Grant Or Lee (1 Viewer)

Besides the qualities of the field commanders, the north had a huge asset that we haven't discussed. Being "soldier" fans we haven't mentioned the fact that the North got the bulk of the NAVY! While many Army officers defected to their home states, the majority of naval professionals stayed with the Federal Navy. The South, like many other countries trying to wage modern war, simply couldn't survive without their seaborne trade. Only England's Royal Navy could have really challenged the US Navy and they might have been frustrated by the littoral combat involved along the American coasts and rivers. The British could have won the blue water contests, because our monitor-types were basically coastal ships, but there were so many monitors and other ships operating along the coasts that the RN would have paid a heavy price for breaking the blockade. I was reminded of this when I read the phrase "we lost because we didn't have enough ammunition". Why no ammo? because the US Navy stopped most of your imports!

Gary
 
As Ron says the repulse at little round top was pivotal,but if Lee had not charged across the wheatfield would there have been a different outcome.? And again please forgive my ignorance but wasn't Lee's main cavalry commander missing for some vital hours during the battle?.Gettysburg is a fascinating battle as is the ACW in general.I have Ken Burns Civil war on dvd and really enjoy it.Ater 'The world at war' (voiced by Laurence olivier)and 'The great war 'it probably my faveourite box set.Can't help hearing that theme tune everytime i think of the ACW.The whole war must have been so traumatic for the American peolpe much in the same way as WW1 was for us Brits.

Rob
 
binder001 said:
Besides the qualities of the field commanders, the north had a huge asset that we haven't discussed. Being "soldier" fans we haven't mentioned the fact that the North got the bulk of the NAVY! While many Army officers defected to their home states, the majority of naval professionals stayed with the Federal Navy. The South, like many other countries trying to wage modern war, simply couldn't survive without their seaborne trade. Only England's Royal Navy could have really challenged the US Navy and they might have been frustrated by the littoral combat involved along the American coasts and rivers. The British could have won the blue water contests, because our monitor-types were basically coastal ships, but there were so many monitors and other ships operating along the coasts that the RN would have paid a heavy price for breaking the blockade. I was reminded of this when I read the phrase "we lost because we didn't have enough ammunition". Why no ammo? because the US Navy stopped most of your imports!

Gary
Click to expand...

Gary,

You bring up an interesting issue: the much smaller U.S. Navy's success against the British Navy in both the War of 1812 and the Civil War. The reason: the U.S. developed innovative ships like the Constitution class frigate and the Monitor class Ironclad, while the British lagged behind, only adopting innovations when they were forced to do so. It seems that the Admiralty, like the horse guards, were hopeless traditionalists. It is fortunate for the Brits that they were building their empire against technoligically disadvantaged peoples. I had read that, during the later part of the Civil war after the incident where the Union warship took Confederate emmisaries off of a British merchant ship, the Brits intended to send 30,000 troops under Sir Garnet Wosely to invade New York through Canada. Could you imagine the beating the Brits would have taken with their outdated equipment and tactics against an experienced Union force, on the defense, armed with rifled muskets and repeating carbines, about 4 times as large? It would have made the Battle of New Orleans look like a tea party.
 
All good points, but don't forget how war itself is a spur to innovation and organisational learning - the truth is every army seems to have to find out that the oven is hot for itself - the US coming late into WW1 and WW2 are examples (Kasserine for example) just as the Brits and French learned the hard way before them.

Couldn't agree more about the British heirarchy of the time though Louis, still using the Wellington 'wait until you see the whites of their eyes'....... Same in America at the start of the ACW though?

The Warrior Ironclad was launched around that time, so if the RN had have been serious about the American war, I'm not sure how many assumptions should be made if Britain (with its economic power at that time) and with the RN operating from Southern bases....ho hum....speculation again....:rolleyes:

http://home.freeuk.net/gazkhan/warrior.htm
 
I don't think it would have taken Britain to actually engage in the conflict. If that had simply started to pressure the North I think it would have had effect. At that time the North was not 100% for the war. There were riots in the streets and parties within the Northern government that were not entirely happy with Lincoln and the war.

I had never heard that they actually had plans to invade. That would have been interesting. Just as a hypothetical if the British had invaded through Canada that would have left the North fighting a three front war, Lee in Virginia, the West and the hypothetical Canadian invasion. I am not familiar with the British army at that time but even inferior another 30,000 men on the field would have made a major impact. Grant would have been forced to pull troops from Virginia and the Mississippi valley and left the armies in those areas close to equal. Interesting.

Ronnie
www.crossroadsdiecast.com
 
You know, all these discussions between Napoleonic and the ACW, have me thinking. It is frustrating to think that the failure of the diplomat is was. The penalty is their career esteem or property. The failure of a soldier is a little more severe. Maybe if the cost of failure for the diplomats and politicians were reversed we wouldn't see all the strife and waste of life we have been witness to. I see clearly the cost to our society as well as our families. My son just got out of the Marine Corp and I am very thankful that he was not deployed. Others have not been so lucky.

I enjoy our history but I feel some sort of grief for the cost of that history.
Maybe we can think of that , once in a while when we look at the beautiful figures before us.

Sorry, but this is what I was feeling as I read all of this.

Fondly and warmly, Michael aka Kilted Vampire
 
kilted vampire said:
You know, all these discussions between Napoleonic and the ACW, have me thinking. It is frustrating to think that the failure of the diplomat is was. The penalty is their career esteem or property. The failure of a soldier is a little more severe. Maybe if the cost of failure for the diplomats and politicians were reversed we wouldn't see all the strife and waste of life we have been witness to. I see clearly the cost to our society as well as our families. My son just got out of the Marine Corp and I am very thankful that he was not deployed. Others have not been so lucky.

I enjoy our history but I feel some sort of grief for the cost of that history.
Maybe we can think of that , once in a while when we look at the beautiful figures before us.

Sorry, but this is what I was feeling as I read all of this.

Fondly and warmly, Michael aka Kilted Vampire
Click to expand...

Michael,

I couldn't agree more. Politicians and diplomats always seem willing to put someone else's children in harm's way, but you rarely see them or their children at the front. That is why I admire Teddy Roosevelt and his children so much more than any of todays so called "leaders". When Roosevelt was asked why he left his cosy post as assistant secretary of the navy to raise a volunteer regiment and see action, he replied that when a man's mouth campaigns for war, he should be willing to back up his words with his own body. One of his sons died (I believe as a U.S. Army Air Corps. pilot) in WWI, and Teddy, Jr., won the Medal of Honor at Normandy, and died a few days later of heart failure. His was a family of patriots who lived up to their responsibility as leaders.

Warmest regards,

Louis
 
kilted vampire said:
You know, all these discussions between Napoleonic and the ACW, have me thinking. It is frustrating to think that the failure of the diplomat is was. The penalty is their career esteem or property. The failure of a soldier is a little more severe. Maybe if the cost of failure for the diplomats and politicians were reversed we wouldn't see all the strife and waste of life we have been witness to. I see clearly the cost to our society as well as our families. My son just got out of the Marine Corp and I am very thankful that he was not deployed. Others have not been so lucky.

I enjoy our history but I feel some sort of grief for the cost of that history.
Maybe we can think of that , once in a while when we look at the beautiful figures before us.

Sorry, but this is what I was feeling as I read all of this.

Fondly and warmly, Michael aka Kilted Vampire
Click to expand...

Well said Michael. I am as patriotic as anyone, but if you visit any - and I mean any - British or French town or village of any size, you will see a war memorial to the fallen of 1914-18 with added names from 1939-45. Some towns like Accrington or other towns where 'pals' battalions were formed were especially hard hit but it was truly universal. (See Vera Brittens novel for example to read the effect on the community). My own great aunt was one of millions that never married as their sweethearts were killed. At the end of the day, for what?

That experience changed Britain forever. I know less about France but my reading suggest that it was similar. I hope and pray that the USA never experiences it, let's see how smart your politicians turn out to be.

But we are supposed to be enjoying toy soldiers.....
 
