Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Decisive US Civil War Battle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Shek View Post
    North Anna is not the near miss that some writers make it out to be.
    Ah. Grant and I were wrong to think it was an extremely dangerous trap that he'd fallen into. I'm now clear on that, but I only wish somebody had told him before he died.

    Heh. {;^)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
      Ah. Grant and I were wrong to think it was an extremely dangerous trap that he'd fallen into. I'm now clear on that, but I only wish somebody had told him before he died.

      Heh. {;^)
      You're making it out to be an offensive trap that was left unsprung, missing a decisive battle. Grant didn't see it this way. He saw it as a strong defensive position that wasn't worth assaulting.

      eHistory at OSU | Online Books | The Official Records of the Civil War

      To make a direct attack from either wing would cause a slaughter of our men that even success would not justify. To turn the enemy by his right, between the two Annas, is impossible on account of the swamp upon which his right rests. To turn him by his left leaves Little River, New Found River, and South Anna River, all of them streams presenting considerable obstacles to the movement of an army, to be crossed. I have determined, therefore, to turn the enemy's right by crossing at or near Hanovertown. This crosses all these streams at once, and leaves us still where we can draw supplies
      He didn't see it as an advantageous defensive position, either, but the fact that he entrenchsed and remained there for two days highlights demonstrates that it wasn't untenable and that he didn't see great risk - just the lack of advantage.

      In the end, the mathematics carry the day. 1/3 is the upper bound of casualties, a figure that required 100% casualties for Hancock. In a fight of near parity (30K ANV vs. 24K AoP), requiring coordination between two weak ANV Corps Commanders (and Lee wasn't known for cross-Corps coordination) assaulting over open ground against the strongest AoP Corps Commander, Hancock, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue for 50% casaulties (and there'd be correspondingly heavy ANV casualties). Thus, Grant would suffer about 15-20% casualties, a figure that he'd already suffered in both battles preceding that one that never was at North Anna and close to the one he would suffer at Cold Harbor over the course of that battle.

      What did he do after each and every one of the those? "And keep moving on."

      Thus, North Anna wasn't where Grant almost lost the war. In fact, I think it'd be safe to say that any Confederate assault probably would have simply contributed to ANV exhaustion without any advantage to the ANV and potentially led to conditions where Cold Harbor or Petersburg in mid-June would have been the end.
      "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

      Comment


      • For those not familiar with North Anna (or as Albany Rifles likes to term the Overland Campaign - the battle for I-95), see the following map. You can see that Hancock's right flank ties into terrain and while his left flank was flapping, the ANV would have had to have leave Hanover Junction flapping in order to have extended beyond Hancock's left flank. Furthermore, the same stream/swamp that would have disrupted any offensive assault by Hancock would have done the same for Ewell.

        "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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Shek View Post
          While not answering the exact same question that began the thread, what would be interesting to hear would be what battles were most damaging to the CSA's efforts? I'd vote for Chattanooga in the West and Chancellorsville in the East. Chattanooga irreversibly opened up the Deep South to attack and vaulted Grant to LTG and General-in-Chief, which once and for all synchronized Union strategy across all theaters of the war. Chancellorsville was symptomatic of Lee's approach that suffered unsustainable casualties while breeding overconfidence that would mask the impact of this bleeding.
          Chattanooga was no doubt damaging for the reasons you mentioned and because it opened the way to Atlanta. But was it one of the two most damaging, along with Chancellorsville fought later the same year? Maybe at that point in the war it was. But it seems to me the most damaging losses were those which came earlier that led to South's loss of New Orleans and control of the Mississippi. The loss of Atlanta was more damaging than either battle because it completely changed the political landscape in the North and demoralized the South. Chancellorsville had to be fought to turn back Hooker. If it ranks among the most damaging for the reason you give, then it should be lumped together with Lee's other offensive battles, which altogether cost him far more men than he could afford to lose. Some historians say the greatest damage for the ANV to come out of Chancellorsville was the loss of Jackson.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • Actually, it is more the battle of US 1!

            An assault on Hancock's II COrps would have had a very difficult time in succeeding. The topography would have prevented the concentration of forces required to inflict that kind of damage.

            And, JAD, I believe Shek wa referring to Chattanooga in November 63 and not Summer of 63.
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • I did some more thinking on this while walking my dogs last night.

              I would like to amend and extend my comments and change my answer (if I gave one) to the Seven Days Battles.

              No doubt many of you scoff but here is my reasoning:

              During the Seven Days we can see the emergence of Lee's belief in the invincibility of the Army of Northern Virginia's fighting ability. Opening with the bloodletting at Beaver Dam, continuing through Gaines' Mills and finishing with the sanguine affair at Malvern Hill, Lee continuously threw the ANV at the AOP. I completely agree that the aggressive tactics paid off for Lee. I am not arguing that Lee needed to push McClellan back. But the entire campaign was a continuous display of shoddy staff work which got soldiers needlessly killed and wounded. The spirit of the regiments of the ANV allowed Lee to win that battle. That bred in Marse Robert an almost holy belief in the abilities of the ANV. It also sold into his mind the belief that the attack was always the preferred method of combat for him. We see this again and again...and the resultant casualty lists were stunning - almost 20,000 during the Seven Days, 9200 at Antietam, 11,000 at Chancellorsville, 17,500 at Gettysburg.

