The "what ifs" include if the war would have ended sooner had Lee's retreat been cutoff (which was very feasible using the Union's fore-scouts and intelligence units). Ditto if Grant had been moved East prior to Gettysburg - there is no doubt that Grant would have moved after Lee's retreating Army far more aggressively and dogged him to the end (IOW, Grant would not have had to slog his way through the Battle of the Wilderness). The results of the "Overland Campaign" demonstrate very clearly what would have happened had Grant been moved East earlier and was in command at Gettysburg. The "Lost Cause" Southern rationalizers continue to ignore the fact of how completely and abjectly defeated Lee's Army was at the end of the "Overland Campaign" - in the last major engagement of the war, the Battle of Sailor's Creek, Lee lost 25% of his Army (~9,000 men) to death, casualties or surrender, and it was a 1-Day battle!!!
OT: History Channel Miniseries "Grant"
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
The "what ifs" include if the war would have ended sooner had Lee's retreat been cutoff (which was very feasible using the Union's fore-scouts and intelligence units). Ditto if Grant had been moved East prior to Gettysburg - there is no doubt that Grant would have moved after Lee's retreating Army far more aggressively and dogged him to the end (IOW, Grant would not have had to slog his way through the Battle of the Wilderness). The results of the "Overland Campaign" demonstrate very clearly what would have happened had Grant been moved East earlier and was in command at Gettysburg. The "Lost Cause" Southern rationalizers continue to ignore the fact of how completely and abjectly defeated Lee's Army was at the end of the "Overland Campaign" - in the last major engagement of the war, the Battle of Sailor's Creek, Lee lost 25% of his Army (~9,000 men) to death, casualties or surrender, and it was a 1-Day battle!!!
Why did Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia lose?
I tend to think that George Meade and the Army of the Potomac had something to do with it.
And as for all the what if’s, if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
I tend to think that George Meade and the Army of the Potomac had something to do with it.
And as for all the what if’s, if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
I have a historian friend and he once told me (when I brought it up) that he never has his students study the what ifs. “It’s not history.” Don’t shoot the messenger.
Exactly.
The Union side could ask, “What if Reynolds did not get killed?” Or, “What if Sickles had not advanced on the second day?”
The fact is the South tried to invade PA twice. Both times they had their heads handed to them.
I don't deal in "what ifs." I deal in what actually took place. Just like football. If we just had our starting QB, well guess what, you don't. History is about discovering and researching facts, not novels based on fiction. When new or additional facts are discovered, that information is presented, and it may or may not change perspective. It's why the Lost Cause bullsh&t got propagated. Totally baseless to prop up a false narrative. I believe this country deserves better. It deserves a bit of honesty, not propaganda or conjecture. Gettysburg is about what actually happened, not what could of or might have happened.
Hell no. He got it right. What happened is what matters, not ridiculous, "what ifs."
You dont get to tell me what I need to do pal. You have ZERO authority to tell ANYONE what they need to do. I said absolutely nothing to you, yet you still felt it necessary to run your mouth trying to dictate to me what I need to do. Im Apparently you still don't get it, what you think people should and should not do is IRRELEVANT. I will post my opinion in a discussion board whenever I want and there isn't anything you can do about it. The problem here is you, we were having a pretty good discussion in this thread and then you come along acting like you are some authority to regulate what is valid or not valid, which you dont. This is a football discussion board not a lecture hall. You can agree with me or disagree dont care which but thats all. Now if you can show me a forum rule that bans what ifs please let us know....if not shut your mouth and let people enjoy the board...Pretty simple stuff I swear there is always 1 that has to ruin things for everyone else. Oh and if you dont want to be called an arrogant a$$hole dont act like an arrogant a$$hole. Sitting there acting like you can order me around when in reality you amount to jack shut, get over yourself.
Last edited:
you must be a troll as nobody can be that stupid. it was a message board what if question to allow for some general conversation. anybody who goes off the ledge like you did obviously has an agenda that has nothing to do with anything but creating issues.
Nah he is just one of those people that has a very over inflated opinion of himself. He has this preconceived view point on what he thinks is the absolute gospel on what history is or is not. Im willing to bet he is also one of those people that thinks his interpretation of history is beyond reproach. You see alot of that in today's world especially when dealing with the American Civil War. They try to create these rigid dichotomies. And anyone that doesn't prescribe to the very narrow viewpoint they have is attacked.
"Grant the general had many qualities but he had a thing that's very necessary for a great general. He had what they call "four o'clock in the morning courage." You could wake him up at four o'clock in the morning and tell him they had just turned his right flank and he would be as cool as a cucumber. Grant in the Wilderness, after that first night in the Wilderness, went to his tent, broke down, and cried very hard. Some of the staff members said they'd never seen a man so unstrung. Well, he didn't cry until the battle was over, and he wasn't crying when it began again the next day. It just shows you the tension that he lived with without letting it affect him... Grant, he's wonderful." -- Shelby Foote, famous Civil War Author and Historian
Foote is one of the ones that the PC police go after because he suggests that Slavery is not the only cause of the war.
He was pretty fair I always thought. He also didn't deny that slavery was a major cause of the war. I think he underemphasized it, but honest observers can disagree.
Of course, he gave due respect to Grant, because he actually knew what he was talking about.
I've always thought of foote in a positive light, and not just his work with the civil war. But morr and more you see people call him a pseudo-historian or just an author. And i agree he praises grant for his strengths but he also does not avoid his faults. He also praises Lee which is the part that some people can't deal with.
No need to diminish one to praise the other-in fact they had great respect for each other. What I don't accept is the idea that Lee was the greater general, or that Grant wasn't as great as he truly was. I'll say again that Longstreet was treated very badly- he was as good as any general the South had, Jackson included.
Foote sort of compares the 2 saying that the north never got a general that lee did not understand until Grant who knew how to beat him. I had a professor once tell me that Lee was superior to Grant tactically but Grant was better strategically. Which makes sense the overland campaign is a perfect example. Lee anticipated Grant almost every time. But Grant knew that Lee would run out of men eventually. Lee knew it as well he stated that if he could not destroy Grants army before it reached the James River that the war was over. Jackson i sort of idolate from the rest because he died before he reached his full potential. He may have been the best soldier on earth at the time of his death. His Valley campaign was pure genius, remember he faced 3 separate armies and routed at least one of them. There is a reason Lee called him his right hand.
Okay, not to start an argument here but I’ve just checked and can can find no mention of Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech in Foote’s trilogy. How can you write a three-volume history of the Civil War and not mention the Cornerstone Speech? I can’t claim to having been thorough, but I can’t find it.
Same thing with the Confederate Constitution. Again, I’m not being thorough as I’m only looking at the first volume (Perryville occurred after both the Cornerstone speech and the adoption of the permanent constitution), but I can nothing about the Confederate Constitution in the first volume. We all know what it says: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” If it’s not there in the trilogy, that’s a deliberate omission.
If I’m wrong about this then it would be a simple matter to show that I’m wrong, and then we’d all have a better understanding about Foote. I don’t mind being educated.
If someone wants to say that it wasn’t totally about slavery, fine. I’m definitely not the expert here. And, I will stipulate that nobody in this thread has tried to say that slavery didn’t have a role.
Last edited:
Foote is definitely not perfect and you are correct that he does not mention the Cornerstone Speech on his books. Why he did that is speculation, but i would go with his subjective bias toward the south. The thing is I haven't found a single historian that doesn't have a bias about that war or 1 that has not ommited very important aspects of the conflict. For example very very few lincoln biographies take him to task for having stste legislators in Maryland jailed for being pro secession for maryland essentlly denying the citizens of maryland their right of self determination. Or when dealing with the emancipation proclamation and omitting that if any state voluntarily returned to the union that slavery would still be in place. This is why reading a wide spectrum of works about the war is important, because there are many view points. One thing that Foote does get right is his assertion that we need to stop looking at that war through the lens of the modern world, because the modern world that we know did not exist yet. He is also very clear when he says that anyone that tries to say thst the war was not about slavery is j7st as wrong as a person thst says the war was only about slavery. Which begs the question if he stipulates that slavery was a cause of the war from the get go, is adding the Cornerstone Speech even necessary? Personally I think it is but thats just me, and I'm not the author. The moral here...take everything written about the war with a grain of salt...an objective work does not exist.
