Finally finished Foote's Civil War trilogy this week.
Shew...only took me the better part of a decade. Great read. Or reads.
It has only reinforced my opinion that the war was won (or lost, depending on the perspective of the combatants) in the west. The south didn't have much of a chance to win a protracted war of attrition anyway. But they doubled down on it by ignoring Frederick the Great's warning: "Those who try to defend everything defend nothing." Critical manpower losses trying to defend places like Fort Donelson and Vicksburg were just horrible decisions by the commanders on the spot. There was no centralized command to make those decisions, and the regional commanders messed it up big time. Doubtful that it would have changed the overall result, though the extra 12k troops that surrendered at Fort Donelson may have tipped the scales at Shiloh, and if that had been the case Grant likely never would have been made CinC.
Now...re-reading The British Are Coming before I dive into The Fate Of The Day.
** Edited by Chris Coleman at 5/7/2025, 9:09:10 AM
** Edited by Chris Coleman at 5/7/2025, 9:09:37 AM
6 Replies
M
MikeVT85
1y
Link:
LINK
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
Some historians believe that Grant's victory at Vicksburg was more critical than the Union victory at Gettysburg (perhaps Grant felt the same based on what he wrote in his memoirs). The loss of Vicksburg did give the Union control over the Mississippi and severed Confederate supply lines, effectively splitting the South geographically.
Manpower and resources were certainly on the side of the North. I believe that Lee opted for a strategy where a major Union loss would energize those in the North who wanted to end the war - and this is why he was aggressive (some would say he took too many risks). Longstreet appears to have favored a defensive war - choosing the ground upon which to fight and forcing the North to come to them (while minimizing the South's losses in manpower). It's only an opinion, but I don't believe either strategy would have resulted in a different outcome.
(In response to this post by Chris Coleman)
1y
simple seige. Grant had to defeat two armies and was always at risk to being attacked from two directions. In my opinion his most brilliant and audacious part of his Civil War generalship.
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)
1y
First, he had to call off his overland campaign because his supply lines were cut by Nathan Bedford Forrest. Then, Grant sent Sherman on a failed expedition where the Union absorbed heavy losses from a direct assault. Grant followed up by attempting to navigate alternate courses through bayous and canals - the terrain beat him. And then he tried another direct assault and that failed miserably. He finally opted for a seige. Luckily, he had the manpower and resources so that his multiple failures didn't end him. It took him approximately 9 months of failed manuevers before he successfully took Vicksburg.
(In response to this post by kennedyvt)
1y
Militarily, even if the south had won Gettysburg, unless it had destroyed a large chunk of the Army of the Potomac in the process, what could it have done to capitalize on that victory? Taken Washington? Unlikely with the Army of the Potomac still intact and combined with the capital defenses. Not to mention that the Army of Northern Virginia would have had trouble staying supplied that long north of the Potomac river.
Yes, Lee knew a protracted war would end poorly for his side. That's definitely why he took so many risks. His goal was always not to beat the Army of the Potomac, but to isolate large sections of it and destroy them. He was never quite able to accomplish that. It's a very difficult thing to do when you are outnumbered and outgunned. His best chance was at Glendale on June 30, 1862, but Jackson (who was overrated tactically but brilliant strategically) had a bad day.
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)