American Civil War

[Gil R.]

I think Grant's "genius" was more strategic and operational than tactical. What he did in the Vicksburg Campaign is a perfect example of this. As a tactician he was certainly quite good, but not the equal of Forrest or Jackson -- neither of whom he ever had to face (if you exclude Fort Donelson, where Forrest wasn't in command).

I agree that the Ken Burns documentary is very well done, but it's disappointingly thin when it comes to battles. When we began working on "Forge of Freedom" one of the first things I did was begin to watch my old recordings of it, and after a few episodes I stopped watching because I was learning *nothing* that would help in the design of a strategic+tactical wargame. The documentary, like the recent WWII one, is much more about what it was like to live through the Civil War than a detailed analysis of how the war was fought and why particular battles were lost and won. THAT documentary, to my knowledge, has never been made.

[madgamer2]

the only one I can think of is an early battle in the valley. T.Jackson with a Division knew a whole union Corps was marching directly at him. He put his Division in attack order and when the Union Commander saw a single Division attacking he believed that it was the vanguard of a much larger force. This is sound thinking after all no Division would attack a whole Union corps. The result was a union retreat. Good or bad Jackson was the most interesting Leader in the whole war.

Madgamer

[madgamer2]

There are those who would say you are totally wrong about slavery but I am not one of them. The basic cause had more to do with states rights. The issue of free vs. slave states entering the union was a background issue.
The south had seen the writing on the wall concerning slavery but was more insistent that states be allowed to deal more with there own problems while the north
was a mor central government . It was the North that made slavery an issue after the victory at Antietam
Slavery w to the Civil War is like 0xygen is to a fire. It does not start the fire but there is no fire without it.

Madgamer

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

The basic cause had more to do with states rights.

For those not well-versed in USA history, it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Northern troops had no interest, whatsoever, in abolition.

One hundred years later, white residents of Boston rioted when Federal courts ordered their schools desegregated based on the city's de facto seperation of the races.

Funny how particulars get lost in the interpretation.

As an alternative frame of reference, I'd encourage our readers to look at the situation, circa 1861, through the prism of an ethnic minority, the Welsh, Scots or Irish, confronted with domination by a Medieval England.

The abomomination that was slavery, notwithstanding, there's not a dime's worth of difference.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[sabre1]

Dave,

IIRC Chesty Puller carried Lee's Lieutenants with him through most of his campaigns.

[sabre1]

If I also recall, Freeman did a series of books on George Washington.

[Arsan]

Hi

I bought Shelby Foote Trilogy from Amazon USA. Much more cheaper than on Amazon UK. [;)]
The three books on a box cost less than 50 bucks. The sama than one book on the UK
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrati ... 849&sr=8-2

But i agree with others that its not the best as a first read on the ACW.
I read it after McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom i can recommend the later as an excellent introduction.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedo ... =pd_cp_b_2
Footes's is a great read and very detailed about battles, campaigns, personalities and anecdotes. But i think is wrote for American readers who already know the "basics" of teh war.
But to understand the causes of the war and the complete big picture (political, economics, military...) McPhersons is much better.

Regarding the slavery issues... in my humble opinion i would say certainly the war wasn't fought to liberate the slaves. That came almost as an afterthought.
But it doesn't mean slavery was not one of the main causes of the conflict, as the institution was at the root of the difference between north and south that caused the secession: different economic systems, different and conflicting interests, different "ways of life"...

Cheers!

[killroyishere]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

US Civil war is a subject I've never had much interest in. The only game I've ever played and liked from the era was Yaquinto's "Ironclads". Just something about the whole era evades my interest.

That's what I've always thought about British history. Though I do love a good game of American Revolution games and The War of 1812 and Johnny Horton songs.

[JudgeDredd]

ok - ordered Battle Cry of Freedom from the library

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ok - ordered Battle Cry of Freedom from the library

Good luck, JD. I always enjoy the jumping off point on another little historical research project. Have fun with it, and try not to be influenced by the drivel we forum idiots spew out on various subjects (like slavery) when any convenient excuse presents itself.

I mean, people here are like Pavlov's dogs. Anybody who starts a nice little thread asking for some help in finding sources of information always gets salivated on with paragraph after paragraph of ridiculous, unsupported assertions.

So, as I said before - you be the judge. I suggest, too, that you peruse that library for a good text on the foundations of American history and the early decades of nationhood. It really helps put all the social aspects of the conflict in perspective. I don't recommend such works by name and author, as that may lead the well-meaning scholar to overlook other fine works that he would otherwise have discovered on his own.

[Capt. Harlock]

There are those who would say you are totally wrong about slavery but I am not one of them. The basic cause had more to do with states rights. The issue of free vs. slave states entering the union was a background issue.
The south had seen the writing on the wall concerning slavery but was more insistent that states be allowed to deal more with there own problems while the north
was a mor central government .

I must respectfully but firmly disagree. But what really matters is what the people at the time said themselves. I've put together a PowerPoint file (sometime I need to convert it to Acrobat) that I think does a fair job of showing how the conflict slowly came to a head.

[Greybriar]

Here we go again. 

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

Here we go again. 

yah. And this time with a freakin' PowerPoint presentation. What next? Screenies of twitter messages?

But, hey! Maybe we'll all get the obligatory accompanying printout that is nothing more than a hard copy of the PowerPoint frames. That would be good for everybody who can't live without a printed manual.

