The Civil War

[Mileslong 4728]

I’m not sure where to put a post about history so thought I would put it here. While I consider myself a history buff I think I know more about the Roman Empire and WWII then the civil war.

 

I came across this discussion as to whom was the better general, Grant or Lee. What are your thoughts? Here is an excerpt on what Lee and Grant thought about each other, apparently not very much.

 

Grant on Lee: I never ranked Lee as highly as some others of the army -- that is to say, I never had as much anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in my front. Lee was a good man, who had everything in his favor. He was a man who needed sunshine.

 

He was supported by the unanimous voice of the South, he was supported by a large party in the North. He had the support and sympathy of the outside world. All this is of immense advantage to a general. Lee had this in a remarkable degree. Everything he did was right. He was treated like a demi-god.

 

Our generals had a hostile press, lukewarm friends, and a public opinion outside. The cry was in the air that the North only won by brute force, that the generalship and valor were with the South. This has gone into history with so many illusions that are historical. Lee was of a slow, conservative, cautious nature, without imagination or humor, always the same with grave dignity.

 

I could never see in his achievements what justifies his reputation. The illusion that nothing but heavy odds beat him will not stand the ultimate light of history. I know it is not true. Lee was a good deal of a headquarters general, a desk general, from what I hear, and from what his officers say. He was almost too old for active service -- the best service in the field. At the time of the surrender he was fifty-eight or fifty-nine, and I was forty-three. His officers used to say he posed himself, that he was retiring and exclusive, and that his headquarters were difficult of access.

 

Lee on Grant (letter to his son in 1864): Where do we get sufficient troops to oppose Grant? He is bringing to him now the Nineteenth Corps, and will bring every man he can get. His talent and strategy consists in accumulating overwhelming numbers.

 

I didn’t know that the majority of the press and worlds opinion was more favorable to the South then the North, is that true?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 hours ago, Mileslong said:

 

I’m not sure where to put a post about history so thought I would put it here. While I consider myself a history buff I think I know more about the Roman Empire and WWII then the civil war.

 

I came across this discussion as to whom was the better general, Grant or Lee. What are your thoughts? Here is an excerpt on what Lee and Grant thought about each other, apparently not very much.

 

 

 

I didn’t know that the majority of the press and worlds opinion was more favorable to the South then the North, is that true?

 

I consider Grant the greatest general the US has ever produced. Lee was maybe one of the most audacious, but definitely the second best in the war followed by Sherman, and Sheridan, then maybe Stonewall Jackson, just my $.02.  

Grant ran the entire war via telegraph from the battlefield,  (over all strategic goals to supply, to battlefield tactics in each theater). He was repeatedly touted as the presidential contender to beat Lincoln. He squashed that talk immediately, and was always firmly, and vocally in support of Mr. Lincolns policies.

He knew talent when he saw it, and likewise knew bad generals when he saw them.  He hated pomp and circumstance, and was most definitely a huge binge drinker, but kept that compartmentalized to in between campaigns.

He was not a  favorite of the northern press (Mrs. Lincoln hated him, but she was a first class A1 bitch), and he was considered a butcher. He was not.  His one blunder that gives rise to the butcher myth was his 7,000 casualties in about 30 minutes at Cold Harbor, Va.  It haunted him the rest of is life. He was a world class horseman, and understood the importance of supply and logistics like few others in his position.

Southern generals were always romanticized more than their Union counterparts.  Based on my reading Lee and Grant had a great deal of respect for one another. I've just finished a great Grant biography, and the author discussed Grants respect for Lee.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[Saint Austin 745]

On 6/6/2019 at 3:49 PM, Mileslong said:

 

I didn’t know that the majority of the press and worlds opinion was more favorable to the South then the North, is that true?

 

Yes. Generally, the day's major powers (excepting Russia and Prussia) leaned toward favoring the South, largely because they feared a united American hegemony in the New World, and also to prevent further implementation of the Monroe Doctrine.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Saint Austin said:

Yes. Generally, the day's major powers (excepting Russia and Prussia) leaned toward favoring the South, largely because they feared a united American hegemony in the New World, and also to prevent further implementation of the Monroe Doctrine.

