Why would Jefferson have called slavery a “peculiar institution” when it has been practiced since Man walked on Earth and continues to this day? It wasn’t peculiar then; it’s not peculiar now. It’s inhumane, but that’s not the same thing.
Thanks for you efforts in compiling this information. The Civil War has always fascinated me. I did a 6 week trip visiting the major battlefields in 2020. Your facts are really interesting.
one also must take into consideration that Grant was on the offensive always and Lee was very much fighting a defensive war from behind fixed fortifications!!! strategy at that time determined that a 3-1 numerical advantage for the attacking army to have any chance of success!
Reblogged this on Ulysses S. Grant Revealed and commented:
This is a great post from Andy Lucien based on his outreach to Ulysses S. Grant living historian, Dr. Curt Fields: “Top 5 Ulysses S. Grant Books – Dr. Curt Fields Interview”
Après lecture, une chose est à retenir, malgré le manque de tout, je dis bien de tout, le sud a fait plus mal au nord que le nord sur le sud, l’intelligence militaire était au sud.
Assuming 100% true in the article, you missed the KEY fact. Grant was remembered for bringing back Total War when Europe abandoned that after the Thirty Years War, 200 years before. He authorized Sherman’s March to the Sea which was 100 mile wide civilian property destruction. Then the Yankees left and who do you think the southern civilians blamed? That caused Jim Crow. Grant could have held the supply lines instead.
“Grant attacked Pemberton at Grenada while Sherman attempted to lead an amphibious operation from Memphis to Vicksburg.”
Grant never attacked Pemberton at Grenada, and attacking Pemberton at Grenada was not part of his plan. In fact, the Chickasaw Bayou Campaign was never part of Grant’s plan to begin with. Lincoln, McClernand, and Halleck conspired to subvert Grant’s plan to take Jackson from the north, and instead Halleck ordered Grant to send Sherman south on the river for the direct assault at Vicksburg. Grant reluctantly complied, effectively ending his overland campaign.
“However, not receiving the support from Grant he had expected, Sherman was defeated on December 29.”
There was never any plan for Grant to support Sherman’s attack. Grant was left with too few men to do anything more than present a facade of activity and wait to see how Sherman fared. If anything, the plan was for Sherman to send support to Grant if he succeeded, because Grant planned to proceed south only if Pemberton retreated in the direction of Vicksburg, and Sherman would have needed to provide supplies and transports via the Yazoo in that eventuality
Fits-John Porter was a Union Corps commander at this battle. McClellan wanted him to attack, but he refused, claiming that his corps was needed to protect the Union when Lee defeated the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Also, if Burside’s attack across the creek had not been delayed, his troops would have probably defeated the confederates before Hill arrived.
seriously. this is one of most error filled articles I read in a long time. Nothing in this attack was new to anyone how have actually read military history.
Using attack columns was normal. Both on the battlefield and especially when attacking a fortified position.
Just because civil war was badly trained and mostly used lines, do not mean that the use of columns was new. The actual drill books used by both sides have chapter after chapter on how to use do them..
Hogwash. there was nothing total about what grant and Sherman did.
If you think “hard war” was abandoned after the 30 year war, you clearly never read the first thing about the Napoleonic wars.
The East was the key Theater of Operations in the CW/WBTS. Other Theaters and objectives were important, but the East, alone, would determine the winner. The most formidable armed forces that either side could field were allotted there. The intertwined military and political significance of this area was what would prompt Britain and Europe to recognise/intervene, or abstain from either of these.
If one side was able to capture and hold the other’s political capital, (Richmond/Washington), it would have meant that the defending side was unable to field a successful resistance to the other, (in other words, the victor would have destroyed any effective means to resist them).
I guess I’d point out that the war was really won in the western theater. And also that Richmond fell only after Grant had conducted a war of attrition against Lee’s army.
Interesting article. My problem with wealthy philanthropists is they make their money off exploited labor and ease their guilt and satisfy their vanity with projects that should be decided by the public with fair taxes that should be levied upon them.
Why would Jefferson have called slavery a “peculiar institution” when it has been practiced since Man walked on Earth and continues to this day? It wasn’t peculiar then; it’s not peculiar now. It’s inhumane, but that’s not the same thing.