When Kirk Douglas hosted, they did "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub".
That Abe Lincoln fellow knew what he was talking about in 1858 (from wiki)
"A house divided against itself, cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.[6]:9
Grant exited Cold Harbor mid-June 1864 (modern-day Mechanicsburg, VA approximately "2 O'Clock" to Richmond Proper) realizing that it was not worth fighting for given the defenses. He immediately, and brilliantly, outflanked Lee's Army to the East and then marched due south to the James River crossing the river at Weyanoke Point via a hastily built, but extremely strong, Pontoon Bridge, that spanned just under a half-mile (the bridge was built in under a half-a-day -- Grant exited Cold Harbor starting on the evening of 6/12/1864 and crossed the James at Weyanoke Point beginning the afternoon of 6/14/1864 and finished crossing all troops on 6/15/1864).
Grant then marched his troops NW up the south-side of the river and moved on Petersburg. Grant did receive light resistance as he was marching south to James from Beauregard, whose Army was defending Petersburg and the areas south of Richmond (Petersburg was the 2nd largest city in VA at the time and the major rail hub for supplying Richmond with 5 RR Lines nexsusing there.). In any event, Grant received little resistance on his March south, crossing the James or his march toward Petersburg as Beauregard concentrated his efforts on the defenses at Petersburg. When Grant and his Armies assaulted Petersburg, it was clear that the assault would last some time, so Grant made another brilliant move - he set up a massive Union Camp at City Point (modern-day Hopewell, VA) where the Appamatox River dumps into the James River - it is Northeast of Petersburg and as a result Grant's main encampment and HQ (literally a small town, with a bakery, blacksmith shop, etc... was built by the Union forces) was threatening both Richmond and Petersburg at the same time. Grant so surprised Lee with his outflanking maneuvers that Lee's Army did not arrive at Petersburg until a week after Grant's first assault began.
Then, after Grant had the Confederate Armies pinned down defending the eastern line of Richmond and Petersburg, and it was clear Petersburg wasn't going to fall in a short period of time, Grant began taking out the Rail Lines that serviced the cities and all came into Petersburg. First he took out the rail lines on the east and south side of Petersburg, then he began stretching the Confederate's lines west ultimately taking out the last rail line (5 in total) which was "9 O'Clock" to Petersburg. Grant had also called the Army of the Shanindoah, commanded by Sheridan at this point (March 1865), east to Petersburg to attack the Confederate's over-stretched lines West of Petersburg. On April 2nd, one of Sheridan's Divisions broke the Confederate's line and the Battle was over - the overstretched Confederates went into full retreat and Lee immediately began evacuating Richmond. Lee's plan was to meet up with his Army of North Carolina (he was going to try and flee west and then south in the hope that he would not be aggressively pursued (i.e., like his retreat from Gettysburg). Grant made sure this did not happen as he told Sheridan to immediately pursue him and cutoff his retreat as soon as feasibly possible, which Sheridan did in the ensuing altercation to the west called Sailor's Creek, which took place on April 6, 1865 only 3 days after Lee's hasty retreat from Richmond. Again, Lee lost a massive chunk of his Army at Sailor's Creek - 8,800 (7,700 surrendered - one of the Officer's who surrendered was Lee's son). The war was over - Lee was completely and abjectly defeated.
