The Myth of the Kindly General Lee [W: 473]

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Third Battle of Petersburg - April 2, 1865 at the end of the 292-day Richmond–Petersburg Campaign .

292 days because Meade failed.

At West Point and in Army Senior Rotc programs at university there were Two Battles of Petersburg. Not three. USMA curriculum indicates four occurrences: Two Battles of Petersburg followed by the Breakthrough at Petersburg and Grant's Pursuit of Lee to Appomattox. The guy who wrote your stuff for Wiki is among a number who like the three battle scenario and nomenclature. Maybe three battles sound better to the Conservatifederates.

All the same the guy who wrote in Wiki about the Appomattox Campaign got it right, to include the overlap dates of the two separate campaigns. Lee simply got cornered after he fled Petersburg so Lee had to raise his hands high over his head because of it. Grant btw soon afterward became the first four-star general of the American armed forces.

The Appomattox Campaign was a series of American Civil War battles fought March 29 – April 9, 1865 in Virginia that concluded with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to the Union Army under the overall command of Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant.

As the Richmond–Petersburg Campaign (also known as the Siege of Petersburg) ended, Lee's army was outnumbered and exhausted from a winter of trench warfare over an approximately 40 mi (64 km) front,[notes 1] numerous battles, disease, hunger and desertion.[6] Grant's well-equipped and well-fed army was growing in strength. On March 29, 1865, the Union Army began an offensive that stretched and broke the Confederate defenses southwest of Petersburg and cut their supply lines to Petersburg and the Confederate capital of Richmond. Union victories at the Battle of Five Forks on April 1, 1865 and the Third Battle of Petersburg, often called the Breakthrough at Petersburg, on April 2, 1865, opened Petersburg and Richmond to imminent capture. Lee ordered the evacuation of Confederate forces from both Petersburg and Richmond on the night of April 2–3 before Grant's army could cut off any escape. Confederate government leaders also fled west from Richmond that night.

The Confederates marched west, heading toward Danville, Virginia. Grant's Union Army pursued Lee's fleeing Confederates relentlessly. During the next week, the Union troops fought a series of battles with Confederate units, cut off or destroyed Confederate supplies and blocked their paths to the south and ultimately to the west. Soon cornered, short of food and supplies and outnumbered, Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appomattox_Campaign

It was however the beginning of enshrining Confederate generals in myth and legend beginning with Robert E. Lee --the guy who lost his big war.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
The thread is about Robert E. Lee and myth which is pretty much all that we have of him.

Lee getting his clock cleaned at Gettysburgh by Gen. Meade is relevant and material to the OP. However, Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies and their influence on Meade in his successful battles against Lee could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread. I've noted Lee was not inquisitive. And that Lee was a man of little initiative, a great patience, eternal faith.

Gen. Hancock was acting commander of the Army of the Potomac at the time your Wiki quotes record. Hancock was in charge until Meade arrived at Petersburg and it was Gen. Hancock who made the battle plans relevant to your post. When Gen. Meade arrived he cussed his generals starting with Hancock who'd been uncharacteristically hesitant and unclear about Grant's orders. Meade walked into a mess that required Grant's direct intervention. It was similar to Grant and Gen. Sherman at Vicksburg. Sherman's unsuccessful assaults on Vicksburg ended in the successful siege to include the USN. It's like the old saying in baseball -- you win some and you lose some and some get rained out. Robert E. Lee did all three and he lost his sword doing 'em.

Carry on.

Lee lost to Meade in Gettysburg. In which Meade was the defender.

Meade lost to Lee in Petersburg. In which Meade was on the offensive.

How did the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies" aid Meade?

What were the "Prussian" strategies?

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
At West Point and in Army Senior Rotc programs at university there were Two Battles of Petersburg. Not three. USMA curriculum indicates four occurrences: Two Battles of Petersburg followed by the Breakthrough at Petersburg and Grant's Pursuit of Lee to Appomattox. The guy who wrote your stuff for Wiki is among a number who like the three battle scenario and nomenclature. Maybe three battles sound better to the Conservatifederates.

All the same the guy who wrote in Wiki about the Appomattox Campaign got it right, to include the overlap dates of the two separate campaigns. Lee simply got cornered after he fled Petersburg so Lee had to raise his hands high over his head because of it. Grant btw soon afterward became the first four-star general of the American armed forces.

The Appomattox Campaign was a series of American Civil War battles fought March 29 – April 9, 1865 in Virginia that concluded with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to the Union Army under the overall command of Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant.

As the Richmond–Petersburg Campaign (also known as the Siege of Petersburg) ended, Lee's army was outnumbered and exhausted from a winter of trench warfare over an approximately 40 mi (64 km) front,[notes 1] numerous battles, disease, hunger and desertion.[6] Grant's well-equipped and well-fed army was growing in strength. On March 29, 1865, the Union Army began an offensive that stretched and broke the Confederate defenses southwest of Petersburg and cut their supply lines to Petersburg and the Confederate capital of Richmond. Union victories at the Battle of Five Forks on April 1, 1865 and the Third Battle of Petersburg, often called the Breakthrough at Petersburg, on April 2, 1865, opened Petersburg and Richmond to imminent capture. Lee ordered the evacuation of Confederate forces from both Petersburg and Richmond on the night of April 2–3 before Grant's army could cut off any escape. Confederate government leaders also fled west from Richmond that night.

The Confederates marched west, heading toward Danville, Virginia. Grant's Union Army pursued Lee's fleeing Confederates relentlessly. During the next week, the Union troops fought a series of battles with Confederate units, cut off or destroyed Confederate supplies and blocked their paths to the south and ultimately to the west. Soon cornered, short of food and supplies and outnumbered, Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Grant on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Court House, Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appomattox_Campaign

It was however the beginning of enshrining Confederate generals in myth and legend beginning with Robert E. Lee --the guy who lost his big war.

Meade lost to Lee and a siege resulted.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

braindrain said:
The fact that you are arguing against a self described liberal yet continue to pretend that only conservatives buy into what you call the Confederate mythology is a perfect example of not only your lack of integrity but also how completely blinded to reality you are by your partisan hackery. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you

Dead on balls accurate.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tigerace117 said:
England was never going to support the South; domestically going to war on the behalf of slavers would have been completely unfeasible, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Not 100% accurate.

England was seriously considering recognizing and supporting the South early in the war. Britain at the time was in need of Cotton to feed it's growing textile industry. That is until the South sold too much cotton and the production of Cotton geared up in India.

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Lee lost to Meade in Gettysburg. In which Meade was the defender.

Meade lost to Lee in Petersburg. In which Meade was on the offensive.

How did the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies" aid Meade?

What were the "Prussian" strategies?

I appreciate your interest in matters introduced at the thread by posters such as myself. Your repeated interest or passion or whatever.

All the same you are appreciatively invited to visit Google to include Wikipedia or perhaps to contact the Prussia Ministry of War (its successor of course). I make the suggestion because the specifics you seek are esoteric. Or, given there is no demand otherwise for any such specifics, you might consider opening a new thread on it. As you should be aware, I'm almost always open to new threads.

Again and for the record, the point I made was that while other USMA grads such as George Meade were inquisitive and pursued professional development, Robert E. Lee as the career digger engineer the troops called the "King of Spades" was not and did not.

I made no claims or assertions that Prussian military strategy or offensive doctrines of war made a difference for Gen George Meade during the Civil War.

One fact I have not pointed out is a principal reason Lincoln appointed Gen. Meade commander of the Army of the Potomac, i.e., Meade had the expressed respect and confidence of the corps commanders of the Union Armies. Meade had commanded V Corps at Gettysburg and beyond. Meade demonstrated a facility of command and desired outcomes that inspired other generals and which won their confidence and trust. Meade commanded the Army of the Potomac from Gettysburg to Appomattox through numerous successful campaigns to include Petersburg.

By 1864 Gen. Grant had placed himself with Gen. Meade's Army of the Potomac. History records that Grant took every credit for much of what Meade himself and the Army of the Potomac accomplished. Though Meade had a well known furious temper up and down the ranks Meade never complained of Grant as long as the Union continued to win and to advance. So Gen Meade was a successful and inspiring commander who set Gen. Lee back disastrously at Gettysburg and who with other generals pursued Lee to Appomattox.

Lee lost his big war while Meade and his side won theirs. Few people anyway pay much mind to Meade's career as a successful commander or career officer. The interest against him has always been weak or non existent just as champions of Meade and his accomplishments are also rare. The sudden passionate effort to detract from Meade's final decade as a commander is obvious.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
I appreciate your interest in matters introduced at the thread by posters such as myself. Your repeated interest or passion or whatever.

All the same you are appreciatively invited to visit Google to include Wikipedia or perhaps to contact the Prussia Ministry of War (its successor of course). I make the suggestion because the specifics you seek are esoteric. Or, given there is no demand otherwise for any such specifics, you might consider opening a new thread on it. As you should be aware, I'm almost always open to new threads.

Again and for the record, the point I made was that while other USMA grads such as George Meade were inquisitive and pursued professional development, Robert E. Lee as the career digger engineer the troops called the "King of Spades" was not and did not.

I made no claims or assertions that Prussian military strategy or offensive doctrines of war made a difference for Gen George Meade during the Civil War.

One fact I have not pointed out is a principal reason Lincoln appointed Gen. Meade commander of the Army of the Potomac, i.e., Meade had the expressed respect and confidence of the corps commanders of the Union Armies. Meade had commanded V Corps at Gettysburg and beyond. Meade demonstrated a facility of command and desired outcomes that inspired other generals and which won their confidence and trust. Meade commanded the Army of the Potomac from Gettysburg to Appomattox through numerous successful campaigns to include Petersburg.

By 1864 Gen. Grant had placed himself with Gen. Meade's Army of the Potomac. History records that Grant took every credit for much of what Meade himself and the Army of the Potomac accomplished. Though Meade had a well known furious temper up and down the ranks Meade never complained of Grant as long as the Union continued to win and to advance. So Gen Meade was a successful and inspiring commander who set Gen. Lee back disastrously at Gettysburg and who with other generals pursued Lee to Appomattox.

Lee lost his big war while Meade and his side won theirs. Few people anyway pay much mind to Meade's career as a successful commander or career officer. The interest against him has always been weak or non existent just as champions of Meade and his accomplishments are also rare. The sudden passionate effort to detract from Meade's final decade as a commander is obvious.

All that typing and no recognition that you are wrong about Meade, wrong about Lee, and generally wrong about much of the Civil War.

Lee was "inquisitive" enough to learn about the tactics and strategies of war and how to employ them.

He was effective in the attack and the defense.

The "King of Spades" is something to be honored rather than disparaged. The fortifications around Richmond allowed the war to go on far longer than it should have.

As to Meade....

He knew his limitations.

When Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was appointed commander of all Union armies in March 1864, Meade offered to resign. He stated the task at hand was of such importance that he would not stand in the way of Grant choosing the right man for the job and offered to serve wherever placed. Grant assured Meade he had no intentions of replacing him. Grant later wrote that this incident gave him a more favorable opinion of Meade than the great victory at Gettysburg.

As did Lincoln:

Meade was criticized by President Lincoln and others for not aggressively pursuing the Confederates during their retreat. At one point, the Army of Northern Virginia was extremely vulnerable with their backs to the rain-swollen, almost impassable Potomac River, but was able to erect strong defensive positions before Meade could organize an effective attack. Lincoln believed that this wasted an opportunity to end the war.

As to "Prussian military strategy or offensive doctrines" you brought it up but cannot explain what it means.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
I made no claims or assertions that Prussian military strategy or offensive doctrines of war made a difference for Gen George Meade during the Civil War.

"After graduation Union officers such as Grant and Mead read French fortifications doctrines or Prussian doctrines of attack while Lee the eternal engineer threw himself into ditch digging and earthworks (ramparts)."

"And Meade was yet another Union officer who learned to fight after graduating USMA, self-studying Prussian attack doctrines and strategies."

"During his career Meade read and studied Prussian offensive doctrines and strategies while Lee earned the Army nick "King of Spades" for his engineer's ditch digging and mound building (ramparts)."

"However, Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies and their influence on Meade in his successful battles against Lee could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread."

Looks like you should go back to reading about the Civil War BEFORE posting.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
I appreciate your interest in matters introduced at the thread by posters such as myself. Your repeated interest or passion or whatever.

All the same you are appreciatively invited to visit Google to include Wikipedia or perhaps to contact the Prussia Ministry of War (its successor of course). I make the suggestion because the specifics you seek are esoteric. Or, given there is no demand otherwise for any such specifics, you might consider opening a new thread on it. As you should be aware, I'm almost always open to new threads.

Neither Google nor Wikipedia (a completely different thing) will explain what YOU mean by "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies".

I did find a Manual for Operations issued to the Prussians... Nothing there that would support your points.

Tigerace117 · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Not 100% accurate.

England was seriously considering recognizing and supporting the South early in the war. Britain at the time was in need of Cotton to feed it's growing textile industry. That is until the South sold too much cotton and the production of Cotton geared up in India.

The aristocracy over there largely sympathized with the south, yes. But the military and the vast majority of common Englishman were anything but happy about the concept of war with the US.

Tigerace117 · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

braindrain said:
The fact that you are arguing against a self described liberal yet continue to pretend that only conservatives buy into what you call the Confederate mythology is a perfect example of not only your lack of integrity but also how completely blinded to reality you are by your partisan hackery. I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you

The confederacy was based in extremely conservative ideology, as in the definition of "conservative" as "resistant to change".

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Meade lost to Lee and a siege resulted.

You are an USMC Gunnery Sergeant retired after 20 years in the Corps.

You should know better. Yet you do not present any evidence showing a cause-effect in the statement. Nor do you provide any evidence that supports your claim, or at the least, the intention of your claim, i.e., that General Meade was singularly responsible for anything at Petersburg much less the occurrence of a siege.

Or that any single general of either side was solely responsible for x or y or z. Nor do you present any evidence or proof a siege of Petersburg was either avoidable and a mistake, or, that a siege was unnecessary or undesirable. You offer no critique at all of the siege or of the rationale Gen. Grant had to order the siege and to follow through on it. So after your posts all we continue to know is that the Union won at Petersburg and the Confederacy lost. Which is what we knew before you came along to the thread.

It remains the case that for several months and while we can find a few marines around, we remain hard pressed to find even a precious few of good ones.

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Neither Google nor Wikipedia (a completely different thing) will explain what YOU mean by "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies".

I did find a Manual for Operations issued to the Prussians... Nothing there that would support your points.

What are my points again plse thx?

I stated them several times in posts to the thread.

Lee was a numbuts and Meade was inquisitive and dynamic.

Lee lost to become a man of myth and legend while Meade died of his war wounds sustained over a career, in 1872.

Carry on.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tigerace117 said:
The aristocracy over there largely sympathized with the south, yes. But the military and the vast majority of common Englishman were anything but happy about the concept of war with the US.

You are correct.

It also didn't help that, as the war progressed the Union was shipping cotton to England which undercut the price as well.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
You are an USMC Gunnery Sergeant retired after 20 years in the Corps.

You should know better. Yet you do not present any evidence showing a cause-effect in the statement. Nor do you provide any evidence that supports your claim, or at the least, the intention of your claim, i.e., that General Meade was singularly responsible for anything at Petersburg much less the occurrence of a siege.

Or that any single general of either side was solely responsible for x or y or z. Nor do you present any evidence or proof a siege of Petersburg was either avoidable and a mistake, or, that a siege was unnecessary or undesirable. You offer no critique at all of the siege or of the rationale Gen. Grant had to order the siege and to follow through on it. So after your posts all we continue to know is that the Union won at Petersburg and the Confederacy lost. Which is what we knew before you came along to the thread.

It remains the case that for several months and while we can find a few marines around, we remain hard pressed to find even a precious few of good ones.

Meade lost to Lee and a siege resulted. That is what happened.

Reread #220 for comprehension rather than response.

And support for my statement has been presented.

Meade had a chance to strike before the lines were reinforced. He failed to do so (as he failed to pursue Lee post Gettysburg).

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
What are my points again plse thx?

I stated them several times in posts to the thread.

Lee was a numbuts and Meade was inquisitive and dynamic.

