Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[atlantis]

Yes he did say that but it was mostly Lee attacking thru May/June .

Gra

Grant was focused on ANV. He told Meade that his only objective eas Lee's army.

 

[Jimklag]

Yes he did say that but it was mostly Lee attacking thru May/June .

Who did Lee attack after The Wilderness?

 

[NedBaldwin]

When Grant crossed the Rapidan his objective was Richmond, the ? was that the correct objective because what was really the CSA- the capital city or the army. I would submit that on this point his[Grant] objective was wrong it should have been from the start destruction of the ANV. Lee abandoning any pretense of defending Richmond in May and redeploying his army southwest of Richmond near Danville would have unhinged Grant's plan of action.
I await the slings an arrows.

Battles could be very bloody, but in the civil war an army like the ANV did not get destroyed in battle. The ANV could be destroyed by knocking out its logistical supports and letting it wither away. Thus key places like Richmond/Petersburg were the right objectives. If Lee had given up Richmond in May 1864 and moved to southwest VA, the war would probably have been 6 months shorter.

 

[wausaubob]

Battles could be very bloody, but in the civil war an army like the ANV did not get destroyed in battle. The ANV could be destroyed by knocking out its logistical supports and letting it wither away. Thus key places like Richmond/Petersburg were the right objectives. If Lee had given up Richmond in May 1864 and moved to southwest VA, the war would probably have been 6 months shorter.

If Lee had abandoned Richmond, it would have made Early's expedition in the Shenandoah very difficult to sustain. It would also have made it worth the effort for the Union to move northeast from Knoxville. If the AofV had been forced to move towards the Appalachians, Virginia and North Carolina would have been very vulnerable.
Which begs the question, if the Union had knocked Virginia out of the war, would Lee have personally surrendered?

 

[Gene Green]

Lee at a blackjack table is not the best analogy, while Lee often had no choice but to take chances with his smaller army he wasn't playing a game.

well at times he acted like it was a game. he had choices but "the enemy is there and there is where i will strike him". even when he won , he lost by the numbers, Chancellorsville, and hence my analogy.
Grant played the part of the "house" perfectly and without a political solution the outcome was inevitable.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant switched from being a player, before Vicksburg, to being the manager, after Vicksburg.
After Vicksburg, Grant had an unlimited bank. After Vicksburg, it was as if he was managing three players, Meade's Army, Sherman's Army and the Navy, all playing at the same table with one Confederate who was a good player, and another who had already lost his stake and was pawning his jewelry to stay in the game.
One of Grant's players was likely to win in every hand, and when Sheridan joined the table, Grant never lost another hand.

 

[cash]

Remind me of this statement when I'm told to respect the service and sacrifice of the Confederate soldier.

Why one would like this strikes me as sick.

Explains why there are many who believe confederate heritage is driven by hatred.

 

[rpkennedy]

Yes he did say that but it was mostly Lee attacking thru May/June .

Lee made local attacks but Grant was definitively on the offensive throughout the Overland Campaign.

Ryan

 

[JerseyBart]

If one secedes, he had best succeed.

I say that all the time to my 5th graders. If you are going to commit treason, you'd better win.

 

[Burning Billy]

There had not been a tradition of such timidity in this country especially not in South. One could wonder at the configuration of the world today had many of their founding leaders dared not take the risk.

There is nothing admirable about a lack of strategic foresight. Bravery doesn't negate stupidity.

If the Confederacy was truly against impossible odds, then surely the leadership of that Confederacy must be called incompetent as well? Good leaders do not lead their people into wars they can't win.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Confederate soldiers were lions led by donkeys into an unwinnable war, or the war was winnable but Confederate armies were just outfought in the end.

 

[Jamieva]

Lee made local attacks but Grant was definitively on the offensive throughout the Overland Campaign.

Ryan

Lee made little counter punches looking for an opening. Mostly during the siege of Petersburg it was to re-establish lost territory

 

[rpkennedy]

Lee made little counter punches looking for an opening. Mostly during the siege of Petersburg it was to re-establish lost territory

I'm currently rereading Ed Bearss' Petersburg work and many of Lee's moves were in reaction to what Grant was doing. His attacks were attempts to stop Grant from doing anything rather than really attacking in order to accomplish a strategic goal.

Ryan

 

[Jimklag]

I'm currently rereading Ed Bearss' Petersburg work and many of Lee's moves were in reaction to what Grant was doing. His attacks were attempts to stop Grant from doing anything rather than really attacking in order to accomplish a strategic goal.

Ryan

That's true. Even turning Early loose was a move to relieve the pressure Grant was applying.

 

[rpkennedy]

That's true. Even turning Early loose was a move to relieve the pressure Grant was applying.

And to secure the critical supplies in the Shenandoah Valley.

Ryan

 

[CSA Today]

There is nothing admirable about a lack of strategic foresight. Bravery doesn't negate stupidity.

If the Confederacy was truly against impossible odds, then surely the leadership of that Confederacy must be called incompetent as well? Good leaders do not lead their people into wars they can't win.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Confederate soldiers were lions led by donkeys into an unwinnable war, or the war was winnable but Confederate armies were just outfought in the end.

it's not having it both ways, the Confederate soldiers were lions led by leaders willing to do their duty to defend their country no matter the odds. What kind of people would have done otherwise?

 

[shermans_march]

it's not having it both ways, the Confederate soldiers were lions led by leaders willing to do their duty to defend their country no matter the odds. What kind of people would have done otherwise?

But the Confederate States of America was never an independent country. With the illegality of secession, the southern confederacy was just states in rebellion. Also no foreign nation recognized it.

 

[CSA Today]

But the Confederate States of America was never an independent country. With the illegality of secession, the southern confederacy was just states in rebellion. Also no foreign nation recognized it.

No excuse not to fight for independence. Perhaps the many indifferent colonists in 1776 stayed out of it because no foreign nation recognized them, but the lack of recognition at that time didn't seem to deter the rebels insurgents.

 

[shermans_march]

No excuse not to fight for independence. Perhaps the many indifferent colonists in 1776 stayed out of it because no foreign nation recognized them, but the lack of recognition at that time didn't seem to deter the rebels insurgents.

The problem was that the American colonies were fighting for liberty, whereas the South was fighting for the freedom to spread slavery. Big difference. That difference was one of the reasons the French and British didn't interfere in the conflict between the states.

 

[CSA Today]

The problem was that the American colonies were fighting for liberty, whereas the South was fighting for the freedom to spread slavery. Big difference. That difference was one of the reasons the French and British kept out of it interfering in the conflict.

Slavery, or for that matter the African slave trade, ended with the winning of American independence?Then there was the problem of disgruntle colonists miffed because the British opposed their occupation of Indian lands in the Ohio Valley.

 

[shermans_march]

Slavery, or for that matter the African slave trade, ended with the winning of American independence?Then there was the problem of disgruntle colonists miffed because the British opposed their occupation of Indian lands in the Ohio Valley.

That definitely complicates things to be sure, however the founding fathers didn't mention slavery as one of their grievances against the British crown. The African Slave trade was banned 1809 so it was a couple decades later. Sure we could bring up Indian crimes that were perpetrated by both the North and the South, however that is besides the issue. The United States Constitution didn't promote slavery or crimes against Indians. The Constitution allowed slavery which was one of the main reasons the southern colonies supported it. Getting to the point, the leaders of the Confederacy made it be known what their country was founded on and that shows in their Constitution. So yeah, the Confederacy was fighting for a cause that was not as sympathetic as the colonists.