Best Civil War General

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

PS, you put WAY too much emphasis on the industry around Richmond, Josiah Gorgas had MANY gun makers and foundries in the DEEP south.

Polish, that is only marginally true. Certainly, there were a few other areas in the old South where some industrial capability existed, but there were not many, nor were they extensive. At the beginning of the Civil War there was only ONE factory in all the Confederacy capable of rolling cannon, and that was at the Tredeger Ironworks in Richmond. Industrial facilities--particularly gunpowder plants--were constructed during the war, but never enough for full support of field armies. Most industrially produced war supplies had to be purchased and imported from Britain and France through the Yankee blockade.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Richmond vs. Mobile WAS a "political" decision, to INSURE that R.E.Lee fought for the SOUTH. There is NO way Virginai does NOT seceed, and Lee told Davis he would NOT fight for the Confederacy, but for Virginia! Davis SHOULD have "grown a pair" and said 'Thanks but NO thanks, enjoy your retirement, thank you for your service, here's my telegraph number IN MOBILE if you change your mind..."

I strongly disagree. It is certainly true that the Confederacy was happy to obtain the services of Lee--hell, the Union offered him command of its own armies; they knew his worth--but to suggest bribery was the primary reason for locating the capitol in that state is absurd. Richmond was chosen as the capitol because VIRGINIA, as the keystone of the old South, was vital to the Confederacy, not merely to convince Lee to join the cause. While I will concede that much of Lee's motivation to join the Confederacy lay with his desire to defend Virginia, locating the capitol there--or not--does not affect that desire one way or the other.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

MOBILE should have stayed the capital, and EVERYTHING should have been put into the defense of it, and the PORT, along Atlanta and Chattanooga.

I won't disagree with you on that point, Polish, as I conceded in an earlier post. Militarily and strategically, locating the capitol in Alabama would have made far more sense, but political expediency overcame strategic wisdom.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Guerrilla warfare WAS practiced SUCCESSFULLY in the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. THAT is to what I refer. IT WORKED, against an invading army with a supply train MUCH less necessary than to an army of 1863! In the SAME terrain and area!

And TELL me that the Confederates were "too" proud to conduct it...Oh yea, Morgan WAS just a common criminal and scoundrel, wasn't he....

Once again you stoop to semantics, Polish. Guerrilla warfare in the sense of terrorism was conducted, but not sanctioned, by both sides to some extent during the Civil War. Look at Stan Watie and William Quantrell, or look at the Red Legs in Kansas. However, if you mean guerrilla warfare in the sense of raids conducted by formally sanctioned behind-the-lines raids by military units, the Southerners were masters of the technique. Look, for example, at Stuart's "ride around McClellan," or the so-called "raid for cattle" as well as other operations conducted by John Singleton Mosby. For that matter, consider Jackson's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1862.

Gotta stop for now. I have a class in ethics to teach in a half hour. Second post on the rest of your argument this afternoon.

[polishshooter]

"Guerrilla Warfare" is NOT "terrorism," but "Irregular" attacks in enemy controlled areas, mainly to disrupt his line of communications. (i.e., SUPPLY)

It was practiced since the very BEGINNING of organized warfare, usually by the weaker side.

It got it's NAME from the "Guerrillas" who so successfully hounded Napoleon in the Iberian Peninsula, at time when "communications" were MUCH less necessary and indespensible than the mass industrialized armies of 1863...

And BOTH sides did it in the Civil War, in fact, the smoldering coals of the tie fires, with burnt telegraph wire in the coals and the rails wrapped in knots around nearby trees became the SIGNAL evidence of a "Cavalry raid...."

It is NOT "Semantics...." but a VIABLE tactic, that had been used MANY times in History back to the GAULS, and SHOULD have been recognized by Lee as the ONLY way to win, but again, he was an ANACHRONISM, a "aristocratic Nobleman" fighting a failed war more appropriate to the 1600s or 1700s, NOT the 1860s!

If the Union Army was forced to advance over the 500 miles or so of HOSTILE territory to campaign in South Carolina, Georgia or Tennesee BEFORE it saw any significant action, it would have been SO depleted from JUST the forces needed to GUARD it's supply lines, that the "ultimate" battle itself could not have been won, Lee WOULD have had his "Decisive Battle," in which probably the ENTIRE "Army of the Potomac" (Which PROBABLY would have been renamed into someting like the "National Army," or something more grandiose since it WASN'T conveniently campaigning now anywhere NEAR the Potomac....) would have been "bagged," making an even more impact on the USA's psyche...but BESIDES not recognizing this strategy. Lee VIOLATES it by advancing HIS weaker army with even WEAKER supply train through UNION "Hostile" territory to campaign in the NORTH????? One of the BIGGEST blunders of Military History....

As MUCH as you so wistfully string together the "if only's" or "if they could have's" or "they probably would's" to say how Lee COULD have won the war with a victory at Gettysburg (which I respectfully DISAGREE could have happened,) I ALSO string together a few (not as many, I think) to say THIS was the ONLY scenario in which the SOuth could have gained independence....

And it is NOT much difference than the SAME strategy followed by WASHINGTON....FORGET territories, FORGET "Capitols," heck, the BRITISH thought the was was OVER when they took New York, then Philadelphia, (and they even TOOK Washington in 1814, so I do NOT think the South "wins" even if they TAKE Washington in July or August '63!) the ARMY was the only thing giving the CSA validity...

And you cite the "draft riots" in the cities, think what they would have been like if the mothers were NOT sending their children to "defend Washington," but to die or get captured (worse than death???) in say, Disgusta, GEORGIA....???? Heck, the FARM boys from Michigan, Indiana, or Wisconsin might not have volunteered EITHER.....

And YES it would have taken the diplomacy of a Southern Ben Franklin to get the British, or even Russian (THEY wanted California...) direct support, AND it would have taken an ALL OUT naval concentration JUST to keep Mobile open for foreign aid, BUT the USN at the time could NOT have stood up to the RN AND blockaded the southern ports TOO... and even if they just BUY the stuff they need, it would have been better (which leads to ANOTHER discussion of "The Stupidist things the Rebs DID to Lose the War"- like spend so MUCH time and money BEFORE the war getting all that cotton to England "just in case," and then BURNING it to cause a "cotton shortage????")



But back to Lee...

It ALWAYS has amazed me, how Lee is so revered, even today...

Explain for me the DIFFERENCE between what HE did, and Benedict Arnold....