Noble sentiments Michael. I am always struck by what Hitler had to say in the dying moments of the war, something to the effect that he had no interest in saving the German people because they were too weak and not strong enough to win. Decisions made so abstractly as if people were just ciphers, to be moved to and fro without regard for human consequence ,seems to be replete through history but perhaps not as cold bloodedly as Hitler's.
 
I don't think much of our politicians except they vote according to their wallets and when that fails they vote their ideologue. My favorite saying about politicians is "There hasn't been a good one since Teddy Roosevelt"
You may quote me. KV
 
panda1gen said:
But we are supposed to be enjoying toy soldiers.....
Click to expand...


It is kind of Ironic isn't it. I can only think that we admire the soldiers sacrifice. That I believe is what we honour and never forget. Monuments to the soldiers are common place. The soldier statesman? Well see my earlier statement. You won't see a lot of monuments to politicians unless there is a family that pays for it.

I am grateful for the sacrifice that ended a war not the words that started it.
I'll keep my toy soldiers and remember what they represent.
 
In the book all quiet on the western front Cat suggest war should be decided by placing politicians and diplomats in a ring. Strip them down to their underwear and give them each a club, last one standing is declared the winner. That has a lot of truth to it.
 
If nothing else it would get rid of some politicians, thereby improving the gene pool.
 
I heard the Brits were going to attack the US but then it occurred to them why waste our time let them kill each other.....:) Actually if you were not aware the British were in support of the Union and thousands of Canadains (British) joined the ranks of New York Regiments such as the 49th New York...The French had a curiosity with regards to the South..bitter about the Napoleonic wars...not that I have a problem with it but why do you think there are such problems in Canada between the French and the English.....


WELLINGTON...TBG
 
Last edited:
Shiloh said:
In the book all quiet on the western front Cat suggest war should be decided by placing politicians and diplomats in a ring. Strip them down to their underwear and give them each a club, last one standing is declared the winner. That has a lot of truth to it.
Click to expand...


I loved that part of the book. It would never work because politicians are too self interested to do something like that. No one would run for office. It would be interesting to see the kind of people political office would attract if it were the case. Why don't sharks eat politicians in a shipwreck? Answer:professional courtesy! And before you say that is a lawyer joke ask yourself where politicians go to school.

Lawyers who collect toy soldiers are excluded:p
 
wellington said:
I heard the Brits were going to attack the US but then it occurred to them why waste our time let them kill each other.....:) Actually if you were not aware the British were in support of the Union and thousands of Canadains (British) joined the ranks of New York Regiments such as the 49th New York...The French had a curiosity with regards to the South..bitter about the Napoleonic wars...not that I have a problem with it but why do you think there are such problems in Canada between the French and the English.....


WELLINGTON...TBG
Click to expand...
As I recall the french and british took the cival war as a chance to invade mexico and the french did take advantage of this. I believe spain also wanted to reclaim mexico at this time also. With the U.S. busy the europeons had there eyes on the mexican prize!
 
While the "official" position of the British may have been in support of the North there were talks going on in Parliament to move more in support of the South. They also continued to trade with the South.

Ronnie
www.crossroadsdiecast.com
 
Last edited:
Britain was officially neutral and had trade and political dealings with both the North and the South during the American Civil War. The 'British' warships bought by the South were commercial dealings but when the North complained about the sales the British government halted any further deliveries which was lucky for the North as several were of the newer ironclad design. It should also be noted that the British Navy were still very busy blockading Napoleonic France until 1815 and only reserve ships and crew were sent to deal with any 'American' problems.

Britain had some 'issues' with both sides, but remained neutral. For example they did not appreciate the Union ships boarding British vessels to search for Southerners nor did they apreciate embargoes on cotton exports instigated by the South. Which in fact hurt the South more than the British.

However when slavery became a larger issue later in the war there was more common support in Britain and Europe for the Union side albeit morally. That said Britain (and other European nations) for the most part continued trade with the North and South as neutrally as they could. However there were a number of people from British North America (now part of Canada) that joined the Union forces and these outnumbered those that joined the Southern cause.

Clearly Britain had enough problems dealing with European issues and hoped their decendants in the American colonies would sort themselves out soon for everyones sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top