Originally Posted by LadyUSAFveteran

I'm interested in learning more about the U.S. Civil War. I have acquired a great appreciation for General Ulysses S. Grant the leader of the Union who The Lord of Hosts gave the victory to, who later became President Grant. All I know at the moment is from a book by Bill O'Reilly entitled "Killing Lincoln." This book really makes him look like a saint and I believe he is one. Anybody want to talk about the Civil War? Also, I had bought a statuette of a Civil War Union medic who was treating a confederate. I was drawn to it and bought it. Is there really such a thing as the Civil War romance?

It intrigues me that of the civil war Generals it has been Lee that came away the best, much like Rommel seems to have won the hearts and minds contest for WW2 yet from everything I have read it would appear that both are overrated.

To a large degree (my opinion only), it was Union ineptitude that made Lee look good, I remember reading a theory that defensively Lee was an excellent General but on offense he was somewhat mediocre but I am not convinced he was all that good defensively either as Union tactics were pretty devoid of initiative, essentially mass as many men as possible and attack heavily defended lines.

It wasn't until Sherman outflanked Lee that the Army of the Potomac's size started to make a difference.

Now I accept my views are formed on very basic information as it isn't a subject taught in New Zealand but there they are.

Incidentally, I really did enjoy the visit to the Gettysburg battlefield, the work done to maintain the site and educate those who visit is amazing especially since I don't recall being charged for any of it.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I also understand Lincoln rescinded General David Hunters 1862 order to Emancipate slaves in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia due to fears of border states breaking away.



I remember seeing a sign about it in Georgia claiming to be the birthplace of emancipation, which amused me enough to remember it 15 years later.

Yeah, too soon. they also rejected black soldiers early on also.

Originally Posted by JOC

. The fact that the Emamicapation Proclamation held true only for the southern states is a mote point since some odd 99% of the slave were in the southern states.

The E.P. even names specific La. Parishes that were under Union control that were excluded from the E.P. Lincoln could have freed the slaves in Md & De........

Originally Posted by MontyB

It intrigues me that of the civil war Generals it has been Lee that came away the best, much like Rommel seems to have won the hearts and minds contest for WW2 yet from everything I have read it would appear that both are overrated.

To a large degree (my opinion only), it was Union ineptitude that made Lee look good, I remember reading a theory that defensively Lee was an excellent General but on offense he was somewhat mediocre but I am not convinced he was all that good defensively either as Union tactics were pretty devoid of initiative, essentially mass as many men as possible and attack heavily defended lines.

It wasn't until Sherman outflanked Lee that the Army of the Potomac's size started to make a difference..

Sherman? It was Grant's "Overland Campaign" in '64 that the size of the Union Army was decisive. There were a number of opportunities during the war where the Union Army could have crushed the Army of Northern Virginia.

Originally Posted by George

Yeah, too soon. they also rejected black soldiers early on also.

The E.P. even names specific La. Parishes that were under Union control that were excluded from the E.P. Lincoln could have freed the slaves in Md & De........

Sherman? It was Grant's "Overland Campaign" in '64 that the size of the Union Army was decisive. There were a number of opportunities during the war where the Union Army could have crushed the Army of Northern Virginia.

Not sure I agree, I think it was Shermans march to Savannah that effectively forced the A.N.V to spread itself further to protect its rear.

Up until that point, all Lee had to do was park his arse at Richmond and meet the Union head on from defended fortifications and stamp out the odd forest fire around Spotsylvania while the Union army blundered its way around South East Virginia.

Both Grant and Sherman were good leaders but given how bad most of the others were that may not have been too hard a title to achieve.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Not sure I agree, I think it was Shermans march to Savannah that effectively forced the A.N.V to spread itself further to protect its rear.

Up until that point, all Lee had to do was park his arse at Richmond and meet the Union head on from defended fortifications and stamp out the odd forest fire around Spotsylvania while the Union army blundered its way around South East Virginia.

Both Grant and Sherman were good leaders but given how bad most of the others were that may not have been too hard a title to achieve.

No, not really. Sharman's March to the sea was opposed only by local troops, Hood having foolishly pulled the Army of Tennessee out of his way following the fall of Atlanta and went off invading Tennessee. The Overland Campaign showed the strength of the Army of the Potomac and then when the A.N.V. was tied down during the Siege of Petersburg it was stretched beyond its capabilities. I'm not aware of any re-enforcements being sent from the ANV to oppose Sherman's Carolina's Campaign, what was left of the Army of Tennessee (following the Battle of Nashville) was sent to N. Carolina to try and stop him. Sherman would have caught the ANV from the rear had the War gone on for a little longer, say a month or so.

While true although I think a matter of perspective as I really can not find a lot of positives about the Army of the Potomac, in my opinion for its size and resources it performed badly throughout the war.

What Sherman's actions did was not so much draw off ANV troops but reduce its opportunities to get reinforced on any scale at which point it was just a numbers game for the Army of the Potomac.

My opinion is that it was effectively Sherman and his 60k troops that won the war, not Grants 120k, they basically soaked up confederate bullets while Sherman was more innovative.