Benedict Arnold MAY have been the MOST effective American "Battlefield" commander of the Revolution, and WITHOUT the Battle of Saratoga, we don't have France on our side....and the agonizing (AFTER all the political backstabbing) that went into his decision was no DIFFERENT than Lees, that the ONLY way to save America FROM ITSELF was peace now so they could try it AGAIN in 20 years or so...and that YES he took up arms AGAINST his "country" (REALLY not a "Country" yet, just a "cause...")(and NEVER commanded the MAIN force of the British....) and fianlly, Arnold NEVER took (or VIOLATED) an OATH "To protect the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC...." Yeah, he accepted MONEY from the enemy, but he was a PROFESSIONAL soldier with little wealth, not an independently wealthy "Aristocrat" like Lee, so he NEEDED it...and HELL he took a DEMOTION to do it too....

No matter WHAT you say, BOTH are mere TRAITORS, and but for the "Honor and Magnanimity" of GRANT (who even YOU casually refer to as a "Drunk" and a "Butcher") and LINCOLN, SHOULD have been exiled penniless and in shame to some ISLAND somewhere, along with Jeff Davis, and ALL the other CSA "Generals...."

I would have RESPECTED Lee (and several OTHER Southern Generals) more if he simply REFUSES to fight and sits the war OUT....The "Confederates" that deserve MORE of our respect as Americans were those (and there were MANY) who sympathized with the South, and AGONIZED over the questions, BUT whose "Honor" compelled them to HONOR their Word, to fight FOR THEIR COUNTRY. The USA....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

"Guerrilla Warfare" is NOT "terrorism," but "Irregular" attacks in enemy controlled areas, mainly to disrupt his line of communications. (i.e., SUPPLY)

That depends entirely on the purpose and the target of the attacks, Polish. I would argue it most certainly IS terrorism when it is specifically directed at killing noncombatant civilians for purposes of arousing fear and the creation of demoralization, instead of the desruction of militarily useful supplies and hardware. Fortunately, there was very little of that on either side during the Civil War.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

It is NOT "Semantics...." but a VIABLE tactic, that had been used MANY times in History back to the GAULS, and SHOULD have been recognized by Lee as the ONLY way to win, but again, he was an ANACHRONISM, a "aristocratic Nobleman" fighting a failed war more appropriate to the 1600s or 1700s, NOT the 1860s!

You know, Polish, I find it amazing that you would denegrate and deprecate a war leader like Lee simply because he still understood the meaning of the word "honor" and adhered strictly to basic moral and religious principles in his actions. Indeed, with the exception of a few loose cannon, so did the other military leaders in the Civil War, North and South. Or is it that you are suggesting Lee and the Confederacy lost because they refused to stoop to such reprehensible tactics as wanton and indiscriminate killing of civilians? The fact is, Lee DID use "guerrilla tactics," if you choose to use that term, in the sense of raids against legitimate military targets--Stuart, Mosby, Forrest, and Jackson are obvious examples. So did the Union as witnessed by Stoneman's raid and indeed Sherman's infamous "March to the Sea." It might be argued that a greater use of such raids might have benefited the South, but it must be remembered as well that Confederate forces were stretched to the limit throughout the war. From whence would you suggest the Rebels acquire the necessary cavalry forces needed for more frequent and extensive raids without crippling their field armies? History clearly shows that the Confederacy did use such tactics effectively. Indeed, who authorized Stuarts famous "ride," Abe Lincoln? What about the Union? The Yankees had more than ample resources and manpower for such tactics, but used them relatively little, Phil Sheridan's ride up the Shennandoah Valley being the most notable exception, along with a couple of rather ineffectual other attempts.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

If the Union Army was forced to advance over the 500 miles or so of HOSTILE territory to campaign in South Carolina, Georgia or Tennesee BEFORE it saw any significant action . . .

Perhaps, Polish, but you forget that we are dealing with human beings here, not computers merely calculating the odds. If the Iranians invaded New York, would you be tempted to withdraw your forces all the way to Indiana before fighting them simply because it was more militarily expedient to do so? Hmmmm, come to think of it, I might, assuming we put Hillary in charge of the rear guard armed only with a sharp stick and her noted "wit." She would make a dandy Uriah the Hittite. You ignore totally here a very basic but highly relevant factor: In the minds of the Southerners, the damnyankees were INVADING them. Retreat and the tactics of hit and run were not truly a viable option within that context. Call it courage or call it "anachronistic" thinking, but it was still a fact of life in the minds of 19th century Confederates, and it is they and their mindset whom we must consider in any criticism.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But back to Lee...

It ALWAYS has amazed me, how Lee is so revered, even today...

Explain for me the DIFFERENCE between what HE did, and Benedict Arnold....

You have it reversed, Polish, by your own admission. In order to answer your question, we must first consider our own Revolution. Are we to consider Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry as "traitors?" They were, you know, by your definition. They rebelled against the motherland, against their own government because they believed their government had betrayed them, as it arguably had indeed. The Confederates were no different. The only reason perception of the Confederacy is negative today among those outside the South is because the Rebels didn't win.

Hmmm, I can see this conversation is gonna be FUN!

[Sackett]

I hope this question isn't too far from the theme and I'd like to disregard the slavery or secession issue with it.
If one had to go to battle, which general would you prefer to serve under and why? Or is this a fair question?

[polishshooter]

PS, we are arguing on a couple of different planes here, not really connecting....

So let's try this a different way, in the way you seem to like...

"(I can't figure out this "Quote" thing so bear with my Copy/Paste!)You ignore totally here a very basic but highly relevant factor: In the minds of the Southerners, the damnyankees were INVADING them. Retreat and the tactics of hit and run were not truly a viable option within that context. Call it courage or call it "anachronistic" thinking, but it was still a fact of life in the minds of 19th century Confederates, and it is they and their mindset whom we must consider in any criticism."


THAT'S why the South LOST!!!! NOBODY, ESPECIALLY Lee figured this OUT! But IF they did, they MIGHT have won! MY GOODNESS, When WAS it that Sun Tsu said "He who attempts to defend EVERYTHING defends NOTHING? LET the "DamnYankees" invade all the way to GEORGIA, THEN we'll kick their @SS! is EXACTLY how they could have won, incidentally, how the RUSSIANS won in 1812 and again in World War Two!

But the way THEY chose to fight, with the resources they HAD, the Demographics, the territory, was a losing proposition from the START.

AGAIN, they had notable successes EARLY, but MAINLY due to the untrained Union Volunteers, and a whole PARADE of incompetent Union field commanders....BUT with experience, and ESPECIALLY the almost 10 to 1 deficit in military aged males, coupled with the MASSIVE industrial strength of the North compared to the South, meant the cause was LOST with the tactics they chose to USE. Ergo, LEE as a Strategist, was a FAILURE because he could not THINK past the anachronistic 18th Century style of WARFARE.