The Southern rationalizes refuse to accept the FACT that Lee's Army never defeated Grant's in any major engagement (i.e., forced "retreat" of their Army). At the Wilderness, Lee fought Grant to a standstill (i.e., "a draw"), but then was outflanked by Grant to the east (and then Grant continued South threatening Richmond leading to the Battle of Spotsylvania). The fighting lasted almost 2 weeks, but ultimately Lee withdrew south to protect Richmond. This theme would play out again at Cold Harbor and lead to Petersburg....and ultimately the fall of Richmond and the end of the war at Sailor's Creek. There is no doubt that Grant was a masterful "Chess Player" in the heat of the battle, while Lee was able to parry some of his moves, he was completely unable to anticipate his next lethal move, which ultimately proved to be the difference between Grant and the other Union commanders in defeating Lee - Grant was always on the offensive, uber aggressive and an incredibly ingenious tactician.
Grant then marched his troops NW up the south-side of the river and moved on Petersburg. Grant did receive light resistance as he was marching south to James from Beauregard, whose Army was defending Petersburg and the areas south of Richmond (Petersburg was the 2nd largest city in VA at the time and the major rail hub for supplying Richmond with 5 RR Lines nexsusing there.). In any event, Grant received little resistance on his March south, crossing the James or his march toward Petersburg as Beauregard concentrated his efforts on the defenses at Petersburg. When Grant and his Armies assaulted Petersburg, it was clear that the assault would last some time, so Grant made another brilliant move - he set up a massive Union Camp at City Point (modern-day Hopewell, VA) where the Appamatox River dumps into the James River - it is Northeast of Petersburg and as a result Grant's main encampment and HQ (literally a small town, with a bakery, blacksmith shop, etc... was built by the Union forces) was threatening both Richmond and Petersburg at the same time. Grant so surprised Lee with his outflanking maneuvers that Lee's Army did not arrive at Petersburg until a week after Grant's first assault began.
Then, after Grant had the Confederate Armies pinned down defending the eastern line of Richmond and Petersburg, and it was clear Petersburg wasn't going to fall in a short period of time, Grant began taking out the Rail Lines that serviced the cities and all came into Petersburg. First he took out the rail lines on the east and south side of Petersburg, then he began stretching the Confederate's lines west ultimately taking out the last rail line (5 in total) which was "9 O'Clock" to Petersburg. Grant had also called the Army of the Shanindoah, commanded by Sheridan at this point (March 1865), east to Petersburg to attack the Confederate's over-stretched lines West of Petersburg. On April 2nd, one of Sheridan's Divisions broke the Confederate's line and the Battle was over - the overstretched Confederates went into full retreat and Lee immediately began evacuating Richmond. Lee's plan was to meet up with his Army of North Carolina (he was going to try and flee west and then south in the hope that he would not be aggressively pursued (i.e., like his retreat from Gettysburg). Grant made sure this did not happen as he told Sheridan to immediately pursue him and cutoff his retreat as soon as feasibly possible, which Sheridan did in the ensuing altercation to the west called Sailor's Creek, which took place on April 6, 1865 only 3 days after Lee's hasty retreat from Richmond. Again, Lee lost a massive chunk of his Army at Sailor's Creek - 8,800 (7,700 surrendered - one of the Officer's who surrendered was Lee's son). The war was over - Lee was completely and abjectly defeated.
The Southern rationalizes refuse to accept the FACT that Lee's Army never defeated Grant's in any major engagement (i.e., forced "retreat" of their Army). At the Wilderness, Lee fought Grant to a standstill (i.e., "a draw"), but then was outflanked by Grant to the east (and then Grant continued South threatening Richmond leading to the Battle of Spotsylvania). The fighting lasted almost 2 weeks, but ultimately Lee withdrew south to protect Richmond. This theme would play out again at Cold Harbor and lead to Petersburg....and ultimately the fall of Richmond and the end of the war at Sailor's Creek. There is no doubt that Grant was a masterful "Chess Player" in the heat of the battle, while Lee was able to parry some of his moves, he was completely unable to anticipate his next lethal move, which ultimately proved to be the difference between Grant and the other Union commanders in defeating Lee - Grant was always on the offensive, uber aggressive and an incredibly ingenious tactician.
Last edited:
Grant introduced the concepts of “complete war” and “unconditional surrender” to the American pysche. And this was the philosophy the U.S. brought to WW2 i.e. the relentless bombing of Japan and then the atomic bombings. Meant to send a signal to the Japanese people of the “hopelessness” of resistance.
I say General Grant’s strategy served him well.
@Obliviax
Last edited:
I thought it was Gen. Sherman would believed in total devastation of the enemy and had his troops live off the land as he went?
His March to the sea was totally demoralizing to the south: his troops left nothing behind for the enemy to use after he swept through!
I like the guy!!
it was Grant's strategy that Sherman executed brilliantly
One of Grant's great strengths as a commander was that he always wrote clear and complete orders, including detailed logistical orders when it was a major action requiring big moves and supply considerations. Probably a lot of that came from his Mexican War experience.
A common criticism of Lee was that his orders were sometimes vague and rarely if ever in writing. You could say that this showed confidence in his subordinates, but in many cases that confidence seems t have been misplaced.
A common criticism of Lee was that his orders were sometimes vague and rarely if ever in writing. You could say that this showed confidence in his subordinates, but in many cases that confidence seems t have been misplaced.
Lee served in the Mexican war as well - in fact, they served together in some portion of Mexican war as that is where the 2 men knew each other from.
I am always amazed that the people who like to praise Lee over Grant simply ignore the fact that when Grant's Army faced Lee's Army (i.e., "The Overland Campaign"), Grant forced Lee's Army to "fall back" and reorganize their defensive positions (i.e., forced-retreat) after the Battle of Spotsylvania and the Battle of the North Anna River. Grant sent Lee's Army into abject retreat after Petersburg (Lee lost both Petersburg and Richmond after this retreat - the 2 largest cities in VA at the time). And finally, Lee outright surrendered after the Battle of Sailor's Creek, the very next confrontation after Petersburg (took place 3 days after Lee's retreat from Richmond and Petersburg). Lee never forced Grant to give up ground and retreat to the North after a battle in the Overland Campaign - not once.
In addition, Lee's Army went into abject retreat after Gettysburg - Army's commanded by Grant never went into abject retreat surrendering ground as a final result of a battle in the Western or Eastern Theater. That would be 4 retreats and a surrender resulting from discreet battles for Lee and ZERO forced-retreats for Grant as battle results. How anyone can look at those battle records and come to the conclusion that Lee > Grant is rather baffling imho.
I'm glad to see Grant get this kind of recognition as a great general. To be fair, Lee's reputation for greatness includes what he accomplished with fewer men and supplies.
Lee forced other Union Generals - not Grant - to retreat after battles in the Eastern Theater (tons of them prior to Gettysburg - i.e., mid 1863, the first 2 and 1/4 years of the war). He was able to have these "accomplishments" with fewer men, supplies, etc... against multiple other Union Generals not named Grant, but had no such "accomplishments" against Grant - none. What do you suppose explains that?
I agree.
I should have been clearer about Grant's Mexican War experience. He was assigned as a Quartermaster, and was in charge of supply trains. He had a clear understanding of logistics, something that served him well later.
Lee's reputation for greatness was the doing of the lost cause losers.
Meade could have wiped out Lee's army after the Gettysburg retreat had he pursued the Confederates to the Potomac crossing areas (Falling Waters, WV and Shepherdstown, WV) These were natural choke points and the Confederates were battered and poorly supplied at the time of their retreat back into what is now WV. He did not pursue and the war raged on for many months after.
Pretty sure most of Lee's troops retreated through Maryland and most crossed Potomac Southwest of Frederick. Some did cross at Harper's Ferry and Shepardstown, but again, pretty sure majority crossed into what is still VA.
See following link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ret... Robert E. Lee,to relative safety in Virginia.
if, If, IF!
Would-a, could-a, should-a!
North 1 South 0.
Oh Shut up!
Grant WAS a superior general PERIOD.
In many regards, better than Lee.
Game, set, match.
Would-a, could-a, should-a!
North 1 South 0.
Oh Shut up!
Grant WAS a superior general PERIOD.
In many regards, better than Lee.
Game, set, match.
