American Civil War

[JudgeDredd]

I'm currently obsessed with this particular war.

I was watching a 4 part Discovery Knowledge documetary on it...and was wondering - quick question - If U Grant was so "amazing", why did he batter at the inpenetrable wall at the battle of Spotsylvania? He wasn't "directly" in charge, but the concept of flanking was well known at the time.

[JudgeDredd]

Oh - and again at Cold Harbour...sry - watching it as I type [:D]

[Arsan]

For what i've read, all the overland campaign was a constant flank movemnet after flank movement by Grant armies.
Check the map here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Campaign
The "problem" was that he flanked AFTER and not before getting mauled attacking each of Lee's fortified positions  [;)]
I wouldn't consider him amazing or brilliant as general. But certainly he was a fighter.

[Jeffrey H.]

US Civil war is a subject I've never had much interest in. The only game I've ever played and liked from the era was Yaquinto's "Ironclads". Just something about the whole era evades my interest.

[Capt. Harlock]

Generals on both sides of the Civil War tried costly attacks: Sherman at Kennesaw Mountain, Lee at Malvern Hill and again at Gettysburg, John Bell Hood perhaps worst of all at Franklin. It took everybody some time to realize that the switch from smooth-bores to rifles (and later to repeating rifles) had drastically changed the equation of attack versus defense. Grant himself said that Cold Harbor was one of the two worst blunders he had made during the war.

But in fairness, it should be noted that the attack against the 'Mule Shoe' at Spotsylvania actually broke through the main Confederate line. For a time it looked like the Army of Northern Virginia would be demolished. Lee was going to personally lead a counter-charge, but his own men defied him and refused to permit it, shouting "General Lee to the rear". Happily or unhappily, Grant did not commit enough reserves to exploit the breach, and the Confederates were able to bring up enough reinforcements to regain the ground after much bloody fighting.

[Arsan]

I recently finished reading the 3.000 plus pages of Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy.[&o]
So i can say i have "a little" interest in the subject [;)][:D]
Judge, have you seen the Ken Burns documentary series about the Civil War??
If you haven't, check it! It's absolutely great!! [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

It's funny that I find that surprising that it doesn't interest you when I have little interest in the English Civil War (although I feel the need to point out that that is partly due to the fact I am Scottish and not English).

I just bought the John Tiller Battleground Civil War based on what I picked up from the series and a book I am reading The American Civil War : This Mighty Scourge of War.

I do have Forge of Freedom and GG War Between The States, but I wanted something that afforded me the ability to replay the battles and give me the tactical element.

[JudgeDredd]

I may well do, Arsan thx http://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Civil- ... 222&sr=8-1

[anarchyintheuk]

Grant had been trying to flank Lee since the opening of the 1864 campaign. Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were all a part of that strategy. Still, it was probably Grant's worst moment of the war (either that or failing to secure Pittsburg Landing). If he had undertaken proper reconaissance, he probably would not have made the assault on the first day . . . leading to not making the second assault a couple of days later. Meade's role in the affair is somewhat difficult to discern, he was the titular commander of the AoP afterall. Casualty wise it was in the same ballpark as Lee at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg (Pickett's charge), both as pointless as Cold Harbor. For whatever reason Lee's failures never seem to stick to him but Grant's do.

Grant is sometimes, inaccurately imho, referred to as a butcher and his strategic and operational ability downplayed. Strategically, he realized something that few other commanders realized, that decisive battles weren't that decisive in the ACW, but that attrition was. He subsequently based his AoP strategy on that. I don't know that I'd consider Grant amazing, but his move towards Grand Banks, cutting his own loc and maneuvers to isolate Vicksburg made for the boldest and most successful operational move of the war. While it only just failed his move against Petersburg in the Fall of 1864 was also impressive.

[Arsan]

True! he was sound at the strategic and operational levels. But tactically (on the battlefield) he was quite straightforward.
In his defense, i don't think many ACW battles were tactically brilliant. So he was not alone in this  [:)]
Cheers

[Carl Myers]

Grant set the Army of the Potomac on a march toward Richmond. When Lee would get his Army of Virginia dug in the line of march such that the AoP could not go forward, the AoP would flank the position and continue towards Richmond instead the previous pull back and reorganize strategies of previous Union generals. By continuing to flank and move forward no matter how many time Lee got in front of the AoP, Grant finally pinned Lee up against Richmond. Since Lee could not afford to leave Richmond uncovered, he was no longer able to engage in the manuever tactics for which he was famous.
Time after time, Lee and his generals would utilize their superior comand and control to defeat the AoP piecemeal in battles of manuever. Grant was not going to win a flanking war of manuever in northern Virginia against Lee but could beat him if Grant continued toward Richmond no matter how many times Lee got in front and stopped the leading corps of the AoP.