As per the "HONOR" argument, give me a BREAK! HE BROKE AN OATH. Wherefore "Honor?????" He was NO better, and NO worse, than ANY of his contemporaries in the "honor" department. But you do NOT give GRANT the same benefit of the doubt...you see Grant as a "drunk butcher," BUT he exhibited MORE honor at the END of the war, than Lee exhibited DURING...and Lee WAS as much a "Butcher" as Grant when he sent Pickett's FINE men (that incidentally he could NOT afford to LOSE ) across that field on July 3rd....


War IS Hell...MANY Union Officers grasped that concept, Lee never DID...and paid the price....


No I am NOT denigrating Lee, as a "good" General, or as an honorable man (The OATH thing notwithstanding...).but mainly, as I see it, his BEST attribute was as an OUTSTANDING Leader of men...his men would follow him ANYWHERE, win or lose, even to their death by his flawed strategy....of that there is NO question, (but the same can be said of McCLELLAN...) I just think he has been placed on WAY too high a "pedestal" than what he deserves, by Historians, by Southern "sympathizers," and by the Romantics, which is disproved by TRULY studying objective FACT...

Just LIKE the "Nazi Apologists" that "cry" not enough resources, too many tanks, too many planes, they would have won if ONLY.....you have to ADMIT that EVERY "romantic" account of the Civil War, (HELL, we have seen it in this THREAD!!!!)..tells how GREAT Lee was, how GREAT the Rebel Cavalry was, how GREAT the average infantryman was, if ONLY they had more men, resources, whatever, BOO HOO.

"If we had some bacon we could have some bacon and eggs if we had some eggs!!!!"

The TRULY "Great" General (1) Understands his STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES (2) PICKS HIS BATTLES to best UTILIZE his Strengths and MINIMIZING his weaknesses and (3) devises a STRATEGY that will allow him to WIN the WAR. "Material Resources" and "Manpower" deficiencies CAN and HAVE been compensated for by TRULY Great Generals (and Admirals) throughout History. Some of the GREATEST battles and Wars have been won by the WEAKER side, so I give NO slack to the Whiners who say "If Only...."


Lee did NONE of these. GRANT (And Thomas and Sherman) did them ALL. So the OUTCOME was NEVER in doubt, as soon as GRANT went East, and left the REALLY important struggle on the WEST to his well trained, like minded SUBORDINATES.


BRAGG on the other hand has been given the short end of the stick by both Historians and "Southern Sympathizers." But with the MEAGER resources he had, because he was constantly STRIPPED to send stuff to LEE, the Campaign of "Strategic Retreat" until he could make a DECISIVE stand was really BRILLIANT in the West....he was only outflanked ONCE, and that was when the Union made the surprise trek through the "impassable" mountains to take Chattanooga, and he made his stand TOO LATE to save it...Lee sends Longstreet to him at Tullahoma Gap, in time to stop THOMAS there, and the war would have been helped a HELLUVA lot more than by Lee fighting at Gettysburg, which would NOT have happened if he HAD sent Longstreet then....


SO, Lee "blew" it, BIG TIME....going after the "Pie in the sky" "decisive battle," that almost NEVER has happened in History, outside of the 18th Century...BECAUSE he was anachronistic, and hobbled by a mind that could NOT grasp "modern Warfare...."


BRAGG therefore was the BETTER Strategist than LEE, but get's almost NO credit for it....in fact he was then and has bee since DENIGRATED as a "Loser" by the very people he fought his DAMNEDEST for....while Lee NEVER was called a Loser, which he WAS as much as ANYBODY....


So, when GRANT is on a slightly HIGHER pedestal than Lee, with Sherman and Thomas standing NEXT to him, and some OTHER Confederate Generals SHARE Lee's pedestal...then History will be correct.

PS, I KNOW you have "Southern Blood" in you, which MAY account for the "blind" loyalty. In this I have an advantage, since MY anscestors came here in 1880, so "I Have no Dog in the Fight," and CAN be objective.

But I ALSO know that IF they came 20 years earlier, what they would have fought for. As recently "freed" peasants, no way in HELL would they fight for ANYTHING but Freedom, for ALL....AMERICANS.

[southernshooter]

Originally Posted by Sackett

which general would you prefer to serve under and why

I would serve under Lee, I would rather die a Southerner then live as a Yankee

[polishshooter]

Do soldiers GET the chance to PICK under who they serve?

I would think MOST soldiers not blinded by ideology,(and MOST soldiers after the first BATTLE no longer CARE as much about ideology!) would rather pick the General that when serving (1) they had a better chance of getting enough FOOD, CLOTHING, SUPPLIES and MEDICAL CARE during their service and (2) had the best chance of WINNING the war so they could go HOME the fastest....



Anyway, that is EXACTLY the sentiment that has caused Lee to get such a wholly undeserved reputation!

Wouldn't you rather have fought for a General that MAY have had a chance of WINNING and advancing your cause?

Or MAYBE under a General that KNOWS when it's over, and surrenders BEFORE so much bloodshed happens, so that thinly disguised hatred just MAYBE doesn't get so hardened...





Southern, I KNOW what "Die a Southerner" means, we all know it happened WAY TOO much in the war, but just EXACTLY what do you mean when you say "Than Live as a Yankee?"


I'm curious....


There is a REASON for my question, too.....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Sackett

If one had to go to battle, which general would you prefer to serve under and why? Or is this a fair question?

For me it would be Lee in a heartbeat, Sackett. Whatever his detractors may say, Lee was brilliant and a man worthy of loyalty.

[Sackett]

I suppose I would have like to have been in a cavalry unit. Under which general, I don't know.
It seems as if the cavalry were better equipped and I would certainly prefer the more modern weaponry considering the tactics I saw on the battlefield among the foot soldiers.

[Pistolenschutze]

Polish, time out for a second. Let's put up the truce flag and recover the wounded from the battlefield.

Use of the the quote function is really quite easy. Here is how I do it, step by step.