Haven't read this before,  but it makes sense.

[retread 2951]

Since this is in Books, Bruce Catton's Civil War (Mr. Lincoln's Army/Glory Road/A Stillness at Appomattox) is really good. Enjoyable read.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

Since this is in Books, Bruce Catton's Civil War (Mr. Lincoln's Army/Glory Road/A Stillness at Appomattox) is really good. Enjoyable read.

I consider it the best in terms of giving a really great accounting of soldiers stories, mixed with a generally unbiased account of the history of the Army of the Potomac and The Army of Northern Va. and the arc of the war thru Va.  Such a great read. I've read that series 2x so far.

Catton grew up listening to the stories of the Union army veterans in his home town if I'm not mistaken.

[retread 2951]

I also enjoyed Sandburg's Lincoln book. I've seen it panned as pop history or the like. Regardless, it still gives an interesting look behind the scenes.

I think I read the condensed version (of a six-volume work). Need to reread the full set sometime....

[idahorn 26]

Burlingame's Abraham Lincoln: A Life is easily the best biography of the Railsplitter.  The three volume biography of Grant by Lloyd Lewis and Bruce Catton is the best on Grant. On the war generally Shelby Foote covers more than Douglas Southall Freeman, but the latter's Lee's Lieutenants is better as far as it goes.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, idahorn said:

Burlingame's Abraham Lincoln: A Life is easily the best biography of the Railsplitter.  The three volume biography of Grant by Lloyd Lewis and Bruce Catton is the best on Grant. On the war generally Shelby Foote covers more than Douglas Southall Freeman, but the latter's Lee's Lieutenants is better as far as it goes.

GRANT, By Ron Chernow, is pretty damned good. I finished reading it only recently. I couldn't bring myself to get Grant, and Lee thru the McLean house doors.  Really excellent read, and a more burnished appreciation for our greatest US general ever.

[kevwun 15757]

The general rule in the Civil War is that whoever attacked lost the battle.  There are exceptions of course, especially when Grant was involved, but in most of the major battles of the war, the defenders had a major advantage.  Artillery and infantry fire accuracy had advanced to the point that an army attacking a prepared position was going to be decimated before they got close enough to try to overwhelm the enemy position.  Lee was really good at maneuvering his army in to good positions to defend.  Once he had his spot, he dug in because he had figured out very quickly the advantages it game him.  He had better generals serving under him than the Union did for the first few years of the war.  Longstreet in particular was a master at preparing defensive positions.  After a whole lot of success following this plan, Lee came to believe his army was invincible.  This led him decide to take the war to the North.  Then Gettysburg happened.  The roles were reversed and the South was attacking a well defended position.  The Union finally won a major battle in the East and  Lee was no longer unbeatable.  While all of this was going on, Grant had been steadily rising up the ranks in the Western theater.  His success was based largely on his aggressiveness.  He moved decisively and attacked ferociously.  He understood that the Union had an advantage in men and materials and that the best way to use that advantage was to attack relentlessly.  He understood the Union would win a war of attrition.  When he finally rose to the top and went head to head with Lee, he did this.  Most of the battles were a draw at best, but he kept pushing Lee back towards Richmond.  When Sherman came up from Georgia, it was finally over.  They both were good at using the tools they had and they both made mistakes.  The result of the war would have almost certainly been the same if their roles were reversed.

Edited July 22, 2019 by kevwun

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

It's funny how things stick with you.  I grew up in Houston in the 1970s and 1980s, with family all over the state.  The following facts were so clear and true as to never have been discussed or questioned - on par with the Bible in terms of their general acceptance.

1.  Lee was the greatest general in the history of warfare, at least post-gunpowder.  He only lost because the war was unwinnable due to the North's industrial might and brutality, and he still almost won. 

2. Grant was a drunken bully who won the war by having no honor, scruples or sense of decency. 

3. Sherman was a war criminal of the highest order - one notch below Hitler or Stalin. 

4. Jackson and Stuart were brilliant tacticians whose only flaw was that they were too brave.

And even though I now know the above to be (at best) one-sided propaganda, and despite my primary education on the Civil War being from Shelby Foote and Ken Burns, I still react emotionally to any suggestion that any of the above is not accurate.  It's just kind of ingrained into my being.

