Old Contemptibles | 16 May 2018 10:20 a.m. PST |
Vicksburg Losing New Orleans Third day of Gettysburg Fort Donaldson Nashville Losing Atlanta Death of Stonewall Jackson |
corzin | 17 May 2018 6:44 a.m. PST |
wen ever i see someone say Chancellorsville was Lee's "greatest victory" I wan to remind people how much of a disaster it was. It was the battle that i think finished the ANV as a way to win the war. My vote, and i am not being Snarky, is first Manassas. By winning like they did, they got the worst possible outcome. If they lose, the wars over in 6 months and the south gets chastised but everyone kinds of moves on in a few years, slavery still lasts 30 or so more years and life goes on. If they South won big, surround washington. Then really good things happen for the South but instead the positions just harden and we get what we got. |
donlowry | 17 May 2018 8:24 a.m. PST |
You're correct that Chancellorsville was not a great victory, but it WAS a very clever bit of maneuvering. |
Old Pete | 17 May 2018 8:37 a.m. PST |
First week in July 1863 a total disaster for the Confederacy. |
ChrisBrantley | 19 May 2018 1:07 p.m. PST |
If you use the Oxford/Merriam-Webster definitions of "disaster" which emphasizes an event or outcome that is sudden, calamitous and resulting in great loss, consequence or strategic outcome…then I'd offer: Cedar Creek Lookout Mountain Five Forks I'd add Vicksburg except for the missing element of suddenness or unexpectedness. Another way to ask the question could be, what battles did the South lose that they should have won? Shiloh? |
donlowry | 20 May 2018 8:53 a.m. PST |
not Lookout Mountain so much as Missionary Ridge (the one near Chattanooga, not Gettysburg). |
deadhead | 21 May 2018 12:12 p.m. PST |
I know very little indeed about ACW and only entered this because of the fascinating title. I have stood on Little Round Top and visited Richmond and many a field of ACW…. But my overriding impression was that the greatest disaster was that the Union never lost the will to fight on, not just one single event that doomed the Confederacy. I will never understand that. WWII, the USA did have to fight in the West for self defence (UK spelling), whatever Lindbergh said, but could have easily come to some "understanding" with the Empire of Japan. Who would have imagined the USA to be prepared to deliberately accept the losses inevitably involved on the beaches of Saipan and Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Many other similar examples, including GB and the Empire in 1940, with no Allies and the obvious, commonsense thing, is to reach some peace agreement, with Germany, that preserves your homeland. The Union fought on, despite so many repeated battlefield reverses. Huge casualty figures early in the war. OK, they had advantages in industry, communications and technology, foreign governments supporting you (up to a point), sheer numbers did not hurt either. But why fight on for what is basically a principle? Yet the Union will to fight on was what made the difference. Bit like a country in SE Asia, that lost every single pitched battle against the US Army, but simply kept going……..Anyone ever read "Unheralded Victory", which describes the US Army achievements in that SE Asian land? Unless you break the will to fight on, you cannot win without occupying every single last acre of ground (OK Berlin 1945, but that is rare) The war was not lost on any one battlefield. It was lost (won) in Washington DC and in the ballot box of the Northern States. Bad news for wargamers who throw dice. Dressed in Grey, you cannot win. You can keep them out, up to a point. But you cannot invade them realistically. So the war will always be on your territory……….Can you convince them that this not worth it? History shows that a nation angered will fight on against all logic. |
Gunfreak | 21 May 2018 3:30 p.m. PST |
Well it was only in the eastern theater the union suffered major set backs. In the West the union just kept slowly pushing south and East. Even if the union kept bungling after Gettysburg and didn't have Grant to stabilize at theater. Sherman would still take Atlanta, March to the sea and then Georgia. And finally linking up with the army of the potomac. At that price point it would be over. The war was won in the west, the East just gave wargamers lots of battles and kept the a few of the south's armies busy. |
donlowry | 22 May 2018 8:45 a.m. PST |
Porter Alexander, Longstreet's artilleryman, said the war was lost when Grant crossed the James River without Lee knowing it: "Thus the last and perhaps the best, chances of Confederate success were not lost in the repulse at Gettysburg, nor in any combat of arms. They were lost during three days of lying in camp, believing that Grant was hemmed in by the broad part of the James below City Point, and had nowhere to go but to come and attack us." Military Memoirs of a Confederate, p. 547. That, of course, is the Eastern point of view. And I agree with you that the war was won in the West, and that the successes there kept up Union morale enough to keep the war going and re-elect Lincoln. But without Grant keeping Lee busy, Confederate troops might have again been sent west to change the course of things there (as they had at Chickamauga). |
Trajanus | 22 May 2018 9:55 a.m. PST |
But without Grant keeping Lee busy, Confederate troops might have again been sent west to change the course of things there (as they had at Chickamauga). Maybe but I've never been sure just quite how they managed it for Chickamauga. I can't imagine the Union would have been that helpful a second time, Grant or no Grant. There just weren't enough Confederates to go round. |
