generalship (ACW)

• What year was Grant prompted to Lieutenant General of the Union Forces?

  1864
• How did Grant's ability as a general decide the outcome of the ACW?


  He acknowledged had superiority in terms of manpower and resources so he began a series of attritional assaults on the South which included scorched earth tactics. This applied pressure on the morale of the South and led to their surrender
• How was Lee, commander of the South, seen as a general?


  Can argue lost war (OUTCOME) because of his aggressive tactics- his victories as a general are down to weakness of his opponents.
• How did Lee affect the nature of the ACW in terms of his tactics at Antietam Sep 1862?


  Lee made a strong aggressive attack into northern states, McClellan attacked with a far greater army 87,000 to 45,000. He aggressively fought with his whole army, cleverly moving troops from one part of his line to the other. The battle was a 'draw' although the Confeds retreated afterwards. The casualty numbers show the effectiveness of his decisions- 12,000 Northern to 10,000 Southern
• How did Lee affect the nature of the ACW in terms of his tactics at Chancellorsville April 1863?


  Lee was attacked by a far stronger army from the front and side to crush him by weight of numbers. He divided his forces into a larger and a smaller part, despite the risk in the face of larger numbers, then held off the front attack before turning the army to defeat the side attack. This was a bold and effective tactic where most generals would've retreated.
• Examples of Lee's bad generalship?


  Some significant defeats caused by his tactics eg Gettysburg where he ordered 12,500 men to charge over 1.25 miles of open ground nicked named 'Pickett's Charge' and 50% were taken casualty before the rest retreated
• What other factors could be considered more important reasons for the Souths loss rather than Lee's generalship?


  Powerful weapons which were more accurate and long ranged meant overwhelming numbers could now be decisive. His aggressive tactics despite having the smaller force show him to be a good battlefield commander but unable to see the bigger picture which was paramount for a war of this scale unlike in the NW. Did his aggressive tactics that led to heavy casualties speed up the Souths defeat or not?
• How can it be argued that Grant as a general wasn't an important factor for the Norths win?


  It was Grants ability to utilise his advantages such as the Norths industrial strength and weight in numbers which grinded the South down and forced them into defeat. His strength was not thinking about capturing ground as the other generals did, but chasing and fighting Lee's main army until his strength in numbers defeated him. He had good 'strategic vision' - an ability to see the bigger picture
• What are common lines argument for Grant?

  • He was a good leader but his battles weren't 'romantic' as seen at Shiloh and Vicksburg
  • Grant's leadership had little importance as long as he had more soldiers he could keep getting and the powerful industry to back him. Lee was at a major disadvantage with a lack of supplies
• Battle of Wilderness- how does it support the view Grant was nothing without his quantity of soldiers?

  He lost 17,000 men to 7,500
• Siege of Vicksburg- Grants successes?

  His strategy to cooperate with naval forces helped him take the key fortress in 1863 despite previous failures to do so. The Union forces could then dominate the Mississippi and effectively split the Confederate forces in two. Grant knew he had to use both land and naval forces to starve the South of resources.
• How can it be argued Grants generalship was more important than their manpower and resources?

  They had advantage in terms of manpower and resources yet the war still waged for 5 years. It was only once Lee failed at Gettysburg and that Grant took charge of the Union forces that Northern superiority of resources made a significant difference
• How did Grant have good quality of leadership in terms of strategy?

  It was significant for victory. Grant realised in order to defeat Confederate forces he needed to engage them in a series of continuous battles (war of attrition) using both land and naval forces. This would starve the South of resources. His attritional strategy included cooperation with naval forces. Allowed him to take the key fortress Vicksburg 1863 despite previous Union failures to secure this territory. Union forces could then dominate the Mississippi and split the Confederate forces in two
• Argument that it was manpower and resources that allowed Grant to be so successful?

  Some historians have argued that Grant was an unreliable commander who often led his forces to endure heavy casualties by mindless frontal assaults. It was only due to his advantages in terms of resources and manpower that he was able to succeed
• How can it be argued Northern victory was almost inevitable?

  Lee, to some historians, was the better general but he was severely hindered by his lack of resources and manpower. Grant’s campaigns were bloody and not without high casualty figures. At the Battle of the Wilderness he lost 17 000 men to Lee’s 7500 because of Grant’s determination to grind down the enemy and engage in a series of struggles. This shows that the North were better placed to sustain their losses
• How did Chancellorsville demonstrate Lees skill?


  He used a very clever manoeuvre- Lee knew the Union left was strongly against the Rappahannock River and the centre was entrenched so he sent Jackson on a flanking march right so that they emerged from teh woods and surprised them. Half of Howard’s men fell. The brilliant manoeuvre was conducted using 5.5km (9 miles) of tracks and woods without detection. This made the Northerners begin to doubt victory and pass the Conscription Act
• Why was Gettysburg the turning point in the war?


  It caused Lees army to lose the air of invincibility they had enjoyed since 1862. The defeat and losses sustained made an invasion of the North unthinkable. The fall of Vicksburg and loss of the Mississippi added to this but Gettysburg was the turning point. The North lost 23,000 and South 27,000 either lost, killed or wounded