Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Shoot yeah The Wilderness was rough.
Grant was ok. I imagine I'm risking fire and brimstone over that one.

The nature of the terrain, plus a heavy fog caused major problems for the attacking Union forces Airforce.

Lee was shocked when his scouts reported the federals didn't retreat after the pasting they took, Lee realized that Grant wasn't Little Mac, and that the war was probaly lost.

[SlowwHand]

I agree about Longstreet, as you and I have discussed in the past.
The South was being attacked, and had the advantage of a defensive posture.

A far as the actual "Why's" of the North having advantage , manpower and manufacturing.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah. If they'd only left McClellan in.
He was a camper. Liked to sit.

[Chris 62]

Little Mac could raise, organize, and equip a hundred thousand men, and not know how to use them.

He had Lee's battle plan at Antietam, and STILL lost.

His lollygaging in Yorktown doomed the Penninsular campaign to failure, as did his faith in Pinkerton, who insisted the South had 300,000 men in Lee's army.

[Capt Dizle]

Burnside was the worst. I'll never understand why you would cross a river with part of your force and charge piecemeal into prepared positions and leave your reserves idle. What the heck?

What was it with the Federals and their piecemeal attacks?

At least Hooker fought. Meade was a wussy too. The lack of a counterattack after Pickett was repulsed was criminal. Hancock or Reynolds, had they been in command would have crushed Lee before he could have gotten away. Lincoln's choice in commanders was worse than you could have gotten by blind lot.

[SlowwHand]

Hooker was good.

All told, I imagine the closest thing to Linclon as far as getting a crap job, was LBJ, followed by Bush.

[Capt Dizle]

Another silly thing about the Federals was their war councils. The commanding fool of the day would call in the generals and they would have a vote. Attack, defend, or withdraw. Geez.

Can you imagine Lee calling for a vote?

I don't remember Grant calling for war councils either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I certainly would say John Brown is quite the hero, despite revionist attempts to paint him as a bloodthirsty madman.

But Brown was a bloodthirsty madman. May have fought for good goals, but that doesn't explain away his love for slaughter.

If the South had followed the lead of forethinking generals like Longstreet, and fought defensively it is highly unlikely that the south could have lost as it would have taken ten years or more to whittle down southern forces.

The one thing you are forgetting is that Scott's Anaconda plan would have led to devestating effects on the South after a while.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Little Mac could raise, organize, and equip a hundred thousand men, and not know how to use them.

He had Lee's battle plan at Antietam, and STILL lost.

His lollygaging in Yorktown doomed the Penninsular campaign to failure, as did his faith in Pinkerton, who insisted the South had 300,000 men in Lee's army.

Ah, the old "let's send the same troops in circles around 'em and make 'em think we've got more!" manuever

The false cannons at Yorktown were a beaut, too.

One of my favorite quotes from the war is when Lincoln asked McClellan if he might borrow his army to fight the war...

[Chris 62]

Hooker never recovered from that kick in the head he got.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
At least Hooker fought. Meade was a wussy too. The lack of a counterattack after Pickett was repulsed was criminal. Hancock or Reynolds, had they been in command would have crushed Lee before he could have gotten away. Lincoln's choice in commanders was worse than you could have gotten by blind lot.

Lincoln had to contend with politics that Davis did not. Naming a head commander for the entire army isn't simply a matter of choosing--one has to consider seniority and political standing. He couldn't afford to be riling his own generals.

His choice of McClellan was very smart from an organizational standpoint. Who was to know the man wouldn't fight? Then Lincoln was stuck with him until after the elections, because to remove him would have seemed like an attempt to undermine McClellan's presidential campaign. So once the Great Northern Turtle was no longer a political threat, his butt was on the curb.

[SlowwHand]

To lose Jackson to "friendly fire", that sucked.

If you got wounded in this war, it was grim.
Massive numbers of amputations, gangrene, and other good things.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hooker never recovered from that kick in the head he got.

Is that literal or figurative? In knew about his confidence being shattered because of Chancellorsville, but was unaware if there was an actual physical thing...

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The one thing you are forgetting is that Scott's Anaconda plan would have led to devestating effects on the South after a while.

Not at all. Scott'slan was scrapped and then picked back up by default after more direct attempts at quelling the rebellion failed.

I am saying that the South should have fought defensively instead of wasting troops and armaments on offensive operations and used the savings instead to save the Mississippi. I think it could have been done if the commanders understood the extent to which they could have held off the Federals in Virginia with deft maneuver and use of fortified positions.

The Anaconda Plan, while a good one, also did not take into consideration the extent to which defensive warfare had taken command of the battlefield. Eventually the north could have worn the south down, but politically there was no way that the north would have supported the ten or twelve years it would have taken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hooker was good.

Untill he was in charge. 'Fighting Hooker' turned into mush in Chancellorsville. At the very lest, Jackson was killed in that battle, though not of Union doing.