Lee lost to become a man of myth and legend while Meade died of his war wounds sustained over a career, in 1872.

Carry on.

You repeatedly refer to Meade's knowledge of the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies". You stated " Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies and their influence on Meade in his successful battles against Lee could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread"

Neither Google nor Wikipedia (a completely different thing) will explain what YOU mean by "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies".

What are the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies" you continue to speak of.

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
You repeatedly refer to Meade's knowledge of the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies". You stated " Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies and their influence on Meade in his successful battles against Lee could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread"

Neither Google nor Wikipedia (a completely different thing) will explain what YOU mean by "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies".

What are the "Prussian battle doctrines and offensive strategies" you continue to speak of.

So Google is a bust and Wikipedia is what everyone here knows it to be. Sorry then to send you off like that. That being water under the proverbial bridge, and that the post has your statement, onward now to your question:

The ones that as I stated "could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread."

I can post this reply each time you ask, however many times that will be. I could but then again not necessarily so.

Another possibility is that you and I could start comparing and contrasting certain Prussian officer military commanders to Lee and to Meade also. Get up a chart that assesses each of 'em in defined categories to come out with some kind of score. The final score would include points awarded for judgement, intuition, awareness of one's environment, godliness, fighting in shoes that have holes in 'em, writing home regularly and eloquently, how many Yankees were killed this week and the like.

I wouldn't want to claim doing such an analysis and evaluation would save the thread but it certainly can't do it any harm at this point. In my opinion of course. Not being a U S Marine. And all the rest of it.

Tigerace117 · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
You are correct.

It also didn't help that, as the war progressed the Union was shipping cotton to England which undercut the price as well.

The South counted on a situation which in the end didn't come about--- that the Europeans would need cotton and couldn't obtain sufficient amounts without the Confederacy. In that, they were badly mistaken.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
So Google is a bust and Wikipedia is what everyone here knows it to be. Sorry then to send you off like that. That being water under the proverbial bridge, and that the post has your statement, onward now to your question:

The ones that as I stated "could be informative but they are neither relevant nor material to the thread."

I can post this reply each time you ask, however many times that will be. I could but then again not necessarily so.

Another possibility is that you and I could start comparing and contrasting certain Prussian officer military commanders to Lee and to Meade also. Get up a chart that assesses each of 'em in defined categories to come out with some kind of score. The final score would include points awarded for judgement, intuition, awareness of one's environment, godliness, fighting in shoes that have holes in 'em, writing home regularly and eloquently, how many Yankees were killed this week and the like.

I wouldn't want to claim doing such an analysis and evaluation would save the thread but it certainly can't do it any harm at this point. In my opinion of course. Not being a U S Marine. And all the rest of it.

TRANSLATION: Tangmo once again in MSU (Making **** up) and does not admit it.

Tangmo, you saying something over and over does not make it true. In practice the more you repeat a point the further from the truth you end up.

Meade scored a win at Gettysburg but squandered the chance to obliterate Lees forces. That is a universally accepted point. Meades failure extended the war for more than a year. His failure to breech Lees lines and fortifications at Petersburg accounted for ten of those months.

A good man no doubt but no Grant.

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Meade lost to Lee and a siege resulted. That is what happened.

Reread #220 for comprehension rather than response.

And support for my statement has been presented.

Meade had a chance to strike before the lines were reinforced. He failed to do so (as he failed to pursue Lee post Gettysburg).

The posts have declaratory pronouncements only.

No evidence. No proof. No arguments. No data or facts. There's never as much as a database or a factline. Some posters rather like to throw around the term "fact slapped" yet they are themselves slappy without facts of any kind.

The fatal flaw of the posts in each instance and every time is that they contain ex cathedra proclamations as if spoke by a pope in a Papal Bull (apologies to the pope of course).

One either accepts the assertions as true and in a good faith or one does not accept the posts. So the choice is that either the declarations from out of the blue are authentic, legitimate, authorized or they are not. We are either lance corporals or we are not lance corporals. Because nothing concrete or supporting are ever presented in the posts. No nothing. It's only Blowfeld stuff to do as Blowfeld says and to accept what Blowfeld says as truth because Blowfeld says it.

