Good American Commanders (3 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

I'll take U.S. Grant every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Here is a rundown of Grant and what he accomplished during the ACW;

Battles won 18
Forts captured 2
Cities captured 5
Armies captured 3
Number of combat deaths under his commmand 136k

Now General Lee, the man he's always compared to;

Battles won 8
Forts captured 0
Cities captured 0
Armies captured 0
Number of combat deaths under his command 168k

No comparison.

Now let the flaming begin, this ought to be good.........

You are right that there is no comparison George, LEE of course. No flaming but where did your statistics come from? Of course, there was the small matter of being outnumbered 4 to 1.

 

[VanguardFC007]

For starters the casualty numbers are skewed because a good portion of the battles in the West were considerably smaller. I believe Grant even commented upon his arrival in the East about the horrific losses Eastern armies could sustain and then do it again the next day.

2nd - Lee was aware that his Army of Northern Virginia was the cause. Without it there was no war, there was no South. He couldnt smash his army against his opponent without care for loss. He had to measure every blow so as to maximize the effectiveness of one of the finest fighting armies of the 19th century.

 

[Warrior]

You are right that there is no comparison George, LEE of course. No flaming but where did your statistics come from? Of course, there was the small matter of being outnumbered 4 to 1.

There was a huge debate over this on the Armchair General forum awhile ago, that is where the stats came from.

Ok, yep, outnumbered 4 to 1, got it.

Captured forts, cities, armies; zero.

Being outnumbered had nothing to do with it.

He outclassed every Union commander in the field until Grant came along (well, almost every commander, Meade won that little scuffle called Gettysburg)................

 

[Warrior]

He couldnt smash his army against his opponent without care for loss. He had to measure every blow so as to maximize the effectiveness of one of the finest fighting armies of the 19th century.

Ok, got it; couldn't smash his army against his opponent without care for loss.

Lee invaded the North twice, September of 1862 and July of 1863.

The first time, the result was the single bloodiest day in American history, the result of the battle was a draw, end of the invasion.

He did plenty of smashing the second time too, July 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1863.

Especially on the 3rd.

No tactical draw this time, he lost, end of the invasion, part two.

And the beginning of the end for the South.

And these are the facts.

 

[lancer]

Interesting discussion. Read "Attack and Die", a controversial book by Grady McWhiney. It investigates the southern penchant for offensive action. It is a fun read though some of the conclusions and numbers can be questioned. Lee and Grant were the best practitioners of the offensive in the ACW. Both made their reps long before meeting each other on the field of battle and both still had to learn what would work against each other. Grant found out Lee was every bit as dangerous as his rep, and Lee found out Grant was just as dangerous and would not quit and retreat because of set-backs. Two generals worthy of each other, eh? I am a Lee supporter, but Grant proved to be his match and used his many advantages to win the war. That was his job and he did it very well. They were both the best of the best. What else can you say? -- lancer

 

[Spitfrnd]

....Being outnumbered had nothing to do with it.

He outclassed every Union commander in the field until Grant came along (well, almost every commander, Meade won that little scuffle called Gettysburg)................

Whoa George, being outnumbered has everything to do with your chances to win. Of course the truly great, like Wellington and Napoleon (and Lee for that matter) could indeed win against the odds but for a campaign or a war the numbers catch up with you.

I am not so sure it is fair to say Meade won Gettysburg but rather that Lee (or some of his subordinates if you want to fairly consider the impact of the first day) lost it.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Ok, got it; couldn't smash his army against his opponent without care for loss.

Lee invaded the North twice, September of 1862 and July of 1863.

The first time, the result was the single bloodiest day in American history, the result of the battle was a draw, end of the invasion.

He did plenty of smashing the second time too, July 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1863.

Especially on the 3rd.

No tactical draw this time, he lost, end of the invasion, part two.

And the beginning of the end for the South.

And these are the facts.

Both being calculated risks; invading into hostile territory is never easy. Even Napoleon learned that lesson.

As Spitfrnd said though, Gettysburg was botched by his subordinates.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Ok, got it; couldn't smash his army against his opponent without care for loss.

Lee invaded the North twice, September of 1862 and July of 1863.

The first time, the result was the single bloodiest day in American history, the result of the battle was a draw, end of the invasion.

He did plenty of smashing the second time too, July 1st, 2nd and 3rd, 1863.

Especially on the 3rd.

No tactical draw this time, he lost, end of the invasion, part two.

And the beginning of the end for the South.

And these are the facts.

George, you forget Bobby Lee crushed multiple Union invasions into the Commonwealth of Virginia heavily outnumbered. Also Lee was victorious on day 1 of Gettysburg and was rather close to defeating the Union on day 2. You're right on one thing, the defeat at Gettysburg meant the end to the Confederacy, the longer the war dragged on the worse it got for Bobby Lee

Vick

 

[VanguardFC007]

George, you forget Bobby Lee crushed multiple Union invasions into the Commonwealth of Virginia heavily outnumbered. Also Lee was victorious on day 1 of Gettysburg and was rather close to defeating the Union on day 2. You're right on one thing, the defeat at Gettysburg meant the end to the Confederacy, the longer the war dragged on the worse it got for Bobby Lee

Vick

That wasnt so much Lee's fault as it was the South's lack of manpower and supply. Given the same supplies as Grant the war wouldve been much different. But such is not the case as we all know.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

That wasnt so much Lee's fault as it was the South's lack of manpower and supply. Given the same supplies as Grant the war wouldve been much different. But such is not the case as we all know.

I'm wasn't really saying it was Lee's fault, however I'm glad he surrendered when he did, and chose not to wage a guerrilla war. I disagree however, the outcome would've have been the same Lincoln would continue on the fight to save the republic no matter the cost, "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Even after 50,000 American casualties in 3 days, Lincoln tells the world he will not rest until the republic is restored.


Vick

 

[Spitfrnd]

I'm wasn't really saying it was Lee's fault, however I'm glad he surrendered when he did, and chose not to wage a guerrilla war.

Vick

Yes, that would have made a bad thing worse.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I'm wasn't really saying it was Lee's fault, however I'm glad he surrendered when he did, and chose not to wage a guerrilla war. I disagree however, the outcome would've have been the same Lincoln would continue on the fight to save the republic no matter the cost, "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Even after 50,000 American casualties in 3 days, Lincoln tells the world he will not rest until the republic is restored.


Vick

And you think Lee with the same supplies as Grant would not have kept the fight going?

You are right though that it is good that Lee did not turn the war into a guerrilla war. Lee didnt go for that kind of fight. It was against his code of conduct.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Yes, that would have made a bad thing worse.

Probably would have dragged the war for at least one more year!

Vick

 

[Warrior]

Both being calculated risks; invading into hostile territory is never easy. Even Napoleon learned that lesson.

As Spitfrnd said though, Gettysburg was botched by his subordinates.

Not so sure about that. After the Confederates carried the field on the first day, Lee told Ewell, newly appointed as commander in place of Jackson, to take that hill (Culps Hill) "if practicable" (sp?). This left it up to Ewell to make a decision; Lee should have told him to take the hill, end of story which he probably would have since the Union army was in complete chaos at the time.

Now granted, on the second day, Longstreet messed around all day, marching and countermarching until about 4:00PM before Hoods Division stepped off into history.

Confederate attacks going right to left that day almost got the job done, were it not for union commanders plugging holes, filling gaps and making desperate charges, the Union line would have given way.

It was Lee and Lee alone who ordered the doomed attack on the third day, not anyone else to blame for that one. Also, the attack by Ewell on the third day was not coordinated with Lee's main assault; if it had, perhaps it would have drawn troops from the Union center, but we'll never know.

And history has shown that Lee and Napoleon had one thing in common the day of each's greatest defeat; both were sick, Napoleon with stomach issues and Lee as well, the Pennslyvannia quickstep as it were.

What a bit of irony; two of histories most famous generals done in by their stomachs.........

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

And you think Lee with the same supplies as Grant would not have kept the fight going?

You are right though that it is good that Lee did not turn the war into a guerrilla war. Lee didnt go for that kind of fight. It was against his code of conduct.

No, he would definatly kept the war going, I just know the republic would have defeated the Confederacy in the end, as my favorite president of the 20th century said, "For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom." Just as the Confederacy could not keep freedom from reaching the oppressed peoples of the South, and could not withstand the just cause of Last Best Hope on Earth.

Vick

 

[lancer]

George, Lee was definitely not at his best at Gettysburg, as you said. He was suffering from "soldiers disease" as well as injured wrists and perhaps most importantly, heart trouble. No excuses though. His biggest problem was going into action with a newly re-organized army due to Jackson's death. Lee had not had to tell Jackson how to conduct an action and should have realized that Ewell and Hill would require more supervision. For whatever reason he did not provide the strict control needed for his two new corps commanders and this, combined with Longstreet's sub-par performance, did in the southern cause at G-burg (along with a superb performance by the boys in blue). -- Al

 

[Spitfrnd]

No, he would definatly kept the war going, I just know the republic would have defeated the Confederacy in the end, as my favorite president of the 20th century said, "For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom." Just as the Confederacy could not keep freedom from reaching the oppressed peoples of the South, and could not withstand the just cause of Last Best Hope on Earth.

Vick

Well let's just agree to disagree on the oppressed peoples and what would have lead to their freedom part. I appreciate and share your implied moral principle but it seems we differ on the true cause and effect of the ACW. No problem so long as no one starts a diatribe on this again.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I dont agree that given the same supplies the same result comes out. But its a mute point obviously since history and facts saw to it that they didnt. So Ill say that maybe we can agree to disagree before we get carried away (I thank the 4 of us who have participated in this latest discussion for keeping it civil).

But back to things as they were:

I believe Lee to be the better tactician on the battle field. I believe that his plans of maneuver were second to none through out the war. But Grant's understanding of his situation and that of Lee's allowed him to make the head on destructive moves he knew Lee could not withstand and sustain (A few of us now have shared that sentiment).

Lee was the gallant soldier of the way war used to be. Grant was the beginning of what war would become.

 

[Warrior]

Lee was the gallant soldier of the way war used to be. Grant was the beginning of what war would become.

Couldn't have said it any better myself; yes, I too am glad this has remained civil. If it goes off the tracks, posts will get deleted and the thread will get locked, so let's all try to get along and play nice so we can keep the discussion going..........

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

:

I believe Lee to be the better tactician on the battle field. I believe that his plans of maneuver were second to none through out the war. But Grant's understanding of his situation and that of Lee's allowed him to make the head on destructive moves he knew Lee could not withstand and sustain (A few of us now have shared that sentiment).

Lee was the gallant soldier of the way war used to be. Grant was the beginning of what war would become.

Dittos on the that!

Vick