1. First decide what portion of a post you want to quote.
2. Highlight that portion with your mouse by holding down the left click button and moving the cursor over the portion to be quoted. The portion to be quoted will end up with a black background.
3. After the portion to be quoted is properly highlighted, release the left click button (the black highlighted text will remain), then set your mouse arrow cursor on any portion of the highlighted text. The cursor must point to some part (any part) of the highlighted text for this to work correctly.
4. Press the right mouse button.
5. A drop down menu will appear with several choices, one of which will be "copy."
6. Choose "copy" from the menu by clicking with your cursor.
7. You have now made a temporary copy of the text to be copied in your computer's memory.
8. Next, click on the "Post Reply" button like you always do and a blank new post form will appear as it normally does.
9. Set your cursor on the yellow reply form with the mouse.
10. Press the right mouse button. The drop down menu will appear once again and one of the choices will be "paste." Choose "paste" with your mouse.
11. The text to be quoted will appear on the post reply form.

(OK, I don't mean to seem pedantic, and I know you've done cutting and pasting before, but I'm just making sure you have all the steps. Obviously, just cutting and pasting won't produce the neat quotes the TFF system will display. Here is how that part is done

12. The coding that is needed to produce quotes in the TFF style consists of two basic codes one at each end of the text material you want to quote. The one that goes at the beginning of the quote is, [quote], with an = sign after the word quote and before the end bracket. I can't show the = sign here because the system won't display it without an actual quote being made. The one that goes at the end of the quote is simply /quote, BUT WITH BRACKETS [] AROUND IT LIKE IN THE FIRST ONE, no = sign, and with no spaces. I can't show the brackets here or the system will pick up what I just wrote as a quote. After the = sign in the first code type in the name of the person you are quoting, no spaces between the = sign and the end bracket. It should look something like this: [quote=polishshooter]. The brackets as shown, [ and ], MUST be there. You cannot use () or {}. They will not work. Also the / must be in the last code as shown or it will not work.

Once the codes are in place, simply type whatever reply you wish below it. When you are done, click the "submit reply" button just as you always do.

Hope this helps. Once you've done it the first time, you'll never have a problem with it again.

[Pistolenschutze]

The wounded have now been gathered in and the bodies of the fallen have been respectfully interred. On with the battle! Watch your flank, Polish, Jackson's "foot cavalry" might just be making an end round like at Chancellorsville and you might end up sacked by Lincoln just like that Yankee pimp Joe Hooker.

Yes, Polish, we are approaching this issue differently, which is interesting in itself. You seem to be viewing it in terms of a more modern mindset and tactical approach (and I don't really disagree with what you are suggesting; it might well have worked), while I am trying to view what happened as it actually existed and within the omnipresent psychological constraints of that time. These men were what they were. Lee was not a Schwarzkopf, and Grant was not an Eisenhower, and neither, most assuredly, was a Patton!

You argue that because Lee did not subscribe to the tactics you suggest, that makes him a failed commander. I simply cannot see the logic of that assessment. Neither side employed modern tactics during the war, with the possible exception of Sherman and Grant right at the end when the South was already effectively beaten. You've conceded the overwhelming power of the Union vis-a-vis the South, so a salient question is why the hell did they not win MUCH sooner? Approximately 620,000 men died in that war, Polish, nearly as many as all other wars the U.S. ever fought put together. Virtually every time a Union army faced Lee--usually with twice his numbers and many times his materiel resources--that Union army was decimated. You single out Lee as an incompetent, anachronistic, over-glorified field commander when he managed to keep the hounds of the Union at bay for nearly four years, and inflicted massive casualties on their forces at every turn. That is hardly the record of an "incompetent" commander. I would argue that Lee WAS innovative, and he was certainly willing to take calculated risks to compensate for the shortfall in manpower and resources with which he had to fight. Yes, he failed to achieve victory in both of his attempted invasions of the Union, both of which were calculated to bring about a decisive end to the war before the South was simply overwhelmed by the lopsided order of battle. Yet Sharpsburg and Gettysburg were very near run engagements, and I would argue Sharpsburg was actually a Rebel victory, not a defeat. If it is an example of incompetence you are looking for, look to that damn fool McClellen, to Hooker, Pope, or Meade.

[polishshooter]

You answered your own question, with what I have been SAYING...

It is EXPONENTIALLY easier for a General to "Defend." than "Attack." Not only are there even TABLEs for the amount of superiority needed at the point of attack, it is necessary to be in COMPLETE control , have good communitcations, and have subordinates that will DO what you tell them or die trying...in return, the subordinates MUST have confidence you will have the OTHER flanks or arms doing what was planned, and that your plan is sound....

But on the OTHER hand it is EXPONENTIALLY easier to DEFEND....as long as dispositions are essentially sound, it is simply moving chess peices around REACTING to the enemy's initiative....granted, Lee sometimes ANTICIPATED his opponents actions, which allowed him some "brilliant" counterstroke that a lesser General may have missed, BUT that just makes him "Good!" (I'll show you why in a BIT... )

YES, all the Union General's up until Grant were LACKING in the ability to conduct an offensive campaign, and we QUICKLY chalk it up to "incompetence..." and Lee's "brilliance...."


In the case of Burnside, and McClellan, I will GIVE you incompetence at least on the attack...(well, Burnside, all-around! )

BUT....and here's the rub...


Against the SAME generals he BEAT before when attacking HIM, Lee FAILED against when he attacked THEM...AT Antietem and Gettysburg!

Hooker and Meade were able to anticipate LEE'S moves, and make "brilliant" counter moves against HIM.

SO. keeping in mind the tenet that it is ALWAYS easier to defend than attack, and Lee only won when DEFENDING, by definition he is NOT a "Great" General!

And why do we not consider Meade and Hooker to be "Brilliant," because of their victories WHEN DEFENDING and Lee "incompetent" because of what happened when HE attacked????

Great Generals have to do it ALL, attack, AND defend....

So there it is, SOME (a FEW) Union Generals WERE incompetent, but on the whole, many were pretty average to Good, guys that may not WIN big, but also wouldn't LOSE big...

Hooker, Meade. Lee, ALL were about average to Good at BEST...Lee was NOT the "military mastermind" he has been made out to be, and Hooker and Meade, were NOT as "incompetent" as advertised.


GRANT on the other hand WAS a "Brilliant" General...he won when ATTACKING, yes with casualties, but that is why you need the 5 to one advantage at the point of attack!

And he KNEW even if he lost 5 to 1, (he DIDN'T), it would hurt him LESS than Lee....THAT is "Masterful...."


But I will explain WHY Lee has been built up to Myth status...it happens EVERY time to the LOSER....psychologically there HAS to be something to assuage the feelings of inadequacy that comes from defeat, along with the need to KNOW your friends and family didn't die in vain....SOMETHING that the defeated have to grasp....so the SOuth NEEDED a Hero, and BADLY, right after the war.