              But what did Lee need to accompplish? As long as the ANV lived, there would be a Confederacy (same with the AOT). Lee's aggressive tactics did not match his strategic mission...keep his army alive and in the field. He should have learned the lesson of a previous Virginian, Washington, who knew when to attack and when to live to fight another day. He should have conducted a more defensive war at the operational level in order to husband his most precious resource....the infantry of the ANV.

              And he developed this doctrine during the bloody path from Richomd through Hanover and Henrico counties to the James River.

              The Seven Days set Robert Edward Lee down the path of destroying his army on the offense.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • Buck,
                Great analysis. In citing Chancellorsville, I was looking at it from a perspective that from that point on, Lee was a permanent fixture that could not be removed and whose advice could not be dismissed lightly by the Davis government. Maybe I'm dating this too late - at what point was Lee as ANV Commander irreversible? I know that Jackson (despite his dismal performance) was initially the hero of Seven Days because of campaign in the Valley months prior.
                "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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Shek View Post
                  Buck,
                  Great analysis. In citing Chancellorsville, I was looking at it from a perspective that from that point on, Lee was a permanent fixture that could not be removed and whose advice could not be dismissed lightly by the Davis government. Maybe I'm dating this too late - at what point was Lee as ANV Commander irreversible? I know that Jackson (despite his dismal performance) was initially the hero of Seven Days because of campaign in the Valley months prior.
                  I'd say after 2d Manassas. Lee's success there gave him the morale authority to treat with Davis on all matters...he had delivered Richmond and drove the Union forces back on their heels.

                  As for Jackson, more complex. I remember a discussion with 2 British officers who said in their army they believed the Stonewall sobriquet was earned because he was "thick as a plank.". He had some great success in The Valley....but how did he do at the Seven Days? Pretty good at 2d Manassas and decent at Antietam. But didn't the only breakthrough of Confedera(e lines at Fburg occur on his corps front?

                  As with many through history his beatification was enhanced by death on the battlefield.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • IIRC he had the weakest position at Frederiscksburg,terrain wise.IMO his great merit was that he was good on his own.He didn't needed supervision,something Lee was not very good at practicising,anyway.
                    Those who know don't speak
                    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                    Comment


                    • Albany:

                      Once again, we consider the question: what was the most decisive battle in outcome of the war. The outcome is the Northern victory. The Seven days was indeed significant in reducing the South's strength, but it was not the decisive battle. It hastened the outcome no doubt. I am the lone voter who believes that Shiloh was the decisive turning point. You know that battle well, so I won't go over it again. But the Northern victory there was a reverse of enormous consequences for the South for without it the North would not have gained control of the Mississippi and cut off the South from a principal source of material and transport. Had the South prevailed at Shiloh it could have maintained a defensive posture against Northern armies and drawn the war out to such an extent that the South would have succeeded in gaining diplomatic recognition from England or France and Northern politician in favor of peace would have been strengthened and likely succeed. The poll at the beginning of this thread is heavily skewed toward popularly recognized battles and ignores those that put the train of victory in motion.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • John,
                        I think Buck was answering my redirection on the thread, which was getting at when the seeds of defeat were sown, not necessarily when they began to sprout.
                        "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

                        Comment


                        • shek,

                          Maybe I'm dating this too late - at what point was Lee as ANV Commander irreversible?
                          i'd say antietam.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            shek,

                            i'd say antietam.
                            Antietam was at best a draw for the ANV - Lee entered Maryland and in making a stand at Antietam, ended the foray north with a loss. I'm not sure how that would capture the imagination of the South such that he could no longer be fired by Davis.
                            "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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                              Albany:

                              Once again, we consider the question: what was the most decisive battle in outcome of the war. The outcome is the Northern victory. The Seven days was indeed significant in reducing the South's strength, but it was not the decisive battle. It hastened the outcome no doubt. I am the lone voter who believes that Shiloh was the decisive turning point. You know that battle well, so I won't go over it again. But the Northern victory there was a reverse of enormous consequences for the South for without it the North would not have gained control of the Mississippi and cut off the South from a principal source of material and transport. Had the South prevailed at Shiloh it could have maintained a defensive posture against Northern armies and drawn the war out to such an extent that the South would have succeeded in gaining diplomatic recognition from England or France and Northern politician in favor of peace would have been strengthened and likely succeed. The poll at the beginning of this thread is heavily skewed toward popularly recognized battles and ignores those that put the train of victory in motion.
                              You won't get much of a fight from me there....but I was answering Shek's redirected question.

                              And as for Jackson as independent commander....who was his opposition? Jackson did well against the second string. And many of his peers and historians have faulted him for his refusal to keep subordinates informed of the overall plan. Lck of understanding of the commander's intent for a battle stifles initiative and flexibility. This caused some fo his issues at the Seven Days and Fredericksburg.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • shek,

                                Antietam was at best a draw for the ANV - Lee entered Maryland and in making a stand at Antietam, ended the foray north with a loss. I'm not sure how that would capture the imagination of the South such that he could no longer be fired by Davis.
                                yeah, that was my thinking, actually- if lee didn't get fired for antietam, short of a devastating loss, what WOULD he fired for?
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X