View single post by Hellcat
 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 06:16 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ok, Looking at the Confederate percentages (again rounding anything over .5 percent up and anything under down)

Seven Pines: 15%

Seven Days: 20% to 25%

South Mountain: 15%

Anteitam: 26% to 39%

Fredericksburg: 7% to 9%

Chancellorsville: 21% to 22%

Cold Harbor: 4%

Now the arguement as I followed it is that compared to some of the other generals, Hooker, Grant, and Burnside, McClellan looses fewer troops and preforms better while they are out preformed. Chancellorsville then should have been McClellan. But While Hooker looses the battle he actually inflicts more casualties than he takes. Hooker was looking at a 13% to 15% casualty rate, he's inflicting a 21 to 22% casualty rate. That's putting him on par with McClellan during the Seven Days, with McClellan only slightly edging him out in terms of casualties inflicted while slightly loosing to him in terms of casualties taken.

pender wrote:
What's your's and Hellcats opinion on why Lee would say this? It is always said at Sharpsburg McClellan could of finished Lee. But before 1865 could this be said of any other union general except maybe Meade after Gettysburg?

Pender


Why would Lee say it? Who would you call your best opponent. Someone you were more likely to beat because they were hesitant, someone who sent their troops against your heavily fortified position, or someone who even when they were defeated they just changed direction and kept going forward? Lee was a damn good General, in my opinion one of the best of the war, if not the best. But even a good general is going to want to fight a more hesitant opponent who over estimates their opponent to the point where they take too long to bring up their full force.

Burnside was a blood bath for Lee. He just sent his troops in to die rather than pull back when it should have become obvious that he couldn't take Lee. He was too far away for his atillery to do any good in supporting the infantry and it was as if he trusted too much that he could just hammer Lee's fortified position into submission

And Grant was more likely to loose to Lee. But instead of simply pulling back and giving both sides a chance to breath while he planned his next campaign Grant just seemed to say "Ok, let's turn to the left and keep going," or "Hmmm, guess it time to go to the right." Grant waged a war of attrition against Lee by keeping the pressure up.

As I've understood things Hooker was more Jackson's victory than Lee's per se. I'd understood that it was Jackson's plan that they were using and that Lee was to use the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia to hold Hooker's attention while Jackson took his Corps and attacked Hooker's "protected flank." Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not that would likely have been part of Lee's view on Hooker. Of course the other thing is Hooker cost Lee is right arm, aka Jackson, and I doubt Lee was too pleased about that or that he'd want to face Hooker again and possibly loose his left arm. Longstreet.

McClellan had to be prodded to fight at times. Even then he moved hesitantly. And as has been pointed out it's been said that McCleallan survived Seven Pines thanks to confusion of the Confederate forces and his subordinate generals. Now I doubt confusion played a big role in most of his battles, but you have to wonder just how much of any generals successes go to their subordinates actions in the field.

Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 06:27 am by Hellcat

 Close Window