WHo else WAS there? Bragg had ALREADY been labeled unfairly a "loser" by the Confederate Press, and everyone else was essentially DEAD. And Davis did NOTHING inspiring at all....


But the NORTH needed him a hero TOO. Just as you said, HOW do you justify all the death and destruction when the war SHOULD have been over in a year?

Easier to agree Lee was "Brilliant," than point to all the failures on YOUR side, the biggest one being NOT immeidately implementing Scott's Anaconda Plan in 1861!


Oh, and thanks for the truce, I needed to take some canteens to the crick (Bull Run?) for some water...

[southernshooter]

Originally Posted by Polishshooter

Southern, I KNOW what "Die a Southerner" means, we all know it happened WAY TOO much in the war, but just EXACTLY what do you mean when you say "Than Live as a Yankee?"

I would rateher fight as a Confederates Soldier and die than Fight for the Union and live

[polishshooter]

Thanks, Southern... I've heard that before, but I never quite understood what people think Yankees ARE to hate them so much!

I tell, you though, I've traveled far and wide, and the "divide" isn't North/South anymore, and I really wonder if it ever WAS.

You put a Dairy Farmer from Western New York in a Denny's with a hog Farmer from Indiana, and a cattle farmer from Tennessee, and a rancher from Texas, and throw in a guy who runs an orchard from Gerogia....and after they get done laughing at how each other TALKS and ribbing each other over the grits, they are going to find out they have a HELLUVA lot more in common with each OTHER, the way they THINK, VOTE, Raise their kids, just about everything but the CLIMATE, than they do with people from their OWN states, who live in New York City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Dallas, or Atlanta...you REALLY understand this Red/Blue thing then....

I wonder just EXACTLY what kind of "South" the rank and file farmer boy soldier in Lee's Army was fighting for....I bet you it wasn't EXACTLY the "South " LEE was fighting for...



And PS, I will have General Hunt unmask the batteries one more time before I "Retire...."



Can you name for me ANY other General in HISTORY, who not only surrendered his Army, but also surrendered his entire Country and cause...and not only in AMERICAN History, in all of RECORDED History....



....who is treated by Historians and Sympathizers as "a Great and Brilliant General" like Lee has been since the Civil War ended, and is still treated as such today....?


And with that, Sir, I rest my case....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Against the SAME generals he BEAT before when attacking HIM, Lee FAILED against when he attacked THEM...AT Antietem and Gettysburg!

Hooker and Meade were able to anticipate LEE'S moves, and make "brilliant" counter moves against HIM.

Polish, I must say, you definitely need to partake of a tonic to treat this dread disease you seem afflicted with. It's called "Rebophobia." It's very rare and unusual; in fact, I just invented it. Might I suggest a nice 18-year-old single malt scotch as the appropriate remedy? As that old reprobate Alf Landon often said, "Let's look at the record." Well . . . let's!

I will not argue against the position that Lee's greatest strength was on the defensive; that is self-evident from the chronicle of his engagements, yet to suggest, as you do, he was powerless on the offensive is sheer hyperbole. You mention both Sharpsburg and Gettysburg. Let's take them one at a time, and "look at the record."

At Sharpsburg, Lee was forced to fight a defensive battle in the end, not because of any tactical offensive error on his part, but because one of his officers (we shall likely never know whom) lost a copy of Lee's complete general orders wraped around three cigars. Those orders were promptly found by a blue belly soldier and (sans cigars!) forwarded to McClellen's headquarters. Thus "Little Mac" KNEW EXACTLY what Lee's planned moves were to be over the subsequent several days. Yet, even with this critical information, the inept McClellen was not able to pull off a victory against Lee. Yes, I know, the Union CLAIMED a victory, in fact, Lincoln used that thin excuse to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, but in reality, McClellen bungled. Even with a vastly superior force and a blueprint of Lee's planned moves, he couldn't pull it off despite suffering massive casualties. He refused, because of his timidity, to commit his reserves when he had the chance. McClellen's loses were ultimately equal to Lee's and LEE'S ARMY WAS ALLOWED TO ESCAPE, fully intact and capable, along with all the military supplies Jackson had capured during in his raid on Harper's Ferry! McClellen bungled the first real chance the Union had to crush the rebellion and end the war. Mclellen should have been sacked immediately, and Lincoln knew it, but Lincoln needed at least the illusion of victory to publish his Proclamation. If Lee's plans had been fulfilled, and he had capured Harrisburg as intended, Washington itself would have been wide open to attack while McClellen bumbled around trying to figure out what to do next. "When in worry or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout" was McClellen's motto. I might add here, that Lee's plan was highly OFFENSIVE and indeed innovative in nature; it was neither defensive nor conservative. Forced to fight a defensive battle through no fault of his own, Lee performed brilliantly. Indeed, many historians consider it Lee's finest battle.

How can you mention that pimp Hooker in the same tactical breath as Lee? At Chancellorsville, Lee split his much smaller army into three segments, against all conventional wisdom, and made Hooker out to be what he was, an utter fool. To use the phrase "brilliant counter moves" in conjunction with Meade is equally oxymoronic. Yes, Lee lost the gamble at Gettysburg, and some of the fault for that failure must rest with Lee. I've always felt that Lee would have been better advised to maneuver his army after the first day at Gettysburg as Longstreet suggested, and seek better ground. Yet, whom should we ultimately blame for the failure of Lee's original plan of operations? The truly bad decisions rested with two men: General Jubal Early on the first day when he categorically refused to take the heights at Culp's hill when he could have done so with two platoons of VMI cadets armed with penknives, and General James Longstreet on the second day of the battle when he delayed Lee's ordered attack until mid-afternoon. I do believe that Lee was wrong on the third day in his decision to attack the Union center. By the time the attack was launched, the center had been so heavily reinforced that breaking through was highly unlikely. I could argue, however, that Pickett might have succeeded if the massive artillery barrage that preceeded the attack had actually been on target.

Now, as for George Meade . . . he blew it utterly, Polish, and Lincoln ended up demoting him for that failure!!!! By any reasonable tactical military thinking, the War of Northern Aggression should have ended on July 4, 1863. Lee was in full retreat, the river blocking his retreat was swollen and uncrossable due to intense rain placing him in an untenable position. An attack--which Lee fully expected would be launched--would very likely have been successful and Lee's army destroyed. Yet, Meade sat on his duff, like a bump on a pickel all green and slimy, while the river fell and the Army of Northern Virginia retreated in good order and escaped, once again, intact. That sort of thinking is "brilliant," Polish? I hardly think so.

