Civil War: Generals before Grant.

[michaelmaltby]

".... how moral is it to force at gunpoint the citizens of a political entity like a state, that joined the Union of it's own free will, back into the Union if it wants out of the Union." That renrich is THE question.

Your post is a thing of beauty - from the heart - and like BombTaxi - I am another non-American interested party in America's Civil War. Why? ... because Canada lies beside you and should strive to "understand" you. And because the war itself is so titanic - so heroic, and so ghastly bad that it demands to be understood. This was the forge and the anvil - and what you have today in the USA is the creature of that conflagration.

Shoes. I meant/mean no disrespect to the Southern soldier. You describe it best: "The Confederate Armies were largely composed of illiterate, Anglo Celt, Protestant, yeoman types". In short: the fiercest militia armies the modern world has ever seen - fighting under a variety of flags That these men marched and fought with or without shoes - Foote remarks on it, the Burns PBS series notes it. Shoes (re-supply) as you note was an issue - and they looted footwear whenever they could . They are in good compnay.

I think you overall post has much insight - though I disagree with your alternative history view of Lincoln's actions. This war was a long time coming - it was sown at Independence - and only became more and more 'the elephant in the room' as both sides grew and prospered. The southern economy WAS cotton. And cotton and the blockade were the drivers for every Confederate move in England and France for sovereign recognition. No matter how well rounded southern society and economies were - the money and power were in cotton - and cotton was slavery. The relationship between the two was emedded.

"... Many people in the South, most of whom did not own slaves were afraid that if the slaves were freed, they would run amok, raping and pillaging. That drove many to vote for secession. The Anglo Celt does not take kindly to authority or to anyone telling him what to do. Many in the South felt that the people in the North did not have the best interests of an agrarian South in mind." All true. What can I say.

In British colonies (Trinidad, Mauritius, Jamaica) when slavery was abolished the blacks were just turned lose to go into the hills and scrabble and "free" labor was indentured and imported from India and China. In these colonies today - the Indian and Chinese populations control the economy and politics - and the Creole blacks - are still scrabbling.

I write this because I want to be very clear that I don't exactly where the truth lies here. For thousands of years societies have kept slaves - from complex societies like Rome and Athens to hunter-gatherer tribal societies like Iroquois, Huron etc.

But at some point (Christianity ?) the view took hold that every man was equal in God's eyes. Slavery became a hard sell - however feudalism (serfs attached to a landed aristocrat) was accepted by the church. Isn't feudalism just Slavery under a different cloak?

In the South (as in South Africa) there was a strong effort to wrap slavery in Christianity. Provide a comfort zone for slave owning Christians in their society. But 'it's the elephant in the room' and it won't go away. And the war keeps coming and coming down the tracks.

Abe Lincoln knew what it was to work physically, he knew how power worked (successful railroad lawyer), he knew the conflict slavery evoked in his own life (wife's family were owners I believe) and he knew that slavery or no slavery NOTHING was going to allow the United States of America to dissolve. I think he was right. In the intervening years the USA has become greater in ways it could never have been as a divided country.

Final thought, renrich. You write "... it is interesting to me that this discussion includes people who are interested in the anatomy of the States War who are not even citizens of the US". Does that bother you in anyway ? Personally, as I said at the beginning, understanding the United States and the Civil War is an important part of my education - and I see similarities and lessons between your history and Canada's.

Proud Canadian
MM

 

[renrich]

MM, many thanks to you for your kind remarks and insightful posts. I absolutely am not bothered by you "foreigner's" interest in the War of Northern Aggression or the history of the US. The point I was trying to make, (poorly) was that most US citizens accept the version of that unfortunate episode which is taught in our schools which makes Lincoln in to some kind of god and the war was a good thing. You and others like you, some not US citizens, try to look more deeply.

The war was a tragedy for the South. Almost 25% of it's draft eligible men died. It's economy was devestated and did not recover fully until WW2. It is a fact that Confederate veterans were disenfranchised during Reconstruction, while at the same time, former slaves were collected and taken to the polling places but in New York, blacks could not vote. Most Americans believe that the US has not ever lost a war ( if you discount VN) Well, the South lost a war, was conquered and occupied and subjected to all sorts of misery. The history books gloss over that part and the attitude is that they deserved everything they got. R E Lee did not have his citizenship restored until 1975, in a vote by Congress. The vote was NOT unanimous.

This tragedy was, IMO, caused by the poor judgment of Lincoln, who morally could not support a war against a corrupt regime in Mexico which resulted in the security of Texas, a recent addition to the US, being assured and territories which Mexico claimed yet hardly held and that were being hungrily eyed by foreign powers, being added to the US map. Yet, his morals and scruples were discarded when a few Southern states decided to try secession, for good reasons they thought. Then Lincoln's precipitate actions of calling up, what was then, a huge army and then not ordering the evacuation of Fort Sumter, like in the instance of other Federal installations in the South, eventually caused the most populous states in the Confederacy to secede. In many ways his leadership in that period reminds me of LBJ and the decisions he made that exacerbated the situation in Viet Nam, during the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

As for the root causes of the War, I believe many of those roots predate the American Revolution when especially the Anglo Celts came to our shores. I am not a particular fan of James Webb, a Democrat senator from Virginia but his novels can be a good read and there is a current which runs in those novels about the nonconformist attitude of the Backcountry Borderer which still exists today. Most of my ancestors belong to that tribe.

One last point. In our American History classes, we take for granted that the American Revolution, an event which featured British Subjects who migrated to America, became disenchanted with Crown Rule and revolted to form their own government, was a wonderful thing. It was our God Given right to overthrow that overbearing regime. But, when the people of some US states, who freely joined the Union, decide the despotic rule of Washington, largely dominated and influenced by the interests of the Northeastern voter, decide to get out of that Union, then it is not alright and Lincoln was a great man for calling up his soldiers and forcing the Southern States back into the Union with fire and sword. Anyone else see any incongruity here?

 

[parsifal]

Ive always had an interst in the civil war, not so much from the political standpoint, as the military. In wargaming circles it remains a favourite

There are a couple of really good simulations of the civil war. One of the smallest and easiest to play is a game called "a House Divided'. It gets played nearly every year at the National Boardgaming championships. They refuse to let me play any more because I havent been beaten in nearly five years. Makes me sad, because I love the history, and the game for that matter.....

 

[vikingBerserker]

"...This war was a long time coming - it was sown at Independence - and only became more and more 'the elephant in the room' as both sides grew and prospered. The southern economy WAS cotton. And cotton and the blockade were the drivers for every Confederate move in England and France for sovereign recognition. No matter how well rounded southern society and economies were - the money and power were in cotton - and cotton was slavery. The relationship between the two was emedded.

You nailed that one quite well.

 

[Njaco]

The best General in the war was my relative - Robert E. Lee!!!

Bombtaxi, one book that I do have (most are bios of Lee for my family tree) that would be good to get is "The Civil War Day By Day" by E. B. Long. Its more along the lines of an encyclopedia and without any opinion. Of course I can read a dictionary all day long, so it appeals to me.

IIRC Hooker was well liked by his troops, admired within higher circles and did have a mean streak but when it finally came down to battle he changed so completely, his subordinates couldn't understand what happened.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thanks renrich - I appreciate your expanded view. Overall - a very good thread.

I'm not well-versed in the US-Mexico conflict but you have mentioned Lincoln's dis-approval of that war. He wasn't the only one. Grant apparently said (I read his auto biography but can't recall if he says this there) that the Civil War was God's punishment on the United States for an unjust war against Mexico. Obviously neither Grant nor Lincoln were Texans .