Originally Posted by MontyB

While true although I think a matter of perspective as I really can not find a lot of positives about the Army of the Potomac, in my opinion for its size and resources it performed badly throughout the war.

What Sherman's actions did was not so much draw off ANV troops but reduce its opportunities to get reinforced on any scale at which point it was just a numbers game for the Army of the Potomac.

My opinion is that it was effectively Sherman and his 60k troops that won the war, not Grants 120k, they basically soaked up confederate bullets while Sherman was more innovative.

Yes, the A of Potomac had poor Generals through most of the war. actually Grant didn't really show the brilliance there that he had during the Vicksburg Campaign, just showing tenacity & over stretching the ANV. The war was won/lost (depending on viewpoint) in the west. Primarily as a result of A.S. Johnston getting killed at Shiloh, resulting in Jeff Davis appointing his erratic friend Braxton Bragg to command the A o T. By the time he went away it probably was too late to recover, though Joe Johnston ran a good defensive effort against Sherman during the Chattanooga to Atlanta Campaign until undermined by Hood, who was the final disaster. Where Hood took the AoT out of the area leaving Sherman unopposed. Had Joe Johnston been able to defend Atlanta Lincoln might have lost the Election in '64
No telling what would have happened in the West if A.S. Johnston, who was considered the best in the South at the beginning, had survived.
Also, think how different it would have been if the Capitol had remained at Montgomery instead of moving to Richmond.

Originally Posted by George

Yes, the A of Potomac had poor Generals through most of the war. actually Grant didn't really show the brilliance there that he had during the Vicksburg Campaign, just showing tenacity & over stretching the ANV. The war was won/lost (depending on viewpoint) in the west. Primarily as a result of A.S. Johnston getting killed at Shiloh, resulting in Jeff Davis appointing his erratic friend Braxton Bragg to command the A o T. By the time he went away it probably was too late to recover, though Joe Johnston ran a good defensive effort against Sherman during the Chattanooga to Atlanta Campaign until undermined by Hood, who was the final disaster. Where Hood took the AoT out of the area leaving Sherman unopposed. Had Joe Johnston been able to defend Atlanta Lincoln might have lost the Election in '64
No telling what would have happened in the West if A.S. Johnston, who was considered the best in the South at the beginning, had survived.
Also, think how different it would have been if the Capitol had remained at Montgomery instead of moving to Richmond.

Outside of its distance from the North, I am not sure what benefits staying at Montgomery would have afforded.

It would have given the ANV more operational freedom but realistically they had to remain in Virginia anyway as it was the primary iron producer for the South and its proximity to Washington meant that it was always going to be a battleground state.

Perhaps having Richmond as its capital gave the ANV more incentive to fight for what most must have known was a lost cause from the beginning.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Outside of its distance from the North, I am not sure what benefits staying at Montgomery would have afforded.

It would have given the ANV more operational freedom but realistically they had to remain in Virginia anyway as it was the primary iron producer for the South and its proximity to Washington meant that it was always going to be a battleground state.

Perhaps having Richmond as its capital gave the ANV more incentive to fight for what most must have known was a lost cause from the beginning.

Richmond would have had to be defended where it was the South's last industrial center after the capture of New Orleans & Nashville. But I was thinking that if Montgomery had still been the Capitol then the Western Theatre would have been even more important & more emphasis given to it, resources, ect.

I think it would have been a bit of a cyclic trade off though as the Union would simply have assigned a greater priority its capture.

While Richmond wasn't a great choice it did put almost everything the Confederates needed to defend in one spot and allowed them to concentrate which was important given the limited manpower and manufacturing capacity they had, being a rather confined area with the Appalachian Mountains on one side and the ocean not far away on the other it allowed a limited number of troops to defend on a narrow front.

Theoretically, the CS should have been able to devote a greater amount of resources to the west because of Richmond but for some reason, they sent just about every incompetent clown they could find to play in the west and ultimately lost the war there.

Personally, I do not understand why they never chose a line along the Ohio-Mississipi rivers and stayed there until they could develop a decent industrial base and transport system, states such as Kentucky and Missouri must have been wavering as well so a stable front line along the Ohio river may have tipped the balance for them or at least provided the CS with a pool of volunteers from enemy states.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Theoretically, the CS should have been able to devote a greater amount of resources to the west because of Richmond but for some reason, they sent just about every incompetent clown they could find to play in the west and ultimately lost the war there.

Personally, I do not understand why they never chose a line along the Ohio-Mississipi rivers and stayed there until they could develop a decent industrial base and transport system, states such as Kentucky and Missouri must have been wavering as well so a stable front line along the Ohio river may have tipped the balance for them or at least provided the CS with a pool of volunteers from enemy states.

Correct on dumping less competent Officers in the West. for every Cs recruit that came out of Kentucky there were 10 Union recruits. Missouri had a Cs Govt., but the Union drove them out of the State fairly quickly. The Confederates tried to establish as strong defence in southern Kentucky early, but were knocked out by the fall of forts henry and Donaldson, plus being out maneuvered and having to evacuate a strong position in Columbus, Ky.