casualty count, as they were shot at while trying to dig in or when trying to relieve themselves.

As Rhea stated, the day's bill came to about 6,000 federals. All this talk about the 3500 casualties in the "grand assault" does is minimize the perceived cost (which just happens to make Grant look better).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
Back
Top