Great information in this article. Sometimes I get confused with all the legislation.
Thanks for you efforts in compiling this information. The Civil War has always fascinated me. I did a 6 week trip visiting the major battlefields in 2020. Your facts are really interesting.
Well done!
Thank you!
one also must take into consideration that Grant was on the offensive always and Lee was very much fighting a defensive war from behind fixed fortifications!!! strategy at that time determined that a 3-1 numerical advantage for the attacking army to have any chance of success!
Very interesting. Thank you for posting.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed!
Reblogged this on Ulysses S. Grant Revealed and commented:
This is a great post from Andy Lucien based on his outreach to Ulysses S. Grant living historian, Dr. Curt Fields: “Top 5 Ulysses S. Grant Books – Dr. Curt Fields Interview”
Thank you for sharing!
Après lecture, une chose est à retenir, malgré le manque de tout, je dis bien de tout, le sud a fait plus mal au nord que le nord sur le sud, l’intelligence militaire était au sud.
Assuming 100% true in the article, you missed the KEY fact. Grant was remembered for bringing back Total War when Europe abandoned that after the Thirty Years War, 200 years before. He authorized Sherman’s March to the Sea which was 100 mile wide civilian property destruction. Then the Yankees left and who do you think the southern civilians blamed? That caused Jim Crow. Grant could have held the supply lines instead.
“Grant attacked Pemberton at Grenada while Sherman attempted to lead an amphibious operation from Memphis to Vicksburg.”
Grant never attacked Pemberton at Grenada, and attacking Pemberton at Grenada was not part of his plan. In fact, the Chickasaw Bayou Campaign was never part of Grant’s plan to begin with. Lincoln, McClernand, and Halleck conspired to subvert Grant’s plan to take Jackson from the north, and instead Halleck ordered Grant to send Sherman south on the river for the direct assault at Vicksburg. Grant reluctantly complied, effectively ending his overland campaign.
“However, not receiving the support from Grant he had expected, Sherman was defeated on December 29.”
There was never any plan for Grant to support Sherman’s attack. Grant was left with too few men to do anything more than present a facade of activity and wait to see how Sherman fared. If anything, the plan was for Sherman to send support to Grant if he succeeded, because Grant planned to proceed south only if Pemberton retreated in the direction of Vicksburg, and Sherman would have needed to provide supplies and transports via the Yazoo in that eventuality
I take strong exception to his point that the Emmitsburg Road fence was down when Picketts division approached it. That is blatantly untrue.
Fits-John Porter was a Union Corps commander at this battle. McClellan wanted him to attack, but he refused, claiming that his corps was needed to protect the Union when Lee defeated the rest of the Army of the Potomac. Also, if Burside’s attack across the creek had not been delayed, his troops would have probably defeated the confederates before Hill arrived.
AMAZING
seriously. this is one of most error filled articles I read in a long time. Nothing in this attack was new to anyone how have actually read military history.
Using attack columns was normal. Both on the battlefield and especially when attacking a fortified position.
Just because civil war was badly trained and mostly used lines, do not mean that the use of columns was new. The actual drill books used by both sides have chapter after chapter on how to use do them..
Hogwash. there was nothing total about what grant and Sherman did.
If you think “hard war” was abandoned after the 30 year war, you clearly never read the first thing about the Napoleonic wars.
The East was the key Theater of Operations in the CW/WBTS. Other Theaters and objectives were important, but the East, alone, would determine the winner. The most formidable armed forces that either side could field were allotted there. The intertwined military and political significance of this area was what would prompt Britain and Europe to recognise/intervene, or abstain from either of these.
If one side was able to capture and hold the other’s political capital, (Richmond/Washington), it would have meant that the defending side was unable to field a successful resistance to the other, (in other words, the victor would have destroyed any effective means to resist them).
A good overall summary.
I guess I’d point out that the war was really won in the western theater. And also that Richmond fell only after Grant had conducted a war of attrition against Lee’s army.
Interesting account of an unfamiliar battle to me.
Well organized!!
Interesting article. My problem with wealthy philanthropists is they make their money off exploited labor and ease their guilt and satisfy their vanity with projects that should be decided by the public with fair taxes that should be levied upon them.
Well written and interesting to read. Thank you.