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Liquor and Poker

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Liquor and Poker said:

It's funny how things stick with you.  I grew up in Houston in the 1970s and 1980s, with family all over the state.  The following facts were so clear and true as to never have been discussed or questioned - on par with the Bible in terms of their general acceptance.

1.  Lee was the greatest general in the history of warfare, at least post-gunpowder.  He only lost because the war was unwinnable due to the North's industrial might and brutality, and he still almost won. 

2. Grant was a drunken bully who won the war by having no honor, scruples or sense of decency. 

3. Sherman was a war criminal of the highest order - one notch below Hitler or Stalin. 

4. Jackson and Stuart were brilliant tacticians whose only flaw was that they were too brave.

And even though I now know the above to be (at best) one-sided propaganda, and despite my primary education on the Civil War being from Shelby Foote and Ken Burns, I still react emotionally to any suggestion that any of the above is not accurate.  It's just kind of ingrained into my being.

 

Well I guess when I was the same way up until HS.  After about 15 the history changed for me as I read book after book on the CW.  

Today Grant was, and still is the man among men in Americas pantheon of CW generals. Lee is right below him then Jackson, Sherman, Sheridan.  Grant is simply the best general we've ever produced in any era, CW or otherwise.  

I do believe if Lee had taken the position offered by Scott the war would have probably been over sooner. Had grant been the initial union commander of the Army of the Potomac the war would have been shortened by a year or two as well (maybe).

[kevwun 15757]

All of the scandals that happened during Grant's Presidency really helped the Lost Cost people paint him as a drunk who stumbled to victory.  Had he retired from public service after the war, he would have probably had a much better reputation.

Edited July 22, 2019 by kevwun

[Post Oak 20204]

This was a really good book.  I'm a fan of Gwynne.  Jackson was quite the leader

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 7/22/2019 at 1:15 PM, kevwun said:

All of the scandals that happened during Grant's Presidency really helped the Lost Cost people paint him as a drunk who stumbled to victory.  Had he retired from public service after the war, he would have probably had a much better reputation.

He was blasted as a drunk all the way thru the war, even when he was gaining popularity and winning battles. But yeah had he not run for president it would have left a better burnish on his military career as the greatest general produced by West Point.

[NoName 16349]

On 6/6/2019 at 5:29 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

I consider Grant the greatest general the US has ever produced. Lee was maybe one of the most audacious, but definitely the second best in the war followed by Sherman, and Sheridan, then maybe Stonewall Jackson, just my $.02.  

Grant ran the entire war via telegraph from the battlefield,  (over all strategic goals to supply, to battlefield tactics in each theater). He was repeatedly touted as the presidential contender to beat Lincoln. He squashed that talk immediately, and was always firmly, and vocally in support of Mr. Lincolns policies.

He knew talent when he saw it, and likewise knew bad generals when he saw them.  He hated pomp and circumstance, and was most definitely a huge binge drinker, but kept that compartmentalized to in between campaigns.

He was not a  favorite of the northern press (Mrs. Lincoln hated him, but she was a first class A1 bitch), and he was considered a butcher. He was not.  His one blunder that gives rise to the butcher myth was his 7,000 casualties in about 30 minutes at Cold Harbor, Va.  It haunted him the rest of is life. He was a world class horseman, and understood the importance of supply and logistics like few others in his position.

Southern generals were always romanticized more than their Union counterparts.  Based on my reading Lee and Grant had a great deal of respect for one another. I've just finished a great Grant biography, and the author discussed Grants respect for Lee.

hey @Onboard 2.0 do you have any specific Grant book recs?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, NoName said:

hey @Onboard 2.0 do you have any specific Grant book recs?

GRANT by Ron Chernow. Excellent life biography.  He's definitely a big Grant fan, but I think he's done a fantastic job telling his story.  If what he's written is accurate, Grant was  a Cinncinatus type figure of the 19th c.

