The act of a foolish General 160 years ago today

[DudleySmith]

While Lee was gathering thousands of prisoners on day 1, the rest of Meade's army were placing their guns on Cemetery Hill and digging in. Lee had no way to prevent that.

As I already said, the OB timelines tell the whole story. no need for me to keep repeating myself.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong. Lee using guerilla tactics and avoiding major battles where he was always outmanned and unable to match Union artillery, could have prolonged the war and lead to Lincoln losing support. Plus the Euro powers might have intervened helping the South.

If you read history, often the weaker opponent wins wars. However they must use tactics that increase their chances of success. For example, the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.

The European powers after 1862 had no interest to intervene in the conflict.

After Atlanta fell, the North never would have gone home. It would have laid the South in a regional grave, instead.

The examples of our War of Independence and the Vietnam War are interesting, but whereas we had sanctuary in the interior and the communists in the North, the CSA had no sanctuary at all. All the gray could have done is killed Union soldiers until the last Confederate died.

 

[August West]

Wrong. Lee using guerilla tactics and avoiding major battles where he was always outmanned and unable to match Union artillery, could have prolonged the war and lead to Lincoln losing support. Plus the Euro powers might have intervened helping the South.

If you read history, often the weaker opponent wins wars. However they must use tactics that increase their chances of success. For example, the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.

The Euro powers had begun buying their cotton from Africa and there was zero chance of them intervening on behalf of the south. The Brits had already freed their slaves. When the Queen read Uncle Tom`s Cabin, she cried like a baby.

 

[August West]

The European powers after 1862 had no interest to intervene in the conflict.

After Atlanta fell, the North never would have gone home. It would have laid the South in a regional grave, instead.

The examples of our War of Independence and the Vietnam War are interesting, but whereas we had sanctuary in the interior and the communists in the North, the CSA had no sanctuary at all. All the gray could have done is killed Union soldiers until the last Confederate died.

The North didn`t have to return home. They were already home whether it be New Hampshire or South Carolina.

 

[gipper]

The Euro powers had begun buying their cotton from Africa and there was zero chance of them intervening on behalf of the south. The Brits had already freed their slaves. When the Queen read Uncle Tom`s Cabin, she cried like a baby.

England was considering intervening, but wanted the South to achieve a major victory. Of course after the losses at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, England realized the South couldn’t get it done.

This too points to Lee’s failures. Had he avoided major engagements and rampaged across the northern states, it’s very likely Lincoln quickly loses support and England intervenes.

You might remember the riots in NYC immediately after the Gettysburg victory. Lincoln had to use force to squelch draft riots. The north was in no mood for more war. If Lee and the South could have prolonged it and brought the war to northern states, they might have won.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

England was considering intervening, but wanted the South to achieve a major victory. Of course after the losses at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, England realized the South couldn’t get it done.

This too points to Lee’s failures. Had he avoided major engagements and rampaged across the northern states, it’s very likely Lincoln quickly loses support and England intervenes.

You might remember the riots in NYC immediately after the Gettysburg victory. Lincoln had to use force to squelch draft riots. The north was in no mood for more war. If Lee and the South could have prolonged it and brought the war to northern states, they might have won.

2nd para invalidates the argument. With the vast numbers of troops, the Union would have blocked Lee's Army route home. He would have surrendered.

 

[gipper]

2nd para invalidates the argument. With the vast numbers of troops, the Union would have blocked Lee's Army route home. He would have surrendered.

?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

?

no way, gipper, and unable to sustain the gray in the field for more than a few weeks.

 

[AZrailwhale]

England was considering intervening, but wanted the South to achieve a major victory. Of course after the losses at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, England realized the South couldn’t get it done.

This too points to Lee’s failures. Had he avoided major engagements and rampaged across the northern states, it’s very likely Lincoln quickly loses support and England intervenes.

You might remember the riots in NYC immediately after the Gettysburg victory. Lincoln had to use force to squelch draft riots. The north was in no mood for more war. If Lee and the South could have prolonged it and brought the war to northern states, they might have won.