So it could seem we might need to clarify things at the threads. Make an imaginary line and say that all the lance corporals gather up over there on the right and all the civilians could mosey on over to the left side of the room. Make things more clear as to which the rest of us are.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
The posts have declaratory pronouncements only.

No evidence. No proof. No arguments. No data or facts. There's never as much as a database or a factline. Some posters rather like to throw around the term "fact slapped" yet they are themselves slappy without facts of any kind.

The fatal flaw of the posts in each instance and every time is that they contain ex cathedra proclamations as if spoke by a pope in a Papal Bull (apologies to the pope of course).

One either accepts the assertions as true and in a good faith or one does not accept the posts. So the choice is that either the declarations from out of the blue are authentic, legitimate, authorized or they are not. We are either lance corporals or we are not lance corporals. Because nothing concrete or supporting are ever presented in the posts. No nothing. It's only Blowfeld stuff to do as Blowfeld says and to accept what Blowfeld says as truth because Blowfeld says it.

So it could seem we might need to clarify things at the threads. Make an imaginary line and say that all the lance corporals gather up over there on the right and all the civilians could mosey on over to the left side of the room. Make things more clear as to which the rest of us are.

Meade frontally assaulted Lee's handiwork and got his ass kicked....

On the morning of June 18, Meade went into a rage directed at his corps commanders because of his army's failure to take the initiative and break through the thinly defended Confederate positions and seize the city. He ordered the entire Army of the Potomac to attack the Confederate defenses. The first Union attack began at dawn, started by the II and XVIII Corps on the Union right. The II Corps was surprised to make rapid progress against the Confederate line, not realizing that Beauregard had moved it back the night before. When they encountered the second line, the attack immediately ground to a halt and the corps suffered under heavy Confederate fire for hours.[31]

By noon, another attack plan had been devised to break through the Confederate defenses. However, by this time, elements of Lee's army had reinforced Beauregard's troops. By the time the Union attack was renewed, Lee himself had taken command of the defenses. Maj. Gen. Orlando B. Willcox's division of the IX Corps led the renewed attack but it suffered significant losses in the marsh and open fields crossed by Taylor's Branch. Warren's V Corps was halted by murderous fire from Rives's Salient, an attack in which Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, commanding the 1st Brigade, First Division, V Corps, was severely wounded. At 6:30 p.m., Meade ordered a final assault, which also failed with more horrendous losses. One of the leading regiments was the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery Regiment, which lost 632 of 900 men in the assault, the heaviest single-battle loss of any regiment during the entire war.[32]

Having achieved almost no gains from four days of assaults, and with Lincoln facing re-election in the upcoming months in the face of a loud public outcry against the casualty figures, Meade ordered his army to dig in, starting the ten-month siege. During the four days of fighting, Union casualties were 11,386 (1,688 killed, 8,513 wounded, 1,185 missing or captured), Confederate 4,000 (200 killed, 2,900 wounded, 900 missing or captured)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petersburg

Aftermath

It is a source of great regret that I am not able to report more success.
Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, report to Lt. Gen. Grant, June 18

Having achieved almost no gains from four days of assaults, Meade ordered his army to dig in. Union casualties were 11,386 (1,688 killed, 8,513 wounded, 1,185 missing or captured), Confederate 4,000 (200 killed, 2,900 wounded, 900 missing or captured).[3] Grant's opportunity to take Petersburg easily had been lost, but Lee, who arrived at Petersburg around noon on June 18, was unable to prevent the Union army from laying siege to the city. The siege would last until April 1865.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Petersburg

I bolded the information you ignored.

braindrain · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tigerace117 said:
The confederacy was based in extremely conservative ideology, as in the definition of "conservative" as "resistant to change".

Exactly how do you think that has anything to do with my post. You may want to reread the whole conversation between me and tangmo

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Meade frontally assaulted Lee's handiwork and got his ass kicked....