[polishshooter]

Well, you talk about SEMANTICS, you can't even get the names of the BATTLES right...

The "Bloody Angle" was at ANTIETAM. The WINNER get's to name the battle, and the WAR,- don't you remember? Kinda like that "Pittsburgh Landing" crap...

Meade knew he was just "marking" time and would get relieved, so you can excuse him for not "following up," that is probably one of the MAIN reasons Lincoln SENT for Grant...and one of the reasons the South lost the WAR...once "Bulldog" US Grant got his TEETH into Lee, he NEVER let go....

Don't forget, just like LEE, "Little Mac" was BELOVED by his men....a "Soldier's General" he has been called, but LIKE Lee, he was also not a "Winner..."


ANOTHER reason linclon didn't sack Mac was POLITICAL....kind of like Roosevelt no sacking the OTHER "Mac...." He MIGHT just run AGAINST Lincoln and just might have WON....


McClellan DID do one thing right, and that was use his ARTILLERY the way it was MEANT to be used...General Hunt's "Massed batteries" at Malvern Hill is STILL studied at Ft. Sill... and McClellan even used his balloon corps to "spot" which is one of the FIRST use of "Indirect" fire, and it is just one MORE resource that the South didn't have that Lee SHOULD have compensated for...they unquestionably had a LOT of "Brave" and capable soldiers and officers in the Infantry and Cavalry, BUT they were GREATLY deficient in the "technical" branches...Artillery and Engineers....that were INDESPENSABLE in the "Modern War" that Lee never grasped he was even FIGHTING. "Blood and Courage" can only go SO far alone against "technology...."

And while the Rebs were known for their CAVALRY at least until Brandy Station and the Union Cavalry began to beat it pretty regularly...they NEVER got the "Artillery" thing down...one of the reasons the Union even kept the fight remotely even at the beginning WAS the masterful use of Artillery....Battery B 4th US not only HELD the ground at the "Bloody Angle," (as WELL as holding off the Rebs with the Union Cavalry on Day one at Gettysburg!)it also is the only Battery in History to CHARGE, and HOLD ground....

"IF only their artillery would have hit..." is just one more "shoulda-coulda-woulda," but with the Rebel track record with it, it should have been EXPECTED....


Incidentally, one of the LITTLE known facts of Gettysburg is the fact that Pickett was ALSO facing a New Jersey Volunteer Regiment behind that wall, that actually did pretty well at 1st and 2nd Manassas, even though they eventually "broke." They got a wholly undeserved reputation of "cowardice," and were stripped of their Springfields, and issued the 1842 smoothbore conversion muskets....which they proceeded to load with "Buck and Ball," and NEVER broke again...and were TOUGH in a close fight, and did TREMENDOUS damage to the few of Picketts men left standing at the end....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Can you name for me ANY other General in HISTORY, who not only surrendered his Army, but also surrendered his entire Country and cause...and not only in AMERICAN History, in all of RECORDED History....

Yes, I can, Polish. Vercingetorix comes to mind after Caesar's siege and reduction of his bastion at Alecia in 52 BC, not to mention Napoleon after the Battle of Nations in 1814, and once again after Waterloo in 1815.

Be that as it may, however, let's get the facts straight here. Lee DID NOT surrender the Confederacy or its cause. He had no such authority. At the end, Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, the only thing within his authority. Only the Confederate government could authorize surrender of the Confederacy, and if you want to get technical about it, there never was a formal surrender of the Confederacy. Several military units fought on until May, Jubal Early and Nathan Beford Forrest just to name two. Indeed, Early never did surrender, but instead went to South America and established a Confederate colony there. I am very gratified, however, that you implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy and sovereignity of the Confederacy itself, Polish, through your obvious implication that it had to surrender formally for the Union to claim victory.

Now, as to Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, that decision above all proves the honor and decency of the man, not the contrary as you imply. By April 1865 the military outcome of the war was simply no longer in doubt, not even remotely. Lee did the best he could with the forces at his disposal, but in the end he took the only honorable option he had left. But what other choice might he have made? He did have a viable option, Polish, he could have ordered the disbanding his army as a single force and sent his troops into the hills as guerrillas, as indeed some of his officers urged him to do. Had he taken that option, the war might well have bloodily continued for many months, perhaps even years. Instead, Lee chose to surrender his army as a unit in order to end the futile bloodshed. I feel that action speaks volumes about his character.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Well, you talk about SEMANTICS, you can't even get the names of the BATTLES right...

Bullpucky! There was no First and Second Bull Run, there was only First and Second Manassas (both of which the Rebels won, I might add). The battle of Shiloh Church happened, but not the Battle of Petersburg Landing. There was no Battle of Antietam Creek, Polish, only the Battle of Sharpsburg. Just ask any Southerner if you need varification!

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Meade knew he was just "marking" time and would get relieved, so you can excuse him for not "following up," that is probably one of the MAIN reasons Lincoln SENT for Grant...and one of the reasons the South lost the WAR...once "Bulldog" US Grant got his TEETH into Lee, he NEVER let go....

We shouldn't blame Meade for such a stupid failure, Polish???? Just "marking time" excuses a lost chance to end the Civil War with a single blow? Come now, that's absurd. In the final analysis, Meade failed to do his duty and for that he was rightly demoted. He should have been courtmarshalled, in my opinion, which is precisely what Lincoln initially wanted to do!

On Grant, I must at least partially agree. Grant was NOT a brilliant tactical commander--Cold Harbor proved that beyond any reasonable doubt--but he was tenacious ("I'll fight it out on this line if it takes all summer!), and tenacity is what ultimately spelled doom for the South. As long as Federal commanders retreated to lick their wounds after Lee cleaned their plows (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors ), Lee was able to stave off military defeat by the overwhelming manpower and resources of the Union. Grant (and Sherman, and to some lesser extent, Sheridan!) were indeed able to recognize that the key to defeating the Confederacy (and that damned General Lee!) was to keep on coming no matter what the cost. The Union could afford to do that; the Confederacy simply could not. Grant was not given the appellation "the Butcher" for nothing!

You're pretty cavalier with the phrase, Lee "should have compensated for" Polish. With what? The South had excellent artillery, but not anywhere nearly as much of it as the Union, nor was it of the technical quality the Union possessed. In addition, ammunition for the guns was always in short supply, which is one reason why a harder pounding was not given the Federal line before Pickett's charge. The South mostly used 10 pounder Napoleons except for a few captured Federal pieces from time to time, while the Union had Parrot Rifles with much greater range and accuracy, as well as the traditional Napoleons.

Yes, the Union cavalry finally did get its act together, but it took them two full years to do that! Why? What excuse is there for that failure? It wasn't for lack of cavalry mounts, that's for certain! It was obvious from the first battles of the war that Rebel cavalry was far better and far more effectively utilized than anything the Yankees possessed, yet they did very little or nothing to "compensate" for that difficency until 1864!

[NickSS]

After reading the answers to this question I felt that I should get my two cents worth in. Lee won battles as long as he had Stonewall Jackson as one of his corps commanders. Lee was a good tactitian but Stonewall was the tactical Genious who carried out his orders. Lee only won offensive battles where Jacson was involved. He was also a great defensive general though he hated defensive operations. Lee was not a good statigic thinker. In fact his stratigic thinking was confined to looking for one good battle that would cause the North to seek peace. This was unrealistic during the Civil War which ended up being perhaps the first modern total war.

Grant on the other hand was good at both Stratigic and tactical warfare. He launched a coordinated assault that ultimately finished off the Confederacy, As for him being a butcher I think that is an unfair description. Lee was on the defensive in 1864 and 1865 fighting from trenches. This was an advantage to the defender and a disadvantage to the attacker. Grants Job was to destroy the Confederacy. The Confederacy only wanted to be left alone. So Grant had to attack. If you study each of the battles fought during Grants overland campaign you will find that most of the checks that Grant suffered was due to either blunders by various division or corps commanders below him or briliant counters by the Confederates. There were several times that had Grants Subordinates followed orders Lee's Army would have been split and sent fleeing from the field. However, blunders were made and resulted in high casualties. Speaking of casulties. Lee suffered largers casualties when expressed as casualties per man engaged than Grant did in just about every battle he fought, Grants numbers were larger but then he had more men and was the attacker. So overall I think that if Jackson lived, the south could have won the war in 1863 When he died any chance of winning left with him. So overall I think Grant was the best General as he had the statigic vision of what it took to win and then forced the armies of both sides to fight in a way that caused that vision to succeed.

[polishshooter]

Thanks, Nick!

I couldn't have said it better myself....

Considering that after '64 the Eastern Front resembled the WESTERN Front in 1915, with everything BUT machine Guns, aircraft, and Poison Gas...Grant actually did pretty WELL casualty wise....and I STILL think the casual "he had the resources so he could waste lives" borders on the "woulda-coulda-shoulda" CRYING excuse, similar to "The US only won in WWII because it had so MANY Shermans...." Boo HOO... Like the USA should APOLOGIZE?????

Remember, the GREAT General RECOGNIZES and UTILIZES his STRENGTHS and MINIMIZES his WEAKNESSES....Grant was merely a GREAT Commander using his STRENGTH...if he lost 2 or 3 soldiers for EVERY Rebel loss, he WON, and he KNEW it...





(But WHY do I feel like such a "spinmeister" trying to make a swing in the POLLS.... )

[polishshooter]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

[SIZE="4"]





You're pretty cavalier with the phrase, Lee "should have compensated for" Polish. With what? The South had excellent artillery, but not anywhere nearly as much of it as the Union, nor was it of the technical quality the Union possessed. In addition, ammunition for the guns was always in short supply, which is one reason why a harder pounding was not given the Federal line before Pickett's charge. The South mostly used 10 pounder Napoleons except for a few captured Federal pieces from time to time, while the Union had Parrot Rifles with much greater range and accuracy, as well as the traditional Napoleons.

Yes, the Union cavalry finally did get its act together, but it took them two full years to do that! Why? What excuse is there for that failure? It wasn't for lack of cavalry mounts, that's for certain! It was obvious from the first battles of the war that Rebel cavalry was far better and far more effectively utilized than anything the Yankees possessed, yet they did very little or nothing to "compensate" for that difficency until 1864!

AHA, now I get to bring out MY artillery (Actually I did a paper on Federal Field Artillery in 1980, so I consider myself an "Expert" thank you very MUCH...

BOTH sides used the 12 pound Napoleon as the PREFERRED weapon...and for BOMBARDMENT, it would have had been the best choice ANYWAY...simply for the more efficient SHELL which could be set for "airburst" (GRANTED, the "cut" fuses were crude and inefficient, and might take 3 or 4 shots to get one to burst JUST right), and the solid round shot actually BOUNCED so did more damage to exposed troops and fortifications....

The Parrot and Rodman shells actually exploded more depedably as they were contact fuses in the nose, BUT they at BEST exploded on contact, against troops or trenches it would usually BURY itself before exploding nullifying the effect in MANY cases, and the SOLID shot was worthless against anything BUT fortifications...plus the rate of fire was about 1/2 the rate of the smoothbore 12 pounder....

The MAIN advantage of the steel and cast iron rifles over the bronze Napoleon was WEIGHT...they had MUCH lighter carriages, and could travel FASTER over rough ground with the same 6 horse team than the Napoleons....

The Union CAVALRY Used Rodman rifles as "Horse Artillery," (the lightest) while a LOT of the "Volunteer" batteries bought or were issued Parrots, BUT most US Regular Army Batteries that CLEANED REBEL CLOCKS were firing the SAME 12 pound Napoleon Gun/Howitzers the REBS had.....

AND speaking of "Brilliant" Generals "compensating,"...it was GRANT who recognized the importance of MORE artillery where NEEDED, and REDUCED most Union Batteries from 6 to 4 guns in late 63, thus increasing the number of BATTERIES in his RESERVE which allowed MORE flexibility in action! PLUS made his actual columns SHORTER, and thus QUICKER into action! LEE tended to use MORE guns in each battery, as well as MIX different guns in each battery, complicating his OWN ammo supply even MORE, plus making it HARDER to maneuver them QUICKLY to the point of fire....("Minimizing Weaknesses????" NOT!!!)

Keep in mind that the number ONE use of ANY artillery was CANNISTER against Infantry at 600 yds or LESS, usually HALF that range right up to the MUZZLE, so just like NAPOLEON (The Frenchy) quickly threw his artillery to the FRONT at just the right time and place to break a charge, or to give support TO a charge, Lee pretty much emplaced his artillery at the start of a battle and LEFT them there until they were "Dismounted" by the ACCURATE Union counter battery fire (Usually from a battery brought up UNDER FIRE, wheeled into position MANUALLY, and brought into HOT action faster than ANY Rebel Battery could HOPE to do!) or WITHDRAWN with heavy casualties.....

