benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Jan 27, 2017 21:56:05 GMT
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War. " Regards Dave Dave, Please tell the Vets of the Army of Northern Virginia that I meant no disrespect to Marsh Robert. I agree with your post that the South could not have won, however did they really need to win. The South had no interest in taking over the North, they just wanted the North to not take away their way of life. Remember when the war broke out,the people in the North felt that the Army would just slap these Southern rif-raf and it would be over. Much to their dismay, these Southern boys were far from rif-raf and could fight like hell and werent going to be pushed around by anybody. With that in mind.... What if the Confederate Army rather than be offensive minded (Under Lee) instead was defensive minded (Longstreet I believe was defensive minded). Allowed the AOP to enter Virginia and made them pay dearly for every inch of terrain. Make every battle a Cold Harbor. Then when they advanced far enough, cut their supply lines. When the caskets started pouring into every town and city in the North perhaps the people of the North would have demanded from Lincoln to end it. Is that strategy feasible or foolish Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 27, 2017 22:22:43 GMT
Cemeteries are always interesting-they contain some of the best public art-and worse. It's great place to experience nature, especially birds. One of the things I find most interest are the stone especially the older ones in cemeteries that don't have draconian rules about size, shape and type. You get an idea in an instant about how people viewed their place in the community as well as how the community viewed them. There is an actual language to gravestones with the various symbols holding meanings that have been become lost to most people over time. I did a Cemetery Tour in New Orleans to visit the grave of General John Bell Hood(CSA) got to talking with a local about that very thing later on at Happy Hour- The size and design of all the old headstones/monuments. He told me that down there, "The bigger the headstone, the bigger the scoundrel." I nearly died laughing. (Maker's Mark burns when it come out your nose, by the way.) Respectfully Submitted, Duane
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 27, 2017 22:25:17 GMT
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War. " Regards Dave Dave, Please tell the Vets of the Army of Northern Virginia that I meant no disrespect to Marsh Robert. I agree with your post that the South could not have won, however did they really need to win. The South had no interest in taking over the North, they just wanted the North to not take away their way of life. Remember when the war broke out,the people in the North felt that the Army would just slap these Southern rif-raf and it would be over. Much to their dismay, these Southern boys were far from rif-raf and could fight like hell and werent going to be pushed around by anybody. With that in mind.... What if the Confederate Army rather than be offensive minded (Under Lee) instead was defensive minded (Longstreet I believe was defensive minded). Allowed the AOP to enter Virginia and made them pay dearly for every inch of terrain. Make every battle a Cold Harbor. Then when they advanced far enough, cut their supply lines. When the caskets started pouring into every town and city in the North perhaps the people of the North would have demanded from Lincoln to end it. Is that strategy feasible or foolish Be Well Dan "The Army of Northern Virginia was NOT defeated, it just wore itself out defeating the enemy" Lieutenant General Jubal Anderson Early(CSA)
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 28, 2017 0:15:09 GMT
Duane: I believe that Robert E. Lee and several other general officers that served the Confederacy, whose mental capacity was far above the level of Jubal Early would strongly disagree.
Benteen: Review the elements of strategy DIME (Diplomacy-Information-Military-Economics), then revisit your expressed thoughts. Defeating a nation state requires more than military maneuver. After six months of war the south was an economic basket case. The North did not have to do anything but choke them to death.
Secondly, where did you ever get the idea that Robert E. Lee was offensive minded? Everything the man did operationally was designed to bring the enemy to him. That includes Sharpsburg and Gettysburg Campaigns where his objective was in both cases to draw the Army of the Potomac away from its bases, and fight them defensively on terrain of his own choosing. It partially worked in the first instance, and completely failed in the second. The operational defense entails much more than sitting on your backside in a trench. You might also consider that he never had the combat power or logistics to sustain himself for any length of time above the Potomac River Line, and could not even adequately supply them in Virginia. All of this he was quite aware of, and if you wish to verify what I just said obtain the collected wartime papers of Robert E. Lee.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 28, 2017 2:41:58 GMT
benteen I must admit being out my depth in discussing the Eastern Campaigns under General Lee as I have read precious little about the Army of Northern Virginia and Robert E. Lee and the synergy with it and the Army of the Potomac. But I will attempt to state my views in a coherent manner:
a) Lee was a creature of his times and environment and cumbered with being a Southern Gentleman with all its trappings as he had to remain in control of his emotions at all times and exhibit restraint in all actions. His Christian beliefs influenced him his life and compelled him to eschew the evil habits of alcohol and tobacco and live a fairly spartan lifestyle while in the field which negatively impacted his health.