Bill N | 22 May 2018 11:39 a.m. PST |
Maybe but I've never been sure just quite how they managed it for Chickamauga. It helped that the U.S. army was in almost as bad a shape as the Confederates after Gettysburg. It also helped that Meade was determined not to let Lee beat him. Even after dispatching Hooker's troops Meade's army was almost twice as large as Lee's. Yet when Lee took the strategic offensive Meade chose to fall back to the fortified position around Centreville. |
Trajanus | 22 May 2018 2:27 p.m. PST |
All true. Perhaps we should open another thread on "Confederate's Biggest Gambles" moving Longstreet West could be the opening bid! 😀 |
donlowry | 22 May 2018 8:00 p.m. PST |
Maybe but I've never been sure just quite how they managed it for Chickamauga. After Gettysburg, Meade was, at first, under orders not to cross the Rappahannock, and later the Rapidan. (Although this was eventually allowed, in order to keep Lee from sending more troops to Bragg.) Also, he was not allowed to change his base to Aquia Creek, as Grant did during his overland campaign. Of course, Lee didn't know any of this. But the Confederates certainly sensed a lack of aggressiveness in the AoP. |
Trajanus | 23 May 2018 1:42 a.m. PST |
There's a certain irony where Meade is concerned that having railed against him for not running Lee to ground "the powers that be" then tied him down and replaced him. From that one can only deduce that Lincoln, or whoever, never really had total confidence in his ability. |
donlowry | 24 May 2018 9:36 a.m. PST |
Once Lee escaped back across the Potomac, Lincoln figured that the chances of doing much damage to Lee's army were minimal, and took the pressure off of Meade -- in fact, put the brakes on until it was positively known that Lee had sent divisions to the West. |
donlowry | 25 May 2018 12:46 p.m. PST |
Yet when Lee took the strategic offensive Meade chose to fall back to the fortified position around Centreville. Meade wasn't getting good, timely information from his cavalry about where Lee was and what he was up to -- whether aiming for Meade's flank, his rear, or heading for the Shenandoah Valley. He played it safe. |
Old Contemptibles | 28 May 2018 3:52 a.m. PST |
Sorry, but Chancellorsville was Lee's greatest victory. Isn't "a clever bit of maneuvering" is the definition of a great victory. "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." – Sun Tzu Lee's masterpiece was Antietam. |
donlowry | 28 May 2018 9:14 a.m. PST |
Isn't "a clever bit of maneuvering" is the definition of a great victory. Not necessarily. You also have to consider the results. Chancellorsville did not win the war; it did not destroy the Army of the Potomac; it didn't even seriously damage it. All it did was frustrate Hooker's clever plan. If you judge by what was achieved: Lee's greatest victory was, I would say, either the 7 Days (driving McClellan away from Richmond) or 2nd Bull Run (driving Pope into the defenses of Washington). Although even these only frustrated Union offensives. Lee never achieved a decisive victory. |
Tyler326 | 28 May 2018 11:03 a.m. PST |
As POTUS Underwood ( House of Cards) said: " Don't start a war you know you can't win" … So FT Sumter! |
steve1865 | 28 May 2018 2:37 p.m. PST |
DEadHead: Look at WW2. The Russians fought on even though they had tremendous losses. |
firstvarty1979 | 01 Jun 2018 7:25 p.m. PST |
I'm surprised that no has mentioned the Battle of Shiloh, specifically the 2nd day of the battle. |
Old Pete | 02 Jun 2018 2:14 p.m. PST |
Bragg commanding the Army of Tennessee. |
xanthippus | 07 Aug 2018 6:19 p.m. PST |
the loss of New Orleans ended all hope for a defendable Confederate nation. C |
gamer1 | 08 Aug 2018 1:58 p.m. PST |
As one other mentioned I think of First Bull Run. It was a perfect example of knowing how to win a battle but not a war. IF the south had pushed on/been able to,etc, taken Washington, Lincoln very well could have lost the political and public support he needed to keep fighting. After all, as many have mentioned the northern population was very divided about if going to war was worth it. Just thinking outside the box a little. The irony I wonder is that even if the south had "won". Eventually economics would have force slavery out of practice and possible at some point the south might have rejoined the Union? Possible, interesting to ask what chain of event could have made it happen??? |
Aspern1809 | 08 Aug 2018 6:11 p.m. PST |
Vicksburg & Franklin / Nashville Campaign |
donlowry | 08 Aug 2018 7:05 p.m. PST |
and possible at some point the south might have rejoined the Union? I think it more likely that both countries would have continued to unravel. Once secession became acceptable, someone was bound to try it again whenever regional disagreements became strong enough. (Incidentally, there are movements now in California to 1. secede, and/or 2. split into 3 states. Neither is likely to happen, but if secession was a proven option, who knows?) |
gamer1 | 09 Aug 2018 7:13 a.m. PST |
Very good point and very logical. I did see a short one time that covered this "what if" and it predicted that what is now the USA would have instead been "balkanized" and ended up being 5-7 smaller countries. |
Lee494 | 11 Aug 2018 8:30 a.m. PST |
Gettysburg. While Vicksburg was a critical loss Lee's ANV was the only southern army capable of causing enough damage to gain foreign recognition which I believe was the only path to victory. After Gettysburg it was no longer capable of decisive offensives which could have won the war. |
donlowry | 12 Aug 2018 9:16 a.m. PST |
After Gettysburg it was no longer capable of decisive offensives which could have won the war. I doubt that it ever was. |