The Legacy of Generals Grant and Lee

[maarsen]

BTW, Scot, if you think Grant was a drunk, our first Prime Minister could probably drink him under the table. One time at a political rally he was caught heaving his guts out just before he had to speak. He had a great comeback though. "That was what my opponent's speech made me do."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maarsen,

Drunk or not Grant got it done.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

:laugh:

I don't know about learning from the past, it seems rather optimistic. The past doesn't come with a set of bullet-pointed lessons to absorb, we decide subjectively, perhaps entirely wrongly, what to remember and what to learn.

I agree about the civil war in the USA as a blueprint of conflicts through to the end of WWI specifically in the strength of the tactical defensive with the use of longer ranged firearms, dug in positions and importance of logistics as key components to success, however despite the presence of international military observers throughout the war, many of whom were published and some of which are still available in print today, those lessons were repeated in blood right through to the end of WWI. In part because very few people wanted to learn the lesson that the spade and preserved food were more important to victory than elan and daring.

For me it demonstrates the 'dog in the forest' phenomenon very nicely: the first dog to visit a forest is free to pee on which ever tree it chooses, but every subsequent dog will be sure to pee on that same tree. The first Lost Cause writers, like General Early, still influence the terms of the discussion. But the point of the Lost Cause was to continue to fight the war by other means, ie if the language of the debate is about skill being defeated by superior force then General Early is the winner. Which in a way is interesting because I imagine relatively few people would today accept the honour culture foundation of the Lost Cause - that there comes a point were a ("real") man is obliged to resort to violence particularly if defeat is inevitable.

The American Civil War didn't influence military thinking because there wasn't much to learn from it. Not for the European powers of the age, which were the ones observing it. The meat grinder of WW1 you are talking about was made possible because of barbed wire and machine guns, neither of which figured during the American Civil War. The slaughter there was rather caused by American armies, plainly put, not being very good. "Two armed mobs chasing each other around the country from which nothing can be learned" as the conflict is reputed to have been summed up by European observers.

This was because America before this conflict had a very small regular military. Thus when the war started they lacked the cavalry arm capable of charging enemy formations and running down retreating ones, to a large degree because they didn't have enough trained warhorses (that had been hardened to not be afraid of gunfire, screams etc) or trained cavalrymen. They lacked trained officers, with there only being a few hundred in the entire country divided up between well over a million soldiers throughout the war. And their regular soldiers didn't get much time to train and drill either.

All of this resulted in American armies not being able to execute very advanced maneuvers (such as even charging with bayonets some of the time) and also not being able to chase down and destroy defeated forces due to lacking the cavalry and the general organization in the army for it. So when European warfare during this period was highly complex and mobile, with the losing army often getting outmaneuvered and finished off (captured or dispersed) without too much bloodshed on either side, or at least not for the winning one, American Civil War warfare was different.

There the typical battle was rather; two armies engaging each other head on and blasting each other to pieces for a while until one side had enough and retreated, the winner not being able to pursue and catch it, and the losing army reforming and refilling itself with reinforcements before eventually heading out into battle again. Then it went on and on like that until the South eventually ran out of men and resources and the war ended.

If you look at the Franco Prussian war which was fought a few years after the American Civil War you can see that it didn't end up nearly as long or as bloody, even though both countries involved were a good deal larger than the Union and the Confederation. Particularly the latter.

Dug in positions and logistics have been important parts of warfare since at least the Ancient period (since that's when we have a lot of texts about them) all the way throughout the Medieval and Early Modern periods.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The Prussians and the French were not any more tactically sophisticated than the Union and Confederates. That war featured plenty of cavalary charges, bayonet charges in entrenched positions and the like. It ended quicker because the Prussians were prepared for war and managed to get hundreds of thousands of men to the front in a matter of weeks.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

The Prussians and the French were not any more tactically sophisticated than the Union and Confederates. That war featured plenty of cavalary charges, bayonet charges in entrenched positions and the like. It ended quicker because the Prussians were prepared for war and managed to get hundreds of thousands of men to the front in a matter of weeks.

No, it did not feature "plenty" of that. American cavalry was generally relegated to being scouts or skirmishers, and bayonet charges often stopped before reaching enemy lines. Instead resulting in the two formations exchanging fire with each other at optimal killing distance.

Both the French and Prussians mustered hundreds of thousands of men throughout that war and the decisive Battle of Sedan (where practically the entire main French field army got destroyed and the emperor was captured) did not happen within a few weeks of the war starting.

The same trend holds true for the Austro Prussian war by the way, which also was fought with the same technology as the US Civil war. Short and with a few decisive battles, not a drawn out meat grinder.