b) Lee coached his orders in very a polite and indirect manner that caused confusion and indecision for his subordinates. The absence of plainly written directions, much like Cooke's orders, allowed for individual subordinates make their own decisions as well as timing of actions. Lee often complained about people not following his directions but as happened at Gettysburg on the first day with Ewell's decision to not take Culp's Hill. The age old question of was Longstreet late to attacking on the third day would never have risen had Lee taken forceful action but that was not in his nature.
c) QC is quite right when stating that Lee endeavoured to have the enemy attack his positions but he was a also audacious and took risks, especially at Chancellorsville. Lee was a stubborn man who had a difficult time of adjusting to the new tactics dictated by the rifled musket as did most military leaders. Longstreet was one of the early proponents of trench warfare which Lee adopted in 1864 during the Overland Campaign.
d) It has been proposed that Lee bled the AONV to death with his excursions into Maryland and Pennsylvania but Lee was forced to seek supplies---rations, equipment and livestock for example---that Northern Virginia could not supply. I fail to see how General Lee could have remained in his lines and await Federal attacks as he did not have the men and supplies to fight a purely defensive war. His dream of an offensive defensive strategy never came to fruition and I do not think he realized the extent of the South's defensive, political and economic weaknesses.
e) I believe that Lee did the best he could with the material he had to work with in officers and men. Southern society with its "Code of Honor" among men created insane difficulties for the army. Privates refusing orders from officers who not gentlemen or their equals led to many headaches and was a messy fiasco. I have read some material that was purported to be scholarly studies that the South was populated by Scotts-Irish while the Northern Europeans settled in the North. Supposedly those below the Mason-Dixon Line were hotheaded blowhards unlike their countrymen up North. I do remember a Federal unit called the Irish Brigade so go figure.
Dan the South never had a chance as they had a th ird of the population, let alone the influx of immigrants during the war, or the industrial base necessary to wage a war of Independence. The belief in "King Cotton" was dispelled quickly with the Union blockade and the trade in Indian and Egyptian cotton. Southerners had an economy that was not able to survive a conflict with its labor intensive thirst of both white and slave. The agrarian society of the South just could not support a war effort of any strength I believe. It is times like this that I regret my lack of knowledge of the subject being discussed because I am just "winging it" as best as I can.
I hope you are enjoying the New Year and wish you all the best. Wanted to do that before we got to February! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 28, 2017 4:22:45 GMT
Excellent. Quite excellent.
I can understand Benteen's confusion concerning Lee. The strategy was to keep northern armies off of southern soil. That is a defensive strategy. To do that operationally those northern armies must be maneuvered out of position. That by necessity requires offensive action within the framework of the defensive strategy.
In the Sharpsburg Campaign Lee had already driven the AoP back into the defenses of Washington, but he had not destroyed them. He did not have the combat power to lay siege to the outer ring of the Washington Defenses. What he chose to do instead is immediately after Chantilly (Ox Hill) he maneuvered across the Potomac at White's and Point of Rocks, intending to once again draw the AoP out and fight probably near South Mountain, where McClellan would be forced to cross the Middletown Valley to get at him. Sidebar: I would rather dance with the Devil in a blue dress than take that one on. Lee got greedy and spread too thin trying to gobble up Harpers Ferry, and as a result he was caught with his pants down on South Mountain, was beaten, and forced back through Boonesboro to the Antietam Creek line. He still had his defensive battle, but that position was not nearly as strong as South Mountain.
With Gettysburg he tried essentially the same thing again. He beat Hooker at Chancellorsville, but again did not destroy him. Once again he goes north to draw Hooker/Meade out of Virginia. Before he could pick the ground to fight the two armies clashed, and Lee's push came to shove. Very poorly done, and he deserved to get his ass handed to him. There may be reasons for what he did, but there are no excuses.
So the moral of the story is that when you take the offense operationally and tactically, within the strategic framework of defense, you are still judged as defensive.
The only guy in the east that knew how to fight offensively within a strategy that demanded the offense was Grant. He was the perfect general for Lincoln, and Lincoln the perfect CinC for Grant.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 28, 2017 11:15:52 GMT
Chuck,
Your last statement could never be more on point. Two Bulldogs, both alpha, both with a vision.