[JudgeDredd]

Excellent notes here and all help put the last year in perspective. Lee was indeed a seemingly excellent strategist, and he wasn't able to leave Richmond unguarded as he walzted off to tackle the Union elsewhere.

Also looking at the map provided by Arsan, it does seem that it was flank followed by counter-flank all the way south. I was in particular speaking about the "local" tactical issue with regard to the specific battles I mentioned. In particular, he seemed to be overly confident and arrogant at Cold Harbor. Strong words from a novice and probably not the ones I mean, but my memory and "word retention" seem to be dwindeling as the years go by. [8|]

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Generals on both sides of the Civil War tried costly attacks: Sherman at Kennesaw Mountain, Lee at Malvern Hill and again at Gettysburg, John Bell Hood perhaps worst of all at Franklin. It took everybody some time to realize that the switch from smooth-bores to rifles (and later to repeating rifles) had drastically changed the equation of attack versus defense. Grant himself said that Cold Harbor was one of the two worst blunders he had made during the war.

Dont forget Fredericksburg.

That battle was a disaster, miscommunication on an epic scale, plus a pointless assault costing in thousands of men.It was a slaughter.[8|]

[Erik Rutins]

Judge,

If you haven't read Shelby Foote's trilogy, don't miss it. That together with Battle Cry of Freedom is pretty much the first books on the ACW I'd recommend.

Regards,

- Erik

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
That battle was a disaster, miscommunication on an epic scale, plus a pointless assault costing in thousands of men.It was a slaughter.[8|]

You describe practically every major battle fought in that war. For Grant to have wrought any success at all from the ongoing carnage is testament to his status as a superior general - of, and for, those times and places.

He won. Many died. It was sad.

As far as study of the war is concerned, JD, there are myriad sources of information and explication, but you must begin with a thorough grounding in the history of the Western world leading up to it.

Good luck. I've been at it for the better part of 50 years, and I feel that, maybe, in another 50 years, I might see myself as having made a fair start.

[JudgeDredd]

Well with what I've read and watched (again - limited and novice) it seems I have had one myth put to rest - that it's root cause was not slavery...something I always understood to be the cause.

I understand there may be differences of opinion on this, but the book I am reading, and the series I just watched seemed to acknowledge that fact...

Early days. I'll be watching the series mentioned above and I'll have a look at the Shelby trilogy

Are these the Shelby books (the first 3 listed on the this page)? Rather expensive - I might see if I can get them in the library first - if not, I guess they might be Christmas presents [:'(]

[pasternakski]

JD, I agree with Erik that the Foote trilogy is excellent, but maybe not the best place to start. It lacks some of the foundation I was referring to in my earlier post.

The three volumes (and they are all subtitled "a narrative") are Fort Sumter to Perryville, Fredericksberg to Meridian and Red River to Appomattox. There has been a lot of excerpting and republishing over the years, so anything else will only give you bits and pieces. Some people also enjoy what Bruce Catton's work provides, while others find him rather superficial. You be the judge ... so to speak.

As far as slavery being the - or even a - cause of the war, the question is gigantic. You must come to grips with how that institution became blended into the mix of American, European and African civilization before you can even begin to draw conclusions on that score. Opinions range from, "It was the only cause" to "Slavery had nothing to do with it, slavery was already a dying phenomenon," and all kinds of shadings in and around those.

Then, after you can explain all this stuff to me, you can help me with moving on to an understanding of race and its role in America throughout the rest of the 19th century and the 20th ... and 21st ...

[Brigz]

Indeed, Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" is excellent. I would also suggest Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Leutenants". An excellent three volume set that gives an unique perspective of command during the American Civil War. The hardbound set is expensive but I have seen softbound editions also. Another good book is "How the North Won", but for the life of me I can't remember the authors names. Bruce Catton's (sp?) books are also classic reading.

[Carl Myers]

Well with what I've read and watched (again - limited and novice) it seems I have had one myth put to rest - that it's root cause was not slavery...something I always understood to be the cause.

Slavery was one of the excuses for the war and became a casualty of the war. Don't forget, since slaves were on the contraband list, in the earlier part of the war, the Federal government became the largest slaveowner in the North and the South. "Contrabands" were put to work in the army commissary, building fortifications, picking cotton that was sold to defray war costs, etc.

[Silverdog]

It's funny that I find that surprising that it doesn't interest you when I have little interest in the English Civil War (although I feel the need to point out that that is partly due to the fact I am Scottish and not English).

Well I'm English, and whilst I've not read into great detail the civil war, in was not confined to England. Sorry if I have misread your post, but Scotland had a much larger role and involvement in the civil war than you may think. [;)]

As for the American civil war, I am reading 'Battle Cry of Freedom' by James McPherson, and so far its an excellent read given I'm new to the subject. And like you I've asked my local library to get hold of Shelby Foote's triolgy as the box set is expensive. So far they 'may' have got me volume 3, they're not sure, so might have it as a Christmas present too.