[sagewich]

First, I was born and reared on the West Coast.

Grant did drink. Sometimes while on duty, and others while bored.  Grant was the only Union commander Lincoln could finally get to move, so he gets the kudos there. He was not a great general. He just slugged it out. Had he been a great general, when he Lincoln and Sherman met to discus wrapping up the war, he might have said - "hey bad idea to totally toast out a bunch of civilians down to Georgia and up to the Carolinas. We are going to welcome them back into the Union and not try to Reconstruct them. And we should look after these newly liberated people and help them out.." And Grant's presidency was pretty much a nightghast - selling positions, influence peddling. Mark Twain (he fought briefly for the South and ran away to California) polished up that final book of Grant's to make it a best seller. The North was pretty awful - Sheridan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"

Lee. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Lee would have as well. Virginia was his country, not merely his state. However, the South had a bevy of great generals. Stonewall Jackson, Mosebey, and yes NB Forrest - he may have started the KKK, but he got out - Joe Johnston. AP Hill. But the South had no way to resupply food, munitions or men. It was a Lost Cause before it started, OOO, they could have won the war on two occasions. But Lee was not in command at Mananas/Antiitum or he would have thundered into Washington and taken the Capitol. I cannot recall the second time. Have to go back and look at the notes.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

 

 It was a Lost Cause before it started, OOO, they could have won the war on two occasions. But Lee was not in command at Manassas or he would have thundered into Washington and taken the Capitol. I cannot recall the second time. Have to go back and look at the notes.

 

Haha. So it wasn't a Lost Cause? 

I'm assuming the second time you're thinking of is if the Confederates had been able to destroy the AoP early on at Gettysburg and then marched to threaten a major northern city.

[sagewich]

Haha. So it wasn't a Lost Cause? 

I'm assuming the second time you're thinking of is if the Confederates had been able to destroy the AoP early on at Gettysburg and then marched to threaten a major northern city.

Yes. It was not a war the South could win and maintain. The North Would have just pulled it together and laid siege to Washington.  It was the first big battle, where Stonewall Jackson got his name. The North got a bit nervous and ran back to Washington. At Gettysburg, Lee did not have enough men to take the ANV into Washington, take the Capitol and hold it. It was a sacrifice to try and relieve Vicksburg.

[A True Kaniggit]

 Yes. It was not a war the South could win and maintain. The North Would have just pulled it together and laid siege to Washington.  It was the first big battle, where Stonewall Jackson got his name. The North got a bit nervous and ran back to Washington.  At Gettysburg, Lee did not have enough men to take the ANV into Washington, take the Capitol and hold it. It was a sacrifice to try and relieve Vicksburg.

Of course the Confederacy could never win a straight up slugfest with the Union, the numbers were just too much against them. But early on before the Union could bring these numbers to bear? I don't see why its crazy to think that after Manassas the Confederacy couldn't have continued north and brought the Union to the negotiating table.

And yeah, I doubt Lee could've taken Washington if he was able to win at Gettysburg. It was too well manned and fortified. I don't think that was ever his intention. I always thought his plan was to defeat the Union army on northern soil, and then threaten northern cities and hope that diplomatic pressure would force President Lincoln to sue for peace, even though Lincoln would still win militarily in the long run.

Edit: I just don't understand how it can be said the whole war was a 'lost cause'. At a certain point during the war, when the Confederacy no longer had the ability to win, yes it was a lost cause. But you can't say that the Confederacy had chances to win the war, and still call it a lost cause.

[maarsen]

First, I was born and reared on the West Coast.

Grant did drink. Sometimes while on duty, and others while bored.  Grant was the only Union commander Lincoln could finally get to move, so he gets the kudos there. He was not a great general. He just slugged it out. Had he been a great general, when he Lincoln and Sherman met to discus wrapping up the war, he might have said - "hey bad idea to totally toast out a bunch of civilians down to Georgia and up to the Carolinas. We are going to welcome them back into the Union and not try to Reconstruct them. And we should look after these newly liberated people and help them out.." And Grant's presidency was pretty much a nightghast - selling positions, influence peddling. Mark Twain (he fought briefly for the South and ran away to California) polished up that final book of Grant's to make it a best seller. The North was pretty awful - Sheridan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"

Lee. If Virginia had stayed with the Union, Lee would have as well. Virginia was his country, not merely his state. However, the South had a bevy of great generals. Stonewall Jackson, Mosebey, and yes NB Forrest - he may have started the KKK, but he got out - Joe Johnston. AP Hill. But the South had no way to resupply food, munitions or men. It was a Lost Cause before it started, OOO, they could have won the war on two occasions. But Lee was not in command at Mananas/Antiitum or he would have thundered into Washington and taken the Capitol. I cannot recall the second time. Have to go back and look at the notes.

