From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:47:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.133740.12137@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>
>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:
>
>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.

The forty day campaign was fought over a much larger area that the seven days
campaign. also the carnage was much heavier in the forty days campaign, 
basically both armies attitioned themselves into ineffectiveness through the
lost of commanders, to say nothing of the troops invoved. The big difference
is that at the end of the seven days lee could go where he wanted. At the
end of forty days he couldn't.

>:    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.

If you gave Lee and Grant equally well trained armies, with their best Corps
commanders, and equal terrian, the result probably would be a draw.

>: >  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.

They won by default. When you fight on home turf, you don't have to win, just
not lose. This is what they did.

>: 
>: >  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).

Actually he was detached with his entire corps on what amounted to a food 
gathering expidition for the AoNV.

>: 
>: >                      ..... 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.

Everybody likes it that way.

>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa