most important historical event of past 200 years

[Errata]

A couple of years ago, I might have agreed, but after looking closely at RE Lee, I no longer rate him as highly as a general. And Lee was pretty well their best.

Phil

Lee was incredibly rigid and inflexible. Which are not great traits in a general. Grant was somewhat merciless, flexible, thought on his feet, and had one of the most important traits a general can ever possess. Luck. But that was when he was sober, and looking at his life it becomes obvious that his period of sobriety was at an end by the time the war ended. Lee didn't have to be great, he just had to be better than the Union General. And he was better than like, five of them. He was not better than a sober Grant, but he was better than a drunk Grant. Had he won Gettysburg, or had they not lost Richmond, or even had they avoided the siege at Vicksburg the war would have been drawn out enough for Grant to start drinking again, and for him to have been replaced with an inferior commander. I mean, Sherman would have been a good choice, but they would never give him command after his mental health break from the military.

[Phil H]

Like other Unions assets, I think they would have found a "replacement" Grant.

To me that is the crucial factor - the North had reserves of manpower the South could not match; it had industrial strength in depth where the South was (partly from the aristocratic culture it sought to maintain) ill-equipped. the blockade was wrecking the South every day, whereas Northern standards of living were scarcely affected outside war zones.

I agree that the key theatre of war was in the west, but the North began to the process of splitting the Confederacy in two early on with the seizure of New Orleans.

One can wish Vicksburg had not fallen, but it did. The South did not out general the Union - it could not defeat Grant (who was I think somewhat less inebriated than you make out).

Generals make their own luck - so said Napoleon who should have known - and I think Grant did just that. (Lee did a bit but was sometimes TOO foolhardy.)

Lee's strategy of the offence - in the two invasions of the North (leading to Antietam and Gettysburg respectively) was essentially self-defeating. He simply could not afford the attrition that the big battles inflicted on the ANV and he squandered what initial success he gained in both cases. Any General but McClellan would have defeated Lee squarely at Antietam - for heaven's sake McC even had lee's orders!!

At Gettysburg - to use Wellington's phrase of the French at Waterloo "they came on in the same old style and they were similarly repulsed. true lee smashed two Union Corps on each of the first two days, but Meade was never stretched for reserves, where the ANV was never again able to launch such an offensive.

To be honest. Lee might have had greater success mounting an offensive defence of the South, but that would have meant more suffering for his state, and Lee was obsessed with Virginia. (Maybe had he been less hypnotised by the Eastern theatre he might have gone west and prevented the fall of Vicksburg - but that would have been out of character for him.

Sorry, I remain unconvinced by any of the argument re the South "winning". I used to think they MIGHT just have won a negotiated settlement in certain circumstances - say if they had SMASHED the AoP. But that was never likely to happen. the North could always field another army ... and more equipment...

Phil

[Sally]

Sunday, 18th June, 1815.

Possibly.

[Mayerling]

Like other Unions assets, I think they would have found a "replacement" Grant.

To me that is the crucial factor - the North had reserves of manpower the South could not match; it had industrial strength in depth where the South was (partly from the aristocratic culture it sought to maintain) ill-equipped. the blockade was wrecking the South every day, whereas Northern standards of living were scarcely affected outside war zones.

I agree that the key theatre of war was in the west, but the North began to the process of splitting the Confederacy in two early on with the seizure of New Orleans.

One can wish Vicksburg had not fallen, but it did. The South did not out general the Union - it could not defeat Grant (who was I think somewhat less inebriated than you make out).

Phil

Lincoln could have replaced Grant in 1864 with Sherman, Thomas, McPherson, Hancock, even Logan.

While the capture of New Orleans by Farragut began the splitting of the CSA in half, a month earlier the defeat of the CSA at Pea Ridge weakened the CSA in the area, and the battle of Island No 10 began the process upriver for the Union forces.

The real first step to Confederate defeat was the Anaconda Plan of Winfield Scott, which slowly choked the CSA to death by blockade.

A newspaper writer attached to Grant's command, Sylvanus Cobb, wrote the account of a bender Grant went on during the Vicksburg Campaign. Grant's assistant, General Rawlins, wrote a cryptic message to Grant about the need to discuss Grant's drinking. However many historians have questioned Cobb's scoop (which was not published in his newspaper), and Rawlins' motives about that letter bothered Julia Grant (who mentions it in her memoirs). Rawlins (Grant's first Secretary of War) died in 1869, but Julia always suspected Rawlins had plans (had he outlived Grant) of publishing his memoirs and claiming he was responsible for keeping Grant sharp and sober.

[Mayerling]

Generals make their own luck - so said Napoleon who should have known - and I think Grant did just that. (Lee did a bit but was sometimes TOO foolhardy.)

Lee's strategy of the offence - in the two invasions of the North (leading to Antietam and Gettysburg respectively) was essentially self-defeating. He simply could not afford the attrition that the big battles inflicted on the ANV and he squandered what initial success he gained in both cases. Any General but McClellan would have defeated Lee squarely at Antietam - for heaven's sake McC even had lee's orders!!

At Gettysburg - to use Wellington's phrase of the French at Waterloo "they came on in the same old style and they were similarly repulsed. true lee smashed two Union Corps on each of the first two days, but Meade was never stretched for reserves, where the ANV was never again able to launch such an offensive.

To be honest. Lee might have had greater success mounting an offensive defence of the South, but that would have meant more suffering for his state, and Lee was obsessed with Virginia. (Maybe had he been less hypnotised by the Eastern theatre he might have gone west and prevented the fall of Vicksburg - but that would have been out of character for him.

Sorry, I remain unconvinced by any of the argument re the South "winning". I used to think they MIGHT just have won a negotiated settlement in certain circumstances - say if they had SMASHED the AoP. But that was never likely to happen. the North could always field another army ... and more equipment...

Phil

In the series "The Civil War" by Ken Burns, Shelby Foote claimed that Lee was willing to take chances because he had to do so to make up for a lack of manpower and supplies, and that had Grant lacked them too he would have taken chances as well.

I think both Generals made their own luck, but occasionally made bad errors. Though he out-generalled McClellan in the Seven Days, Lee blew his advantage at Malvern Hill doing in a small scale what he did on a large scale at Pickett's Charge: he led frontal assaults against Fitz John Porter's artillery with huge losses. This was totally unnecessary, and blunted the total effect of his victory. Grant would add Cold Harbor to his battles in 1864, and cried in his tent after the battle when he saw the losses due to his plans.

Little Mac's handling of the lost orders around D. H. Hill's cigars is now part of the anti-McClellan image for all time. Actually his cautious approach is not totally unexpected. Not only because McClellan was overly cautious, but he really did not know if Lee's orders were a ruse or not. Actually that he did follow through and faced Lee before Jackson could rejoin Lee showed McClellan was changing for the better - but he could have used a bit more daring regarding the matter.

Apparently Lee and Davis did toy with Lee going to the West and replacing Joe Johnston to save Pemberton. Davis certainly would not have cried at the idea of dumping Johnston, but he felt Lee was needed in the East. So Lee concentrated on the invasion of the North. I don't think he really had a chance to go West (later in 1863 Lee's "warhorse" Longstreet would be sent to assist Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga, ensuring that battle would be a Confederate victory - the idea of sending Lee West probably was a decent idea).

[Phil H]

Very good post Mayerling

Lee blew his advantage at Malvern Hill doing in a small scale what he did on a large scale at Pickett's Charge: he led frontal assaults against Fitz John Porter's artillery with huge losses.

There is a view I have seen experessed that the frontal attack had once worked for Lee and he went on using it, long after others saw it as his "usual practice" and were ready for it. It might have worked for Napoleon 50 years before, but it was wasteful for the less populace South.

Sally - while I have studied Waterloo since I was about 11, and revere the great Duke as my hero of heroes, I see the battle as a punctuation point - maybe the actual beginning of the C19th - rather than as important in itself.

Even had Napoleon won, I think it questionable whether he woukld have lived long (five years?) or even maintained his fragile grip on France. A victory at Mont St Jean might have gained him a respite, but I doubt it would have changed history much.

I perceive Waterloo as an end rather than a beginning - but perhaps you'll correct me?

Phil