Huh, that’s interesting. But, I mean… what if the North had had top-level, quality leadership, as comparable to Robert E. Lee on the other side? Under such soicumstances (sorry, Curly Howard moment), couldn’t the war have been ended earlier, and more efficiently?
Lee is overrated, and lacked strategic vision. But it is possible that there could have been a quick ‘knockout’ blow in maybe the first year of the war, especially if First Bull Run went differently. It would be snuffing the fire before it reaches the trail of gasoline.
After that, though, both sides had retooled for a total war that neither of them truly understood. Sherman and Grant, interestingly, both did understand this strategic outlook from the start.
Interesting. Can you give me an instructive R.E.L. example? For my part, as someone who visited Gettysburg back in the day, Pickett’s (sp?) Charge seemed like a 100% disastrous military decision from every single angle. That said, maybe Lee was taxed, stressed and at the ‘end of his rope’ by that point. That would also make sense, methinks.
I’m with you on Grant, though, and it’s been nice to see historians do ‘volte-faces’ upon him, as the years go by. Sherman is trickier for me though, as… just a bad feeling about marching & torching, torching & marching, in general. Gods…
Also, there’s the fact (which I didn’t directly allude to in my mini-article) that the North essentially lost the post-ACW, which IMO has significantly lead directly to the current disaster in the States. The Andrew Johnson Blunder Years, or whatever.
Interesting. Can you give me an instructive R.E.L. example?
I could probably give you examples, except I don’t know what R.E.L. is.
For my part, as someone who visited Gettysburg back in the day, Pickett’s (sp?) Charge seemed like a 100% disastrous military decision from every single angle.
Oh, it absolutely was. Lee still remains lionized, though, because the Lost Cause narrative shifted the blame onto Pickett himself, whose greatest crime in the situation was being a Confederate soldier.
That said, maybe Lee was taxed, stressed and at the ‘end of his rope’ by that point. That would also make sense, methinks.
That too. But Longstreet warned him that it was a fool’s errand, and Lee insisted anyway.
I’m with you on Grant, though, and it’s been nice to see historians do ‘volte-faces’ upon him, as the years go by. Sherman is trickier for me though, as… just a bad feeling about marching & torching, torching & marching, in general. Gods…
Honestly, it’s not nearly as bad as the Lost Cause South attempts to portray it. Sherman’s overwhelmingly negative reputation in the South didn’t develop until Reconstruction was over and Lost Cause mythmaking began in earnest.
I’m reminded of an incident in his memoirs wherein he discusses a stop by happenstance at a plantation house along the road during his campaign. He talks about the wretchedness of the homes of the formerly enslaved folk, and the extensive structures of the plantation, without any indication that they were in danger at that moment.
He was then informed by an aide that they found out the house belonged to some Confederate government bigwig.
Sherman immediately claimed the main house as bivouac for him and his staff, ordered the plantation’s infrastructure and the house’s furniture to be burned for fuel to keep the troops warm, and broke into the good alcohol and had his men drink it all.
While we go a little hard on the burning the South meme, the fact is that Sherman’s main goal was speed, not destruction. It wasn’t a slow, methodical pillaging of the countryside. It was the world’s fastest infantry army, moving so quickly that Lincoln and Grant were out of contact with Sherman for over a month. Over everything, the desire was to take whatever could be useful for the march, which was mostly food, fuel, and clothing, and even then, at the end of it his troops were tattered and exhausted (though also immensely satisfied with their work, since it had very apparently shortened the war).
The main objects of destruction were cotton (which was useless to the army in its unrefined form and the South’s main dependency) and infrastructure like railroads, bridges, and telegraph lines (which the army also largely could not make use of, or found less useful than the enemy).
Civilians were often plundered, with food stores and livestock seized and houses sometimes ransacked for other useful goods (like clothes and shoes; and of course soldiers with sticky fingers claiming any jewelry light enough to be hidden from the prying eyes of officers), but actual burning or deliberate destruction of civilian property (other than cotton mills) is rare.
Lee is overrated, and lacked strategic vision. But it is possible that there could have been a quick ‘knockout’ blow in maybe the first year of the war, especially if First Bull Run went differently. It would be snuffing the fire before it reaches the trail of gasoline.
After that, though, both sides had retooled for a total war that neither of them truly understood. Sherman and Grant, interestingly, both did understand this strategic outlook from the start.
Interesting. Can you give me an instructive R.E.L. example? For my part, as someone who visited Gettysburg back in the day, Pickett’s (sp?) Charge seemed like a 100% disastrous military decision from every single angle. That said, maybe Lee was taxed, stressed and at the ‘end of his rope’ by that point. That would also make sense, methinks.
I’m with you on Grant, though, and it’s been nice to see historians do ‘volte-faces’ upon him, as the years go by. Sherman is trickier for me though, as… just a bad feeling about marching & torching, torching & marching, in general. Gods…
Also, there’s the fact (which I didn’t directly allude to in my mini-article) that the North essentially lost the post-ACW, which IMO has significantly lead directly to the current disaster in the States. The Andrew Johnson Blunder Years, or whatever.
I could probably give you examples, except I don’t know what R.E.L. is.
Oh, it absolutely was. Lee still remains lionized, though, because the Lost Cause narrative shifted the blame onto Pickett himself, whose greatest crime in the situation was being a Confederate soldier.
That too. But Longstreet warned him that it was a fool’s errand, and Lee insisted anyway.
Honestly, it’s not nearly as bad as the Lost Cause South attempts to portray it. Sherman’s overwhelmingly negative reputation in the South didn’t develop until Reconstruction was over and Lost Cause mythmaking began in earnest.
I’m reminded of an incident in his memoirs wherein he discusses a stop by happenstance at a plantation house along the road during his campaign. He talks about the wretchedness of the homes of the formerly enslaved folk, and the extensive structures of the plantation, without any indication that they were in danger at that moment.
He was then informed by an aide that they found out the house belonged to some Confederate government bigwig.
Sherman immediately claimed the main house as bivouac for him and his staff, ordered the plantation’s infrastructure and the house’s furniture to be burned for fuel to keep the troops warm, and broke into the good alcohol and had his men drink it all.
While we go a little hard on the burning the South meme, the fact is that Sherman’s main goal was speed, not destruction. It wasn’t a slow, methodical pillaging of the countryside. It was the world’s fastest infantry army, moving so quickly that Lincoln and Grant were out of contact with Sherman for over a month. Over everything, the desire was to take whatever could be useful for the march, which was mostly food, fuel, and clothing, and even then, at the end of it his troops were tattered and exhausted (though also immensely satisfied with their work, since it had very apparently shortened the war).
The main objects of destruction were cotton (which was useless to the army in its unrefined form and the South’s main dependency) and infrastructure like railroads, bridges, and telegraph lines (which the army also largely could not make use of, or found less useful than the enemy).
Civilians were often plundered, with food stores and livestock seized and houses sometimes ransacked for other useful goods (like clothes and shoes; and of course soldiers with sticky fingers claiming any jewelry light enough to be hidden from the prying eyes of officers), but actual burning or deliberate destruction of civilian property (other than cotton mills) is rare.
Robert E. Lee
Of course not. How could it possibly be, really? Fucking shameless, hypocritical assholes. But yes, understood.
Sorry… I just despise slavers, and hate the South when it comes to these issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFkwcPJRSUc