View single post by Michael C. Hardy
 Posted: Sun Feb 10th, 2008 10:37 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Michael C. Hardy

Joined: Tue Sep 25th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 48

  back to top

I would argue that Lee didn't control the strategy, since he was the one always rushing around trying to block Grant's next maneuver. Unless, of course, you want to consider that to be a strategy. Seems to me it's more a case of Grant forcing Lee's hand.

I whole heartly agree with that. Lee was a reactionary general. The Federals did something, and Lee reacted to what the Federals did, usually with great success. I’ve said that (sometimes not very loudly) for many years. Jackson, on the other hand, was a tactician. He was able to create opportunities where at times, they do not exist.

Someone wrote earlier about Grant having just as good a success against Lee in 1862. That, I most respectfully disagree with. Grant would have been facing the Lee, Jackson, Longstreet combination. I think it is most evident that the kind of mistakes that Grant committed (like along the North Anna River) would have been exploited fully had Lee not been sick, Jackson dead, and Longstreet wounded. Also, if there is no McClellan, who creates the AofP?

Also, someone wrote that Grant did in 11 months what the others did not accomplish in three years. I believe the only reason Grant accomplished what he did in eleven months was because of what the other Federal generals did those three years: they wore the ANV down to a shell of its former self. And a lot of that blame also falls on Lee, for such attacks like Malvern Hill and Gettysburg.

 Close Window