Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidator
No, I disagree.
The north was war weary, but that's not the same as saying that armistice was going to break out.
Lincoln wins the 1864 election solidly against McClellan, who was for continuing the war even though the Democrat Party was for peace.
Sherman (under Grant's orders) broke the Confederacy with his March to the Sea in 1864. By then, the Confederacy was literally running out of men (and Generals -- they never really found a replacement for Stonewall). Sherman's forces were never in any real danger of rout or capture after the summer of 1864.
What was Grant's genius of strategy or tactics that couldn't have been applied by his peers? Giving official permission for Sherman to effect a scorched earth strategy? I think by the middle of 1864, many of the Union generals would have allowed it.
Hi Lapidor:
I disagree. To see this, you need to understand how the South lost the war.
First off, the number of Northern Generals who were completely defeated in battle is truly amazing. With the exception of Gettysburg, and perhaps Pea Ridge as well as Westport, both much smaller battles in the West (but still important) where Northern General Samuel Curtis proved victorious, what battles of any significance did a Northern General win. Yes, Antietam was a strategic victory for McClellan but a tactical draw, and the same can be said for Rosecrans at Murfreesboro (and he was soundly defeated at Chickamauga).
But a strange thing happened. Out of virtually nowhere, an unknown General Grant appeared and the South lost the West. Then Grant sent his top lieutenant General Sherman on to Atlanta and he took on the task of defeating Lee in Northern Virginia.
So what happens if Grant doesn't show up? My guess is that Vicksburg doesn't fall and there will be complete stalemate in the West to go along with the stalemate in the East, and who knows how many more generals Lincoln goes through, then Lincoln gets defeated in The Election of 1864.
You ask:
What was Grant's genius of strategy or tactics that couldn't have been applied by his peers?
I think a better question is how did Grant, someone who was considered a failure in much of his life before 1860, understand how to defeat the Confederacy when a whole bunch of other Union Generals didn't seem to have a clue?
And just off the top of my head, here's a quick list of Union Generals who were either badly defeated or proved to be worthless in other ways: Freemont, Halleck, McDowell, McClellan, Banks, Pope, Hooker, Burnside, Siegel, and Rosecrans.
Best wishes,
Mason