[NoName 16349]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

GRANT by Ron Chernow. Excellent life biography.  He's definitely a big Grant fan, but I think he's done a fantastic job telling his story.  If what he's written is accurate, Grant was  a Cinncinatus type figure of the 19th c.

Thank you!

[Michael Knight 12976]

Shelby Foote's work is the best on the War but he very much sympathizes with the South so take what he says about any Northerner with a grain of salt

[tantric superman 4667]

The best thing to come out of the Civil War were the battle drawings in the American Heritage History of the Civil War.  When I was in grade school I would love going to the library and grabbing it before anyone else did to look at all the important battles.  Wish I had been learning Spanish instead, but still.

 

[TwiceHorn 31429]

Hell yeah.  I took that book to Gettysburg in 1975.  Ranger said I knew more about it than he did.

Incidentally. the Gettysburg thread prompted me to recall that, at age 9, I had developed the southerner's sympathy for the Confederate cause.  I hadn't had any serious history then, was too young to hear states rights or slavery.  The only explanation I have is that I got it from my parents, who most assuredly did not teach me that slavery was good, or that the issue in the confederacy was states' rights or any similar line of inauthentic bs.  Just sort of, we're southerners, so we have always kind of sympathized with the southern cause, even though they lost and were wrong.

Edited January 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tantric superman 4667]

I'd like to think my pre-teen sympathies with the South were based solely on their underdog status and the sense that they were just a tad better, man for man.

[futureman 22439]

On 6/6/2019 at 5:29 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

Lee was maybe one of the most audacious, but definitely the second best in the war followed by Sherman, and Sheridan, then maybe Stonewall Jackson, just my $.02

Forrest. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, futureman said:

Forrest. 

 Did he have enough large scale battles or command of whole armies the way Lee, Jackson, Sheridan and Shermsan operated to make him fit into that pantheon ?  He was an audacious dude, but I don't think he had that under his belt.

[futureman 22439]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Did he have enough large scale battles or command of whole armies the way Lee, Jackson, Sheridan and Shermsan operated to make him fit into that pantheon ?  He was an audacious dude, but I don't think he had that under his belt.

I encourage you to read more about him.  he’s one of the most misunderstood characters in american history.  few people know more about him than what they saw in forrest gump. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, futureman said:

I encourage you to read more about him.  he’s one of the most misunderstood characters in american history.  few people know more about him than what they saw in forrest gump. 

I know a bit about him, but yeah, need to do more reading on him. He operated in the Tennessee theater, so that kept him off my radar growing up.

[tantric superman 4667]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:56 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Hell yeah.  I took that book to Gettysburg in 1975.  Ranger said I knew more about it than he did.

Incidentally. the Gettysburg thread prompted me to recall that, at age 9, I had developed the southerner's sympathy for the Confederate cause.  I hadn't had any serious history then, was too young to hear states rights or slavery.  The only explanation I have is that I got it from my parents, who most assuredly did not teach me that slavery was good, or that the issue in the confederacy was states' rights or any similar line of inauthentic bs.  Just sort of, we're southerners, so we have always kind of sympathized with the southern cause, even though they lost and were wrong.

Gettysburg is one of the only Civil War Battlefields I have ever vistited, and I thought it was damn near perfect.  Battlefield still in tact, great exhibits, etc.?

I'd love to know what other battle sites US, Civil War or otherwise, you folks feel stands up to Gettysburg.

[TwiceHorn 31429]

Vicksburg was an interesting deal and has a nice museum/presentation.  A lot of the ones I've been to, mostly minor battles of regional importance, are mostly fields with some markers and the odd building.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

There's Gettysburg and then there's everybody else I've been the most the battlefield on the East Coast not approach is what Gettysburg does I can't speak to west of the Mississippi

[usmc0331horn 953]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:10 AM, retread said:

Since this is in Books, Bruce Catton's Civil War (Mr. Lincoln's Army/Glory Road/A Stillness at Appomattox) is really good. Enjoyable read.