<<snip due to word count max to a single post>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Petersburg

Aftermath

It is a source of great regret that I am not able to report more success.
Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, report to Lt. Gen. Grant, June 18

Having achieved almost no gains from four days of assaults, Meade ordered his army to dig in. Union casualties were 11,386 (1,688 killed, 8,513 wounded, 1,185 missing or captured), Confederate 4,000 (200 killed, 2,900 wounded, 900 missing or captured).[3] Grant's opportunity to take Petersburg easily had been lost, but Lee, who arrived at Petersburg around noon on June 18, was unable to prevent the Union army from laying siege to the city. The siege would last until April 1865.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Petersburg

I bolded the information you ignored.

The post is off base yet here it is again.

I had posted that Gen. Hancock was temporarily in command of the Army of the Potomac at Petersburg until Meade arrived. It was Hancock's battle plan that brought the initial losses in the initial assault. Mead tried to recover from the failures of Hancock's plan but he was unable to because the damage was so severe. It is agreed in history that Hancock, who'd been shot off his horse at Gettysburg commanding the Union center, was unusually hesitant in the attack and expressed confusion over Grant's orders. Meade never had a confusion over orders by anyone as Meade despite his many wounds was lucid.

Meade did not counterattack at Gettysburg because he and Hancock -- being treated for his bullet wound to his abdomen -- concurred they would not attack across the same field as Lee ordered in Pickett's Charge. Lee had dug in along the west side of the same Cemetery Ridge resupplied with artillery and reinforced by the late arriving cavalry of Stuart.

Here is why Meade decided not to attack Lee at the Potomac where Lee had temporarily established a
an awesome defensive fortification.

Most importantly, the defensive position chosen and developed by Lee and his engineers was formidable. It ran along Salisbury Ridge, a prominent north-south ridge, and was anchored on the banks of the Potomac River on either end, meaning that it could not be flanked. Confederate engineering staff built in interlocking fields of fire to ensure that these positions were defensible. The line bristled with artillery.

“It was thought not to risk a battle here as we have not over 50,000 efficient troops and the enemy to be equal to that if not more, with advantage of position and troops concentrated,” said a Union signalman. Nevertheless, Meade was confident. Normally reticent around reporters, he was positively giddy on the 13th. “We shall have a great battle tomorrow,” he declared to a reporter. “The reinforcements are coming up, and as soon as they come we shall pitch in.”

Despite their commander’s confidence, the men in the ranks who would have to make that assault had every reason to be concerned. The Confederate defensive position was formidable. Referring to the long line of earthworks in front of them, Col. Charles Wainwright, the chief of artillery for the I Corps, said, “These were by far the strongest I have seen yet, evidently laid out by engineers and built as if they meant to stand a month’s siege.” The parapets were nearly six feet wide on top, and the engineers had placed their guns perfectly to create converging fields of fire that could sweep the entire front of the position. After inspecting the position, Wainwright concluded, “My own opinion is under the circumstances and with the knowledge General Meade then had he was justified in putting off the attack.”

Meade’s new chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys, who had spent thirty years as a topographical engineer and knew a strong position when he saw one, declared, “Wherever seen, the position was naturally strong, and was perfectly entrenched. It presented no vulnerable points, but much of it was concealed from view…its flanks were secure and could not be turned.” He concluded, “A careful survey of the entrenched position of the enemy was made, and showed that an assault upon it would have resulted disastrously to us.”

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/07/13/civil-war-witch-hunt-part-v/

Recall indeed that during Lee's 14 years in grade as captain his digging and earthworks from Texas to New York harbor had earned him the nick "King of Spades" awarded by army regulars.

Tangmo · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

So Gen. Meade was talked out of assaulting Lee's position at the Potomac on Lee's retreat from Gettysburg. A major reason the Civil War went on and on is that there never could be a Battle of Anihilation or for that matter, a Campaign of Annihilation. Not by either side although the Union forces were in numbers, resources and commanders superior to those of the Confederacy.

A Battle of Anihilation is a rare event in the history of war and warfare. The Legend of Troy, the fact of Carthage and of Waterloo among other few battles of annihilation are not the expectation of warriors or of their empires or, most recently in history, their nations.

The bottom line in the Civil War is that neither side -- to include the military commanders or civilian leaders -- ever expected a single battle to be a Battle of Annihilation. Nor did either side expect a single campaign to be a Campaign of Anihilation.