 

McClellan had twice the numbers that Lee would have had at Manassas. Even if Lee had won the battle, McClellan had his troops guarding Washington rather than fighting. It would not have been easy to thunder into Washington. But yes, the Southern cause was a lost cause even before the war started.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Marsaan,

The South could have won politically.  It never had the capacity for an outright military defeat of the Northern States.

[DanteGabriel]

Marsaan,

The South could have won politically.  It never had the capacity for an outright military defeat of the Northern States.

The South did win politically. By resisting Reconstruction, outlasting the federal government's protection of freed slaves, continuing a reign of terror and violence and disenfranchisement of black people, putting a vile and insidious "Lost Cause" romantic spin on their failed rebellion, and exporting their slavelord values to other parts of the country.

[TheKitttenGuard]

This is referring to Antietam/Sharpsburg, right?

Manassas (Bull Run) and the site of 2 major battles and McClellan was not in charge of the Northern army in either battle.  

They are in different states as well.

The goal of Lee and others is that a major victory in the North would get England and/or France to recognize the South with appropriate weight to break the blockade and bring the North to the table to recognize the South.  Taking D.C was not a main goal.

Note of names of Battles:

In general, the U.S and papers normally name battles after the nearby river.  While the show

In general, the C.S and papers normally used the name of the closest town or city.

 

[mcbigski]

"The South did win politically. By resisting Reconstruction, outlasting the federal government's protection of freed slaves, continuing a reign of terror and violence and disenfranchisement of black people, putting a vile and insidious "Lost Cause" romantic spin on their failed rebellion, and exporting their slavelord values to other parts of the country."

So pretty much up a straight up Democrat victory then...

[TheKitttenGuard]

"The South did win politically. By resisting Reconstruction, outlasting the federal government's protection of freed slaves, continuing a reign of terror and violence and disenfranchisement of black people, putting a vile and insidious "Lost Cause" romantic spin on their failed rebellion, and exporting their slavelord values to other parts of the country."

So pretty much up a straight up Democrat victory then...

Which the Republicans been loving since +/- 1968.  

[mcbigski]

In sixty eight Nixon won every state west of Provincetown, plus Maine.

[TheKitttenGuard]

In sixty eight Nixon won every state west of Provincetown, plus Maine.

It is a postmark that many consider the start of the Southern strategy.   My +/- was to include the segregationist switching to the Republican Party and the adopting of many Southern views on government and so forth.

 

Care to answer why not one of Southern Republicans (9 in the House and 1 Senate) did not vote for CRA of 1964 or the VRA of 1965?

Why there is no impetuous for Republicans to modernize the 1965 and why heavily Republican state legislators are passing highly restrictive voting laws.  Why is places like Arkansas after passing laws than seek to close the means a person to meet these new stringent standards?

[mcbigski]

A larger percantage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights acts in the 60s.  Take your revisionism elsewhere.  What were the voting totals for just southern Democrats on both of those bills?

[TheKitttenGuard]

A larger percantage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights acts in the 60s.  Take your revisionism elsewhere.  What were the voting totals for just southern Democrats on both of those bills?

Who is being revisionist?

 

Here is the breakdown on CRA 1964 by Party and Region:

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

 

So without Southern Democrats the Democratic Party would of voted 94% in the House and 95% Senate for the CRA 1965 compare to 85% Republicans and 82% in the Senate.

 

That this is mainly a regional explanation is my point.  The Republican Party is dominate in the South  today and yet in terms of Civil and Voting Rights they are not much different than when the Democratic Party ruled in the South.

 

So what is the point of you bringing up the Republican record when it is not the same situation?

 

Just like the Democratic Party is not what it was back in 1860s and 1870s.  The Democratic Party had a real fight to change and you do not want to recognize it.

What the Republicans did with CRA is meaningless since that party has changed.  That this is stated is nothing more then resting on laurels and a distortion of political reality of today and yesterday.  For these reasons I find it a deeply cynical talking point that requires the person you are bringing this to will have immense ignorance of American history.

 

[maarsen]

In sixty eight Nixon won every state west of Provincetown, plus Maine.

In '68 the Chicago Democratic convention riots were going on, other anti war protests were constantly going on all over the US, inner cities were burning, and the older people were terrified of hippies, yippies, Black Panthers, and a world in absolute turmoil. That was why Nixon won. Everyone knew he was a weasel even then but the Silent Majority ruled.