That’s a neat idea, but Lee didn’t have the logistics to rampage across the northern states. He fought the war on a shoestring often only being kept from defeat by the provident capture of a Union supply depot or two. If he was ever cut off from his line of retreat back into Virginia his army would starve while trying to avoid the more numerous Union forces that could use the railroads for strategic mobility.

 

[longly]

The North didn`t have to return home. They were already home whether it be New Hampshire or South Carolina.

That sounds imperialistic; you're saying that if you have the power to take something, it's yours, and you have the right to keep it. New Hampshire is New Hampshire and South Carolina is South Carolina; they are not the same; they could have been, but our founders chose to do it differently.

 

[gipper]

That’s a neat idea, but Lee didn’t have the logistics to rampage across the northern states. He fought the war on a shoestring often only being kept from defeat by the provident capture of a Union supply depot or two. If he was ever cut off from his line of retreat back into Virginia his army would starve while trying to avoid the more numerous Union forces that could use the railroads for strategic mobility.

Except that the Union didn’t stop his retreat, so your point is meaningless. Had Lee rampaged across the north he would have continued acquiring supplies.

 

[DudleySmith]

That’s a neat idea, but Lee didn’t have the logistics to rampage across the northern states. He fought the war on a shoestring often only being kept from defeat by the provident capture of a Union supply depot or two. If he was ever cut off from his line of retreat back into Virginia his army would starve while trying to avoid the more numerous Union forces that could use the railroads for strategic mobility.

Like most armies, even the Union army, foraging is how most armies in those days stayed in the field while on the march in enemy territory. He wasn't likely to be cut off anytime soon, or he would have already been by the time he got to the Gettysburg region. His cavalry was already raiding pretty far north of him, one of the reasons it arrived late at Gettysburg.

 

[DudleySmith]

Except that the Union didn’t stop his retreat, so your point is meaningless. Had Lee rampaged across the north he would have continued acquiring supplies.

Armies on the march assign large units to foraging operations.

Foraging and Looting | Encyclopedia.com

Foraging and LootingThe practice of foraging by military personnel increased exponentially during the course of the American Civil War. At the outset of the conflict, Rebel and Yankee soldiers alike mostly viewed the civilian populations in North and South—and the property they owned—as firmly...

www.encyclopedia.com

Foraging and Looting​

The practice of foraging by military personnel increased exponentially during the course of the American Civil War. At the outset of the conflict, Rebel and Yankee soldiers alike mostly viewed the civilian populations in North and South—and the property they owned—as firmly outside the sphere of military action. As the war progressed, however, these restrictions on contact with civilians—some self-imposed on moral grounds, others in adherence to explicit military rules prohibiting foraging and looting—became frayed and in many cases were discarded altogether.

There are very important differences between foraging and looting. Foraging was sanctioned by the laws and customs of war, although it was approached with some squeamishness at the beginning of the war. Looting involved taking non-food items for non-military uses, and was sanctioned neither by the laws and customs of war nor by officers on either side. This gradual turn to foraging and looting was especially true of Union soldiers operating in the Confederate states, where most of the war was fought.

The Union was exporting record amounts of foodstuffs while letting its armies starve in the field and of course starving all those 'freed blacks' to death in contraband camps that looked like something out the Nazis' and Soviets' death camps.

 

[gipper]

Armies on the march assign large units to foraging operations.

Foraging and Looting | Encyclopedia.com

Foraging and LootingThe practice of foraging by military personnel increased exponentially during the course of the American Civil War. At the outset of the conflict, Rebel and Yankee soldiers alike mostly viewed the civilian populations in North and South—and the property they owned—as firmly...

www.encyclopedia.com

Foraging and Looting​

The practice of foraging by military personnel increased exponentially during the course of the American Civil War. At the outset of the conflict, Rebel and Yankee soldiers alike mostly viewed the civilian populations in North and South—and the property they owned—as firmly outside the sphere of military action. As the war progressed, however, these restrictions on contact with civilians—some self-imposed on moral grounds, others in adherence to explicit military rules prohibiting foraging and looting—became frayed and in many cases were discarded altogether.