Chancellorsville was devastating to the Union but impossible as a fatal defeat. Gettysburg was a turning point for each side but never was it the annihilation of Lee or his armies. The CW was impossibly vast and the armies of each side were too big for either to ever plan, expect or hope for a Battle of Anihilation. Likewise in respect of a Campaign of Anniliation.

Grant's final campaigns of Richmond-Petersburg and of Appomattox were not annihilation campaigns. Gen. Grant had the nick of "Unconditional Surrender Grant" which is far from his nick ever being "Grant the Anihilator." Anyone who wants to see an annihilator in action would need to go see a fiction movie where he can also munch cheese tacos.

Fledermaus · Jun 23, 2017

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
The post is off base yet here it is again.

I had posted that Gen. Hancock was temporarily in command of the Army of the Potomac at Petersburg until Meade arrived. (irrelevant even if true) It was Hancock's battle plan that brought the initial losses in the initial assault. (citation?) Mead tried to recover from the failures of Hancock's plan but he was unable to because the damage was so severe. (opinion not support by fact) It is agreed in history that Hancock, who'd been shot off his horse at Gettysburg commanding the Union center, was unusually hesitant in the attack and expressed confusion over Grant's orders. Meade never had a confusion over orders by anyone as Meade despite his many wounds was lucid. (opinion)

Meade did not counterattack at Gettysburg because he and Hancock -- being treated for his bullet wound to his abdomen -- concurred they would not attack across the same field as Lee ordered in Pickett's Charge. (citation?) Lee had dug in along the west side of the same Cemetery Ridge resupplied with artillery and reinforced by the late arriving cavalry of Stuart. (Lee was actually withdrawing to Seminary Ridge and all of his long-range artillery ammunition had been expended nor was any forthcoming. The main battle ended July 3, the ammo did not get there until July 13)

Here is why Meade decided not to attack Lee at the Potomac where Lee had temporarily established a an awesome defensive fortification.

(He SHOULD have struck the 3rd. And not waited until Lee could construct defensive positions.)

Most importantly, the defensive position chosen and developed by Lee and his engineers was formidable. It ran along Salisbury Ridge, (No where near Gettysburg) a prominent north-south ridge, and was anchored on the banks of the Potomac River on either end, meaning that it could not be flanked. Confederate engineering staff built in interlocking fields of fire to ensure that these positions were defensible. The line bristled with artillery.

“It was thought not to risk a battle here as we have not over 50,000 efficient troops (Actually 80,000) and the enemy to be equal to that if not more, with advantage of position and troops concentrated,” said a Union signalman. Nevertheless, Meade was confident. Normally reticent around reporters, he was positively giddy on the 13th. “We shall have a great battle tomorrow,” he declared to a reporter. “The reinforcements are coming up, and as soon as they come we shall pitch in.”

Despite their commander’s confidence, the men in the ranks who would have to make that assault had every reason to be concerned. The Confederate defensive position was formidable. (They had over a week to dig in) Referring to the long line of earthworks in front of them, Col. Charles Wainwright, the chief of artillery for the I Corps, said, “These were by far the strongest I have seen yet, evidently laid out by engineers and built as if they meant to stand a month’s siege.” The parapets were nearly six feet wide on top, and the engineers had placed their guns perfectly to create converging fields of fire that could sweep the entire front of the position. After inspecting the position, Wainwright concluded, “My own opinion is under the circumstances and with the knowledge General Meade then had he was justified in putting off the attack.” (TEN DAYS after the Battle of Gettysburg. TEN DAYS to allow Lee to build defensive positions)

Meade’s new chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys, who had spent thirty years as a topographical engineer and knew a strong position when he saw one, declared, “Wherever seen, the position was naturally strong, and was perfectly entrenched. It presented no vulnerable points, but much of it was concealed from view…its flanks were secure and could not be turned.” He concluded, “A careful survey of the entrenched position of the enemy was made, and showed that an assault upon it would have resulted disastrously to us.”

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2015/07/13/civil-war-witch-hunt-part-v/

Recall indeed that during Lee's 14 years in grade as captain his digging and earthworks from Texas to New York harbor had earned him the nick "King of Spades" awarded by army regulars.

Meade waited 10 days to strike....