Lee had several good Generals working with him Njaco - I'm sure he'd want to share the credit

Until one understands the Civil War - one knows nothing about the soul of the United States. It was ghastly and on a scale that was quite unimaginable until 1914 rolled along. Mom's Dad and two of three brothers joined in 1914 and went 'over there' . Celtic Anglo Canadian yeomen understand the great (ghastly) battles in much the way Americans understand the Civil War.

And now, history seems to be repeating itself -- "veterans were disenfranchised during Reconstruction, while at the same time, former slaves were collected and taken to the polling places". Sadly, this sounds like the work of ACORN in more recent times.

MM

 

[renrich]

Njaco, with regard to your post about R E Lee, I agree. A number of years ago there was an issue of "The American Heritage" magazine which came out with a list of the most overrated people in American History. A fellow named Spiller, who taught at the US Army War College and who is rather well known stated that Lee was the most overrated General in American History. Now I admit that if one says that he is the greatest general in all history, he might be a little overrated and I admit that Lee made some mistakes, most notably at Malvern Hill during the Seven Days and even possibly on the third day at Gettysburg but I think that if one can get inside his head at Gettysburg, one can see his reasoning for the assault on Cemetary Ridge.

Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor after reading what Spiller said and told him more or less that he did not know what he was talking about. I used this analogy. There was a football coach down in Texas who stated that the definition of a great football coach was that, "he could take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." I then stated that just think, in 1862, what would have been the outcome, if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac and McClellan or Burnside or Pope or Hooker or Meade or even Grant had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. In my not so humble opinion, Richmond would have been captured and the war would have been over with in 1862.

Was watching the movie "Midway" the other night and thought of Lee, who said at Chancellorsville, that "He was too weak to defend so he had to attack." That was almost what Nimitz did at Midway. He knew he could not sit back and wait for the IJN so he had to surprise and attack them when they least expected it.

 

[renrich]

MM, I have also read that Grant did not approve of the Mexican War, which shows how ill suited he was for political power. IMO, President Polk was one of our great presidents. He clearly saw what the US needed to do and he was a tireless worker to see that it got done. As a matter of fact many people in the Northeast disapproved of that war on moral grounds or also because of their views on slavery. Many of those same people were against the annexation of Texas, because it was a slave state. Would that their views had prevailed and Texas had never joined the Union. If we had stayed out and kept the boundaries of our Republic, Texas would be a paradise to live in. Just think, a Texan could go skiing in Aspen, Texas and we would be energy independent like Canada.

By the way, regarding secession by the Southern states, in Texas, we had a plebiscite and secession won handily even though Sam Houston opposed it. That shows clearly that the common people wanted to secede, not necessarily the rich plantation owners, of which there were few.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Good stuff on Lee, Renrich .

MM

 

[renrich]

MM, Lee did have several good generals working for him and some of them learned their trade in the Mexican War of 1846-48. I heartily recommend to you that you read up on that war. The first volume of "West Point Atlas of American Wars" by Esposito has all the campaigns of that war in detail, if you can find a copy. That war, from the point of view of the accomplishments of American Arms is almost unbelievable. It was also the deadliest war the US has ever fought.

 

[syscom3]

Renrich, a near unanimous number of historians from all political stripes rate Lincoln among the best presidents this republic has ever had.

You are in an exceptionally tiny minority to claim otherwise.

Just for the record; the war against Mexico was opposed by many people.

The US had every right to supply its federally owned property in Charlestown.

The opening shots of the war was done by rebel radicals who saw war as options one, two and three. Slavery was the elephant in the room. As long as it was practiced in the south, war was inevitable. If it never existed, there never would have been an occasion for the friction of state vs federal powers to simmer to the boiling point.

If anything, the war unofficially began with pro slavery forces from the south exporting that horrid practice into Missiouri, Kansas and Nebraska. The backlash against it from the abolitionists was inevitable.

As for Lee, he didn't look so invincible once he fought against some fighting Union generals. A win is a win, but what exactly did he do against Grant and Meade? A great general, yes. The best? Nope. Grant gets the honors because he won.

 

[Njaco]

Njaco, with regard to your post about R E Lee, I agree. A number of years ago there was an issue of "The American Heritage" magazine which came out with a list of the most overrated people in American History. A fellow named Spiller, who taught at the US Army War College and who is rather well known stated that Lee was the most overrated General in American History. Now I admit that if one says that he is the greatest general in all history, he might be a little overrated and I admit that Lee made some mistakes, most notably at Malvern Hill during the Seven Days and even possibly on the third day at Gettysburg but I think that if one can get inside his head at Gettysburg, one can see his reasoning for the assault on Cemetary Ridge.

Anyway, I wrote a letter to the editor after reading what Spiller said and told him more or less that he did not know what he was talking about. I used this analogy. There was a football coach down in Texas who stated that the definition of a great football coach was that, "he could take his'n and beat your'n and take your'n and beat his'n." I then stated that just think, in 1862, what would have been the outcome, if Lee had commanded the Army of the Potomac and McClellan or Burnside or Pope or Hooker or Meade or even Grant had commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. In my not so humble opinion, Richmond would have been captured and the war would have been over with in 1862.

Was watching the movie "Midway" the other night and thought of Lee, who said at Chancellorsville, that "He was too weak to defend so he had to attack." That was almost what Nimitz did at Midway. He knew he could not sit back and wait for the IJN so he had to surprise and attack them when they least expected it.

I agree with ya there. Lee would have been quick to stop the war.

Sys, regardless of who won the war, I still say - in my opinion - that Lee was the best general of the war. Its easy to win when you have unlimited resources - i.e. Patton/Montgomery in NA but its something else when you have to succeed with whats at hand. Renrich's analogy with Nimitz and Midway is almost the same thing. Renrich, remember the last line of the movie? "Were we better than the Japanese or just lucky?"

Its also amazing that Lee is admired thoughout the United States today - and I won't comment further for fear of turning this political!

 

[vikingBerserker]

I think the fact that Lee was offered the top Command of the entire Union Army by Lincoln himself speaks volumes of himself. He was a brilliant tactician and IMHO far better then Grant.

When the US Post Office came out with stamps of him I bought a sheet of them, and for a number of years used it for postage for filing my taxes

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thanks renrich. "... the first volume of "West Point Atlas of American Wars" by Esposito has all the campaigns of that war in detail, if you can find a copy.". There are several used on Amazon. I'll take you up on that. But for now can you expand briefly on this: "... It was also the deadliest war the US has ever fought"

MM

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... I think the fact that Lee was offered the top Command of the entire Union Army by Lincoln himself speaks volumes ... "

Bingo !!!



MM

 

[renrich]

Sys, I said in the beginning that my view of Lincoln was only an opinion and you know about opinions. However, just because the vast majority of historians rate Lincoln as a great president does not impress me. We have had a number of presidents that had the majority of voters behind them but that did not make them great or even good presidents. In fact, IMO, it is surprising how many mediocre and even bad presidents our political system has given us and that includes Grant as one of the latter.

Fort Sumter was no longer in the US. It was in South Carolina, which was not in the US. I mentioned that a lot of people, mostly Whigs, opposed the Mexican War. A lot of those same people did not support the War of 1812. Even today, a lot of historians look down their nose at the Mexican War. I put them in the same category as those who worship Lincoln.

I suspect that if the soldiers in the Union Army who got killed because of Grant's questionable tactics against Lee have less than a charitable opinion about Grant as a general. To say he was the greatest general in the war because he won seems to me have some holes in it. Montgomery ultimately won in North Africa. Does that make him a better general than Rommel? I go back to my analogy. If Rommel had been in command of the British forces in North Africa, the war probably would have gone differently.

MM, the Mexican War featured a lot of interesting aspects. The use of flying artillery, rifled muskets and revolvers, amphibious landings, "photographs" and it was America's deadliest war because of the percentage of caualties versus number of combatants mainly because of disease. Very few Anglos who fought in the war came out unscathed. When I read about that war, having some experience with the terrain in a part of the war, I keep asking myself, how did Taylor and Scott manage to accomplish those feats?

 

[michaelmaltby]

Understood, renrich. Thanks.

MM

 

[renrich]

Another condition which played a role in the accomplishments of the generals in the war was the quality of the troops. On average, the Southern troops, particularly in 1861-62-63, and especially in the cavalry, were probably somewhat better than the Union soldiers. This was owed to several factors. To begin with, most Southern soldiers thought that one Confederate was equal to ten Yankees. Obviously that was not true but if you think you are better then you will perhaps be better. They did not lack in confidence at the beginning.

A more concrete factor was that on average the Southern Soldier, because of their rural background, was more used to firearms, camping out, and perhaps was more physically fit. The cavalry of the South had a big advantage because horsemanship was part of the Southern heritage and there were a lot of good horses. As the war wore on these advantages, real or imagined, went away. One advantage the North had was that many of their soldiers, being from an urban environment, had more built up immunity to disease, than the country boys from the South. Disease was the big killer in the war.

An advantage the Southern soldier enjoyed throughout the war was the Confederate policy of replenishing individual units with men from the same geographical area. Family and friends was the bedrock of Southern culture. The Union was more likely to enlist a unit from an area, send them into battle and fight them until their numbers were too small to any longer be qualified to be a brigade or regiment. An example would be the 20th Maine which when enlisted amounted to around a thousand men but by the time of Gettysburg, at the Little Round Top, was down to about two hundred or so men. On the other hand, The Texas Brigade which first saw action during the Penisular Campaign in 1862 fought the entire war and was in the rear guard of the Army when it retreated from Richmond in the Spring of 1865. That brigade comprised during the whole war the First, Fourth and Fifth Texas regiments and in the beginning the Eightenth Georgia and Hampton's Legion and when those two units were detached an oversize regiment, the Third Arkansas. The Brigade in the beginning was somewhat more than a thousand with the Texas regiments comprising around two hundred and fifty each. During the war The Texas Brigade enlisted around four thousand men from Texas and around a fourth of them died. The odd thing was that around six hundred fifty died of battle wounds and the balance of disease which was almost exactly the opposite of the ratios for both sides during the war.

By the end of the war, any advantage that the Southern individual soldier may have enjoyed in the beginning was gone,especially considering the fact that the Union soldier was much better supplied in everything; food, clothing, armament, medicine, livestock and experience.

 

[Njaco]

Good points Ren.

 

[renrich]

A look at the casualties in the war yields something interesting. The North had a pool of eligible men for soldiers of around four million. The South had around one million. Most of that million served. Not sure about the number of men who served for the Union but the Union had about 350000 who died whereas the South lost around 250000. The numbers for the South are approximate as their records are incomplete.

Both sides had about 30000 who died in prison camps. Since disease was the big killer, about twice as many on both sides died from disease as died from battle wounds. The South had about 90000 who died from battle wounds and the North had about 120000. The South had about 160000 who died of disease while the North had around 230000. It is easy to understand why the North had so many more die of disease than the South did because their armies were much larger but why would the winning side have so many more KIAs, especially considering that the wounded Confederate was much more likely to die than the wounded Union soldier because of inadequate medical care and factors like poor physical condition caused by malnutrition, inadequate clothing (no shoes, no hat) and inadequate shelter?

Another point to remember is that many of the men who survived the war had been wounded, sometimes multiple times. John Gordon, Confederate General who actually surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1865 was hit five times at Sharpsburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who rose to a General, took that surrender and he had been wounded numerous times, once at Gettysburg. John Bell Hood lost the use of one arm at Gettysburg in July, 1863, and lost a leg at Chickamauga in September, 1863, and ultimately died of yellow fever, long after the war, in New Orleans. What were those men made of?