From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:37:40 GMT
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


In <1992Aug18.233742.23348@dazixco.ingr.com> doak@sunbug.ingr.com writes:

: 
: In article <1992Aug17.182354.8824@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
: >  Hm. Two thoughts on this subject. First, I think that most of the "touch of
: >  genuis" that Lee and Jackson had was largely based on complete contempt
: >  for their opponents. In many of Lee's and Jackson's great battles, they
: >  did things that would have enabled a competent opponent to crush them:
: >  eg, Seven Days, Antietam, Chancellorsville. I have always thought that
: >  their reputations were built less on their own skill and more on the lack
: >  of skill of McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker. On the other hand, you
: >  have to credit them with recognizing when they were up against inferior
: >  generals and taking advantage of it.
: 
:    Well, Lee and Jackson were facing larger, better equipped armies.  If
: they hadn't fought aggresively they probably would have lost.  Taking
: chances isn't the whole story though - they had to follow up on them by
: taking advantage of their opponents mistakes.  Plus, they didn't panic
: when others would have.  They seemed to be pretty good at strategy and 
: tactics too.  Maybe overconfidence was Lee's weakest point.  8-)
:    Besides, I thought Lee did pretty well against Grant in the Forty
: Days despite having less than half the men.  Just what is the consensus
: on these battles anyway?  I know Grant "won" since he put the siege on
: Richmond but is there anything that Lee could have done better in this
: series of battles?  (Yes, I'm aware of Lee pulling his guns out of the
: Bloody Angle but that seems to be a good decision based on bad
: information.)

There is an obvious analogy between the Seven Days and the Fourty Days (besides
the names and the fact they fought over the same ground). Lee drove McClellan
back with his furious attack, then was driven back himself by Grant's.
Malvern Hill and Cold Harbor are also remarkably similar.

:    I'm curious, has anyone ever wondered what might have happened if
: Lee had fought Grant with an equal sized and equipped army?  Maybe it's
: good we didn't get to find out.
: 

I think Grant tends to be underrated. His Mississippi Campaign was brilliant.
However he never had the same opportunity that Lee had at Fredericksburg to
learn the value of a strong defense. On the other hand, Lee showed at
Gettysburg that he was slow to learn this lesson despite his experience.

: >  But, when Meade and Grant took over, Lee continued behaving as if he was
: >  up against McClellan, and it was Longstreet who was warning that the Union
: >  army had better commanders and the old tricks wouldn't work anymore. Hence
: >  the loss at Gettysburg.
: 
:    I believe not having his cavalry to help him and the loss of Jackson
: was more of an influence than Meade being in command though.
: Nonetheless, Pickett's charge wasn't a trick - it was brute force and
: the Army of the Potomac fought a great battle.  In fact, it possibly
: was the best battle they fought during the war.  (Or is that common
: knowledge?)
: 

I think the remarkable thing about the Union Army's performance at Gettysburg
is that their generals still screwed up (not Meade so much but Sickles, Howard
etc) but they still managed to win.

: 
: >  Same thing with Jackson's and Longstreet's tries at independent command.
: >  Jackson was up against Frement and Sigel, while Longstreet was up against
: >  Rosecrans and Parke (and also Burnside, to be fair). If the Union army
: 
:    Wasn't Longstreet in command at Chickaumaugua (Bragg had gone into a
: funk by then)?  And wasn't he responsible for the breakthrough that had
: Rosencran's fleeing for his life?  If this is the command you are
: refering too (I don't think so), then I don't see how Longstreet could
: have done any better.
: 

During Chancellorsville, Longstreet was absent from the AofNV because he was in
command of a campaign that was suppose to dislodge the Union Army (under Gen
Dix I believe) from Fort Monroe and/or Norfolk. He didn't get very far, but I
don't think he had many troops either (if he did, they were poorly trained).

: 
: >                      ..... I don't know whether I prefer genius or reliable
: >  brilliance... it's a tough call.
: 
:    I'd settle for having a competently aggressive commander (Grant) and
: twice the army my opponent has.  

I think that's the way Grant liked it too.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------