I'm reading A Stillness at Appomattox right now. Just got done with The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner. It was really really good. Probably reread Battle Cry of Freedom next.

[Sawbonz 27523]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:31 PM, tantric superman said:

I'd like to think my pre-teen sympathies with the South were based solely on their underdog status and the sense that they were just a tad better, man for man.

 

[Chad Fuck 17658]

On 2/25/2020 at 11:18 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Vicksburg was an interesting deal and has a nice museum/presentation.  A lot of the ones I've been to, mostly minor battles of regional importance, are mostly fields with some markers and the odd building.

Went to Vicksburg a couple weeks ago with Chad Jr.  The Museum and the Cairo were both closed, as were a significant portion of the northern part of the Union lines.  Even so we had a great visit.  It is a wonderful park just to be in and rivals Gettysburg in its' presentation.  I believe it was one of the first National Battlefields, so it got a lot of care and attention at the outset.  It shows.  

I've been four times or so, and I always come out with a little different perspective.  You can do it all in day, but I would recommend two if you have time.  The second half of the park deserves more attention and if you try and do it all in a day you'll just be too tired to appreciate it.  Take a morning and do the first half, spend the afternoon about town and see the courthouse museum and the other local museums.  Then go back in the morning of the second day to see the rest of the main battlefield and the outlying parts.  There are several "bits" the NPS owns and keeps up, that aren't continuous with the rest of the park.  For example, Navy Circle that overlooks the Mississippi bridge and South Fort, the southern most extent of the confederate lines that faces Navy Circle.  For the real die hards, there's also Grant's Cut over on the Louisiana side that makes a quick stop of you're heading back on I-20 to Texas.

[Balcones 317]

Gettysburg.

[Texzilla58 4731]

NB Forrest was the greatest Calvary general in our history (not counting Quanah Parker and Buffalo Hump; no horse Calvary approached the Comanche). Many of his tactics were adopted by calvarys worldwide. He was disdained by general staffs on both sides because he eschewed the deadly Napoleonic tactics both sides used in the war. The war was lost in the west at Shiloh when AS Johnson was killed and Napoleonic dogmatist PGT Beauregard took over and shifted tactics to heavy closed ranks. Has Johnston lived Grant would have been crushed and pushed into the Tennessee River; would have likely been sacks.

If you want to go to battle grounds the best ones are Shiloh, Gettysburg, and most of the military parks in Virginia. In Scouts I did all the hikes at all of them. Shiloh is the most interesting as the hikes all work on the approaches to the battle and the actual battle itself. The bloodshed was horrific. Shiloh was all farmland and pastures but back then most pigs were feral. As thousands of wounded lay in the fields the night of the first day of battle, the feral hogs descended on them and began feasting on those that were immobilized. The screams were awful. Those rifled 50 cal mini balls just ripped flesh and shattered bones.

Vicksburg’s park is more challenging to get a feel for the battle. It was a siege of a town so you’re seeing less about troop movements. An important battle but less interesting to visit.

[UT_OB1 2213]

[The Original Greaser Bob 2819]

The American Heritage Picture History of the Civil War has the best battlefield pictures for the major battles.  I got hooked on this book when I was in 4th grade.  Not sure if still in print.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2819]

Whoa.  Old man forgets his previous posts.  Story at 11.

[atomheartbevo 89617]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:19 PM, Texzilla58 said:

If you want to go to battle grounds the best ones are Shiloh, Gettysburg, and most of the military parks in Virginia.

And if you can't make trips out to those, YouTube is chock-full of recordings of the various guides giving tours at those parks, and while it's best to visit in-person, watching the videos of the various guides giving tours gives you a whole lot more context, because having done some battlefield tours, you don't get to see everything or hear the various stories/anecdotes that different guides have about the same battlefields.

If you look up any Gettysburg videos, check out Matt Atkinson, he's very entertaining and informative.

 

[NIUHuskies 504]

"If you want to go to battle grounds the best ones are Shiloh, Gettysburg, and most of the military parks in Virginia."

Stones River in TN is an underrated battlefirld to visit.

As for books:

 

[Coach pop a bitch 5459]

Watched this on YouTube