There are very important differences between foraging and looting. Foraging was sanctioned by the laws and customs of war, although it was approached with some squeamishness at the beginning of the war. Looting involved taking non-food items for non-military uses, and was sanctioned neither by the laws and customs of war nor by officers on either side. This gradual turn to foraging and looting was especially true of Union soldiers operating in the Confederate states, where most of the war was fought.

Agreed.

What Sherman did in his infamous march to the sea was a war crime. Notice how our textbooks in government schools seldom speak of the crimes his army committed, marching through the south. He even stated he wanted to make Georgia howl.

Telegram of William T. Sherman to Ulysses S. Grant, October 9, 1864​

Title​

Telegram of William T. Sherman to Ulysses S. Grant, October 9, 1864

Description​

William T. Sherman, a major-general for the United States Army during the Civil War, sent this telegram to the head of the United States Army, General Ulysses S. Grant. The letter was sent from just outside of Atlanta, on October 9, 1864. Sherman discussed the practical difficulties in holding such land in the Georgia region with major Confederate military leaders like John Hood, Nathan Forrest and Joseph Wheeler in the area. Sherman particularly reiterated his belief that it was necessary to destroy roads, houses and “make Georgia howl,” as that was the most efficient military strategy. Food was not a worry either, as the Union Army could forage the state when needed. Sherman believed that destroying property and roads was necessary as the manpower it would take to occupy them would have been extraordinary, and foraging from citizens was necessary to supply the army, not a personal action. Many in the Confederacy objected to Sherman’s policies as illegitimate warfare. The main photo is of soldiers in Allatoona.
Telegram of William T. Sherman to Ulysses S. Grant, October 9, 1864 · Civil War Era NC

 

[DudleySmith]

The North didn`t have to return home. They were already home whether it be New Hampshire or South Carolina.

Ah, so you admit Lincoln, Sherman, Pope, and Grant were nasty low life war criminals. Thanks, we know that's why you deviants love them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SC and NH are both US. SC is subject to the federal government.

 

[August West]

That sounds imperialistic; you're saying that if you have the power to take something, it's yours, and you have the right to keep it. New Hampshire is New Hampshire and South Carolina is South Carolina; they are not the same; they could have been, but our founders chose to do it differently.

Are they 2 states in the United States of America? Yes, our slave raping founders chose to do it differently.

 

[Zincwarrior]

... as were the Confederates, Flash. The CSA leadership in the West were trash, and handled as such by Grant and Sherman and Thomas, etc.

One can make strong arguments that Thomas was the best commander of the war, a loyal Southerner.
Lee kept rolling 7s at Chancellorsville splitting and splitting his forces and then hitting from behind. He started to believe his own BS and made multiple stupid moves during the campaign, much less the battle itself. Had the Union been under the command of a bear like Grant, his entire army would have been rolled in the pursuit after, even if nearly wiped out the Union one.

 

[August West]

Wrong. Lee using guerilla tactics and avoiding major battles where he was always outmanned and unable to match Union artillery, could have prolonged the war and lead to Lincoln losing support. Plus the Euro powers might have intervened helping the South.

If you read history, often the weaker opponent wins wars. However they must use tactics that increase their chances of success. For example, the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.

In both cases, the losing team was playing a road game very far from their base. The American people grew tired of watching their sons coming home from a meaningless adventure in southeast Asia, in a box.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Wrong. Lee using guerilla tactics and avoiding major battles where he was always outmanned and unable to match Union artillery, could have prolonged the war and lead to Lincoln losing support. Plus the Euro powers might have intervened helping the South.

If you read history, often the weaker opponent wins wars. However they must use tactics that increase their chances of success. For example, the American Revolution and the Vietnam War.

That would have led to the utter destruction of the South.