A thought for chewing. If after 1st Manassas/Bull Run the Confederate Army follows the Union Army, which was thoroughly whipped and in disarray, back to DC, could the South have sued for peace, on there terms. Maybe, but if they had, there would have been an even more disasterous/bloody civil war within 20 years. Thoughts?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 28, 2017 14:47:16 GMT
The Confederate Army after First Manassas was in no ore shape to pursue and fight another battle, than the Union Army was to mount a defense short of Washington. Both forces were spent.
After the battle the Confederate Army did move toward DC and were as close to DC as Fairfax, Annandale, Seven Corners and Falls Church, but it was more an occupation of ceded territory than a pursuit.
All Bull Run did was piss off Lincoln, and if anything make him more determined.
Now, if what you speculate about a peace agreement were true, I don't believe a renewal of conflict would have taken twenty years. It would have come much sooner.
Had Lincoln allowed the south to succeed by either peace treaty or inaction, what we now know as the United States would probably be as many as four or five separate nations, and each of the in everlasting conflict with the other.
Additionally if the eleven Confederate States had prevailed, what is to say they would have stayed together as a nation. You get away with succeeding once, what is to say it will not become a habit.
Go back to the struggle among the 13 original states to ratify the Constitution, and get a firm grip on that really messy and politically charged process, study it thoroughly, then revisit the question.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 28, 2017 16:10:32 GMT
The Confederacy comprised of eleven states, was this just at the beginning of the war, because I am sure that there were more than that, I would have thought about fourteen max as some didn't join at the start of the conflict, am I right with this?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 28, 2017 18:12:02 GMT
Just eleven. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. There were thirteen stars on the Confederate battle flag, one each supposedly fro Maryland and Kentucky, but neither of these states left the Union. West Virginia left Virginia in 1863, most likely because that part of Virginia is more like Ohio and Pennsylvania in outlook and culture than Virginia.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 28, 2017 19:36:36 GMT
Thanks Chuck, yes I thought that there was more than eleven stars on old glory.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 28, 2017 22:06:26 GMT
"Old Glory" Ian. There are currently fifty stars on "Old Glory"
I think you just might have your flags a little mixed up.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Jan 28, 2017 22:15:11 GMT
Dave/Quincannon Thank you Gentlemen for your thoughtful and informative replies, I appreciate it. As you can see by your posts that Gen Lee had little hope if any at all, of defeating the Union Army. So the genesis of my opinion was that if you cant defeat the enemy in the field, perhaps you could cause enough suffering to the people thru tremendous casualties, that they would grow weary of the war and demand that Lincoln end it with a truce. Which is all the South needed. However, with the CSA very limited manpower and supplies and the Norths unlimited source of both, Gen Lee couldnt do it. I grossly under estimated the Generals strategy in that he fought the war in the only way he thought he could. I stand corrected. Yes , you are correct, I was confused as to Gen Lee being offensive minded as it seemed to me that he was always attacking. But, it would seem that the good General was following the ages old adage that the best defense is a good offense Well, another one of my brilliant opinions down the drain Dave, Thank you and a happy new year to you and your family also, in fact a happy and healthy new year to all the forum members and their loved ones Be Well Dan
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 28, 2017 23:15:31 GMT
Yan State's rights is a very sticky form of government that caused as much turmoil for Jefferson Davis as did the War itself. Davis once lamented that he wished he had the executive powers Lincoln had that would have curtailed the states rebelling against the Confederate government. Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia and Governor Zebulon Vance of North Carolina fought against both the Union and Jefferson Davis by refusing to share provisions, clothing or weapons with units from other states. In fact Frank Lawrence Owsley, a Southern Historian famously said the Confederacy "died of states' rights" and he was right.
The Southern Code of Honor created additional problems especially in the political arena since a gentleman could not suffer any improper conduct from others. This culture occurred primarily in the lowland areas of the South, not in the hill country, where the richest members of Southern Society the plantation owners lived among the business and economic centers. It is extremely difficult to fight a two front war let alone the three front war David faced with his own people.
If Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri had joined the Confederacy I am not sure it would have made much difference in the final outcome. All except Delaware provided military units to the Confederacy and these states did not have large manufacturing capabilities. The emphasis on strong state with a weak central government and a slave economy precluded the South from being a viable contender against the Union. Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 28, 2017 23:18:40 GMT
Dan Th irony in your statement: "was that if you cant defeat the enemy in the field, perhaps you could cause enough suffering to the people thru tremendous casualties, that they would grow weary of the war and demand" was that it was Sherman and Sheridan were the ones who waged that kinda war against the South. Regards Dave
|
|