And as per the CAVALRY issue, the SOUTH had an initial advantage of more "natural" HORSEMEN...MOST Northerners were GOOD with Horses, but only pulling a PLOW, they didn't RIDE them! (If you read about Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" and teaching his "Farmboys" to RIDE the mules it is pretty amusing, especially when they were committed against Bragg at Tullahoma the FIRST time and CHARGED before anybody remembered they were never taught how to STOP them.... Good thing those 1500 Indiana boys WAY out in front had SPENCERS so they could hold off Bragg's 35000 men long enough for the winded Union Infantry to CATCH UP after DOUBLETIMEING like 4 miles!! )

And MOST Cavalry Officers in the US Army BEFORE the war with a few notable exceptions were SOUTHERNERS who abandoned their posts to fight for the SOUTH.


BUT the North if ANYTHING learned FAST, and with pretty thorough and QUICK training (Like forgetting the SABER????) as WELL as buying a LOT of breechloaders, and teaching them to PREFER to fight DISMOUNTED, the Union Cavalry MATCHED the best Confederate Cavalry at Brandy Station BEFORE Gettysburg, and never looked back AFTER that....

[17thfabn]

If the Rebs had produced more of the Tiger tanks with 88mm guns..... wait, that's another thread .

Looking at Lee's pre civil war bio I wonder why he was so famous before the Civil War? He had fought in the Mexican American War, starting as a captain rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel by the end of that war. He had a good record in that war, but so did many others including U.S. Grant. He had reached the rank of full Colonel by the time of the Civil War, and probably his most important posting was Commandant of the U.S. Military Acedemy. (a.k.a. West Point, which would still be known as Fort Arnold if not for the most famous traitor in American history) There again a good record, but nothing out standing. Maybe some one will come along to enlighted me .


Why is March 13 1865 important to Union officers?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

Why is March 13 1865 important to Union officers?

On that date, the Confederate government authorized the arming of slaves to fight for the Confederacy, as pointless as such a gesture was at that stage of the war. I'm not sure why that would be particularly important to Union officers, 17th, unless you are looking for something else. Hmmmm, did Grant fall off his horse again while dead drunk or hung over, perhaps?

Polish! Way to go! I see you're using the quote system now!

Interesting post on the Federal artillery, Polish. That is not something I've ever studied in any detail. It is true that Lee was not one to emphasize the use of artillery except as ancillary support to infantry maneuver. He used it, of course, loaded with grape or canister, against infantry attacks when the opportunity arose, as at Cold Harbor and Marye's Heights at Fredricksburg, and for bombardment as at Gettysburg. At Gettysburg it was arguably the Federal artillery that had more to do with breaking Pickett's charge than any other factor.

You imply, however, that the Southerners had no good artillerymen, nor any with courage enough to face the Yankees in the heat of battle. In response I can only refer you to the young Lt. Colonel John Pelham of Stuart's command. Read up on him, Polish, if you want a sterling example of courage and skill with artillery. His photograph appears at the end of this post.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And MOST Cavalry Officers in the US Army BEFORE the war with a few notable exceptions were SOUTHERNERS who abandoned their posts to fight for the SOUTH.

Yes, most were Southerners, Polish, but they were fine honorable men who followed their conscience to fight against naked Northern aggression and in defense of their homes. It's all a matter of perception, my friend.

Originally Posted by polishshooter

BUT the North if ANYTHING learned FAST, and with pretty thorough and QUICK training (Like forgetting the SABER????) as WELL as buying a LOT of breechloaders, and teaching them to PREFER to fight DISMOUNTED, the Union Cavalry MATCHED the best Confederate Cavalry at Brandy Station BEFORE Gettysburg, and never looked back AFTER that....

The Yankees did learn eventually, that is certainly true, but much of the Union cavalry effectiveness late in the war was dependent solely on better weapons and far superior numbers, not on better horsemen and tactics. Spencer carbines against revolvers does give one a bit of advantage! The very best example of Confederate cavalry was undoubtedly Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Western theatre, mostly Tennessee. The Yankees never did catch him until he voluntarily surrendered his command in May 1865.

Face it, Polish, Grant was a plodder, a crude broadsword, who went on to be one of the two most corrupt presidents this country ever had (the other being Harding, but I'm tempted to substitute Clinton!), while Lee was a brilliant tactician, a rapier, who later went on to be president of Washington University (now known as Washington and Lee University) after the war.

[polishshooter]

Plodder, HELL, Grant was NIMBLE when he wanted to be, a BULLDOZER when he needed to be, and by GOD kept on coming....

And his MEN understood what had to be done too, he wasn't a "Blood and Guts" or even a rah rah guy, he was just a WINNER and they knew it....

As for his Whiskey, maybe if Lee would have tipped one now and again, he would have shown some IMAGINATION instead of always falling back into "What would guys from LAST CENTURY have done.....


THe South DID have some good artillerists that came over, but just like a lot of the UNION artillerists they got a HIGHER rank commanding a volunteer INFANTRY Regiment....

It's the RANK AND FILE that stayed....to a cannoneer, it's the GUN first, the CREW second, the BATTERY third, and nothing else really matters after that....the ONE thing the CSA didn't have was the core of "Regular Army" artillery Batteries, MOST of them with distinguished records in the Mexican war, SOME back to 1812...and arguably in 1861 the USA had as good or better Field Artillery than ANYBODY in the World...

The SMARTEST thing the Union did (I can't remember WHO'S idea it was, but it was BRILLIANT) was parcel out the regular batteries to be the core of a Divisions artillery, so while it may have 4 or 5 VOLUNTEER batteries, there was always at least ONE "Regular" battery to mentor them, to teach them, to show them how it was done, to be role models, and "steadiers,"and they LEARNED....and by the middle of the war, the pre-war non-coms were mostly ALL 1st or 2nd Lts. commanding their OWN batteries.

One of the NEAT thing is that most of the "regular" batteries were referred to the entire war by their officer who commanded them last BEFORE the war....like "Stewarts Battery" or "Ricketts Battery...." even though LIEUTENANT Stewart or CAPTAIN RIcketts, USA, were now brevet Colonels or Brigadiers commanding some State Volunteer INFANTRY Regiment....and their juniors or non-coms were actually fighting "their" batteries....of which they were STILL carried on the rolls as "commanding!"

And even when they took almost 100% casualties, and had MOSTLY volunteer replacements, their was STILL a few experienced non-com gunners to whip them into shape, to "reconstitute" them, and to REMIND them they were now BY GOD U.S. REGULARS and they lived up to it....

[17thfabn]

One thing I find interesting, the regular artillery battery was command by a captain. He would be in charge of four or five other batteries, and still hold only the rank of captain.