If that's how he sees the operational arts, one certainly understands the horrendous casualties suffered by the Army of the Potomac in the 1864 Campaign.Originally Posted by Kansas Bear
Lee would've whipped his ass if they'd traded armies.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Not really. That army was really made for Grant's style. Lee would have not understood nor know how to take advantage of an industrial nation and its resources and put it to good use.
By the way, Lee would have not been able what Grant was able to do: break the will of a nation (Confederate)
Fervently disagree.
Lee was completely capable of assuming that or anyh other command. If they were Americans, he would've known how to lead it.
Furthermore, I doubt it would've taken even half the time or a quarter of the casualties. (Grant's casualties exceeded the total strength of his entire army.) And Grant didn't break the will of the Confederacy. To Grant's credit, the army he faced was broken, but that's another question.
Also, Grant's brief did not include taking advantage of industry, nor any resources but manpower. That was Stanton's job.
Grant was inferior to Lee in tactical and operational skill. But he was absolutely peerless in the one attribute that counted most: the aggresive will to win.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
To be fair to Grant, part of his overall strategy in '64 was to pressure the Rebs in the Shenandoah Valley while simultaneously attacking their 'main' army around Richmond. He was badly let down by subordinates in the Shenandoah campaign, who let much smaller Reb forces hold them up. The Rebs could not afford to lose either Richmond or the Shenandoah. Thus the campaign effectively became a 'frontal assault' by Grant's forces against Lee's.
Having said all that, I do not believe that there's much question but that Lee could 'handle' the Union army quite effectively. The real question is how Grant would have performed as commander of the ANV. Certainly the earlier quote does not tend to suggest that he would have handled the situation as well as Lee did historically. However, another of Grant's strengths was his ability to learn and adapt his approach to the circumstances on the ground. So, I believe he was capable of learning to handle the ANV effectively. For my part, I would still give the edge to Lee.
I disagree also. Lee did more with less, and furthermore, he didn't necessarily have to bring utter defeat. The 1864 election was a toss up until a string of victories sealed defeat for the Copperheads. Change the W and L columns, and a political settlement that resulted in a USA and CSA is a very likely outcome in 1864.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
shek,
i donno. it wasn't clear that mcclellan would have thrown in the towel had he won; and certainly, if the situation was anywhere like what it was by jan 1865, he would have been an absolute fool to go for a political settlement.Change the W and L columns, and a political settlement that resulted in a USA and CSA is a very likely outcome in 1864.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
bluesman,
tactical, maybe. operational? grant's vicksburg and chattanooga campaigns screwed over the south in a way far worse than any of lee's campaigns. lee's one real shot at victory was at sharpsburg/antietam...and despite fighting damn well, he couldn't pull it off. in the end, all of lee's major victories were defensive- parrying union blows.Grant was inferior to Lee in tactical and operational skill.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
There were some dam' strange patterns of furloughs granted in the Federal armies, too.
There was no absentee voting back then; one had to return to the county one was registered in to cast a vote, and dang me, but a WHOLE BUNCH of officers that had trustworthy GOP connections were given home leave juuuuuust about in time for them ole elections.
WEIRD, ain't it?
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Give Marse Robert superior manpower, unlimited supplies, and a whole bunch of gunboats and ironclads, and I bet he'd prove my point for me.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
NO. WAY.
Little Mac ran on a 'peace' platform. If he'd won, the war would be over and the Confederacy would've continued to exist.
Until an external threat appeared, which would be coming along as soon as Europe noticed her.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Back to my original point (which, I acknowledge, is WAY off the Original Post): if Lee and Grant had not just switched ARMIES, but PLACES, I still think that war would've been over right quick. If Lee had Grant's forces AND his mission, too...it's STILL 'lights out'. BUT...if Lee had Grant's army and his OLD mission...Grant would've just been the next of a long line of relieved commanders, culminating in an independent Confederacy.
Lee was a superior commander and general; Grant had the superior army and means at his disposal.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Huh. I got that wrong. I'm amazed, but I looked up the election of '64, and I find that the general split with the Democratic platform (explicitly a 'lose the war as quickly as possible' plank; some things never change, I guess). His running mate was another garden variety surrendernik. BUT, McClellan himself DID want to win the war and restore the Union.
Well, bully for him. But associating with that crew of losers made him one, too.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
I had gotten that wrong as well - thanks to astralis for bringing it up.
I wonder if anyone knows why the peace Democrats chose McClellan as opposed to the Seymours. If the Union had been faring poorly (i.e. give Lee the troops and industrial strength, and take it away from the Union generals up through and including Grant), I wonder if this would have changed the selection of candidates? In other words, did they pick McClellan as someone who could bring in both the anti-war and pro-war vote because various Union successes meant that a completely anti-war Presidential candidate wasn't viable.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I follow that, which must mean we BOTH have a Machiavellian streak in us.
Seriously, I don't think the party bosses over-thought it: Mac was still wildly popular, and those that hated Lincoln (like every single Dem, plus a not-inconsiderable number of Republicans) didn't need much more than a standard bearer that hated him equally as much. Mac was almost made to order.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
shek,
they picked mcclellan because they thought that would take away the army votes from lincoln. they were wrong.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: