Sly Fox wrote:First of all, it is unfair to blame Grant for the poor leadership of the Union Army in the first 2-3 years of the Rebellion. Grant rose to power by destroying the Confederate forces along the Mississippi & Tennessee Rivers. Despite often being outmanned by Southern Generals who mistakenly believed they would win simply because they were Southern, Grant shrewdly worked his way up through the ranks by one amazing victory after another. By the time he took control of the Union forces, Lee had his imprint all over the Confederate army.
As for the sheer numbers excuse used by the Southern revisionists as an explanation for how the South could've possibly lost a war, you're not taking several key components into consideration. While the Union had a much larger population, the forces themselves were fairly evenly numbered on the battlefield. While the Southerners could send all of the forces to the fronts to fight since they had their slaves to defend their property and no Union troops threatening their property until the final months of the war, the Union army had to leave fighting age men at home to defend their property against rebel sympathizers and Confederate forces. Grant rarely if ever faced an opponent during the entire war where he had superior numbers. It is true that as the war dragged on into 1864 & 1865, many of the eager Southern gentlemen who thought they'd destroy the Northerners in just a few months began to lay down their arms to return home. But it was the successes of Grant (and to a lesser extent Sherman) that really forced the flood of AWOLs.
As for supply lines and access to materials, the advantage was decidedly the South's from the outset of the war. There was no one to disrupt their supply lines until Grant successes in Tennessee. Meanwhile guerrilla tactics were constantly being used to disrupt supply lines along the Ohio River and railroads from the minute the conflict arose. By the end of the war, it is true that Grant & Sherman had completely cut off the Confederate supply lines with the help of their naval blockade.
Did I ever say Grant was a better leader than Lee? No. But to dismiss Grant is unfair and doesn't afford him the respect as a General that he clearly deserved (now his time in the White House was a completely different matter). Grant served under Lee in the Mexican-American War down here in Texas down to Mexico City. They were friends who afforded each other a great deal of respect. Lee unfortunately made the tragic decision to fight for his state instead of his conscious. I think we should all be thrilled that the Confederates didn't extend the horrendous practice of slavery for what could've been a century.
And come on, Jasmine & Ariel have nothing on Belle.
Sly, not to be rude, but what Harry Turtledove alternate history have you been reading on the Civil War? About the only thing you got right was that the South had easier supply lines, which is obvious since just about all of the war was fought on its soil. The Northern forces didn't outnumber the South? You've got to be kidding me. In almost every battle fought in the war, the north usually had at least a 1 1/2 to one advantage, if not a great deal more.
Before you pull the old you're from the south thing, that's why you are saying this, I've read over 400 books on the war, written 2 dissertations, and contributed to a book on a certain battle. While the historical methodology might have changed since my undergrad days (my minor), I doubt they've discovered or presented a case where the South found about a million more soldiers to put into the battle
Grant did the right thing and was able to do what the other blundering idiot generals couldn't do, put his massive numbers in the field at the same time and wage an attrition war. Certainly deserves credit for doing that. As for a mastermind? Far from it, a good soldier, but mainly a drunk that realized if he kept throwing the army's numbers at the South, it would win.
- By TH Spangler
- By flamehunter
- By LUOrange