"Bullsh1t Bingo," anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

[ezzler]

Battle cry of freedom got me interested. A superb one volume explanation of the war and its causes. There was a history series looking at Grant called Great commanders made in the UK a while back. It was a crock. It showed the wilderness campaigns, Grant's full frontal assaults without explanation. The viewer was left wondering why the narrator said Grant was a great general. Well, he was. But let McPherson tell you why.

There is a fiction book by the journalist Tom Wicker called unto this hour. It covers second Manassas and the portrayal of Jackson and the fictional soldiers is brilliant. Lincoln is drawn very well too, hunched in his telegraph office waiting for news. It can be picked up for little money and will wet your appetite for the historical works.

[Crimguy]

ORIGINAL: Dave Briggs

Indeed, Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" is excellent. I would also suggest Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Leutenants". An excellent three volume set that gives an unique perspective of command during the American Civil War. The hardbound set is expensive but I have seen softbound editions also. Another good book is "How the North Won", but for the life of me I can't remember the authors names. Bruce Catton's (sp?) books are also classic reading.

Freeman and Foote are my two favorites. I'm looking for a full copy of Freeman's Lee (because it will look awesome on the bookshelf!).

Regarding Grant, I think there is some truth in the notion that the Union generals believed the South was on the verge of breaking, and that the North's will to fight was teetering as well. Thus the desire to hit them whenever they had them in their sights. By this stage in the war, there could be little doubt as to the numerical superiority of the Army of the Potomic, and it was becoming evident throughout 1864 that Lee was running short of offensive options.

[Crimguy]

Powerpoint. That's geekery to a new degree. Awesome!

Question for the brits out there: Does that qualify a person to be an anorak?

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

There are those who would say you are totally wrong about slavery but I am not one of them. The basic cause had more to do with states rights. The issue of free vs. slave states entering the union was a background issue.
The south had seen the writing on the wall concerning slavery but was more insistent that states be allowed to deal more with there own problems while the north
was a mor central government .

I must respectfully but firmly disagree. But what really matters is what the people at the time said themselves. I've put together a PowerPoint file (sometime I need to convert it to Acrobat) that I think does a fair job of showing how the conflict slowly came to a head.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: sabre1

If I also recall, Freeman did a series of books on George Washington.

Unfortunatly these are out of print and damn near impossible to find. I have tried for going on three years now and you pretty much have to do it volume by volume at $100-150 each (there are seven). A complete set is a very very rare find and you can expect to pay upwards of $800-1000.

Fortunatly my highschool had a first edition set given to the school by one of its students who graduated in the 1930s. I spent November and December of my senior year reading all seven volumes and then I read R.E. Lee and Lees Lts. in the spring.
I have tried since them to get my hands on the complete set with little success. Lee's Lt. are still in print AFAIK and easy to find. R.E. Lee is also somewhat easy to find at a good price. I purchased them from AbeBooks.com and mind were a first edition set from a estate in Virginia given to a library and then sold through the website.

I consider Washington to be Freemans best work and that is saying something considering he is probably the greatest ACW writer and won two Pulitzers.

[Fallschirmjager]

Now more on subject. I do not think Grant is what I would label a great commander. However his greatest attribute was being able to manage a army and a war at the macro level. He understood that the United States had a decided advantage in how many warm bodies it could put in uniform. Up until that time no union commander had dared try the tactic of simple sledgehammer blows to bleed down the southern army.
Grant in the west was also excellent at managing war from a macro perspective in how he used combined arms assaults by using his land army along with the river navy to rapidly gobble up bits of the Mississippi. Again at Vickburg he did not show much tactical flair but again used the United States superior resources and combined arms to achieve a near decisive result.

As far as worst charges of the war. I would have to say the final day at Cold Harbor takes the win. Union casulties were over 3,000 in the first 15 minutes and almost 7,000 by the end of the day.

Hood at Franklin would also have to almost come in as a tie. Hood managed to destroy his army and the western theater in a single day. The leadership in the west was perhaps the most serious casulty. Five generals died on the field or afterwards and a further 10 were captured or seriously wounded. 15 generals and 53 regimental commanders were casulties in a single day. At that point the war in the west was all but over.

[Capt. Harlock]

"Bullsh1t Bingo," anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

I'll bite -- what did you find that I got wrong?

[Skipjack_]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Grant had been trying to flank Lee since the opening of the 1864 campaign. Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor were all a part of that strategy. Casualty wise (Cold Harbor) was in the same ballpark as Lee at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg (Pickett's charge), both as pointless as Cold Harbor. For whatever reason Lee's failures never seem to stick to him but Grant's do.

Excellent point. Under Gen. Lee the Army of Northern Virginia suffered over 100,000 casualties in his first year in command (losses the CSA could ill afford), but he is never referred to as a butcher. The reality is this was a war where the defender held virtually every advantage over the attacker. Only those Generals who could grasp the strategic considerations of supply and maneuver managed to succeed.

My theory - just focus on the combat aspects of the war - GG's War between the states works for me [8D]. My take on the civil war is it greatly asserted the Federal Government's power over the state - preserving the union was the rallying cry, but at what cost [:(]

My suggestion - tour the battlefields in Pennsylvania and Virginia - Gettysburg, Bull Run, Antietam - if you get the chance. They are full of history and you may run into passionate Yanks and Rebs who will give you their sides of the story. One summer a buddy of mine and I did so (retracing as much history of the Iron Brigade as we could, being members of the 32nd Bde - Wisconsin National Guard, which has units that trace their history back to it's regiments). We ran into someone (apparently forgeign, perhaps from the Middle East) who was on Little Round Top and amazed why a fight erupted for it. As we gave the Union side of the story a Southerner interjected the other side - I'm glad he didn't have a rifled musket