@ rs2 - Wikipedia has McClelland with 104k and Lee with 92k, what's your source on the numbers at Seven Days?

And Meade had literally just taken command at Gettysburg....

Yes, Lee resorted to trench warfare by '64 - although one could argue that he used trench tactics brilliantly at Fredericksburg. But by '64 I think we would all agree that the issue was settled - Grant had overwhelming numerical superiority, Sherman was tearing through Georgia, and nothing Lee could do at that point would have mattered. So, what if Lee had adopted those tactics in '63 instead of '64 instead of invading Pennsylvania?

According to the West Point maps on the Peninsula campaign, there were 60,000 Confederate troops around Richmond at the time of Seven Pines where Johnston was killed and Lee took over. Jackson (who joined Lee about the time the offensive began or soon after) is listed with 16,000. So my number was a little low but still has a 30,000 man disadvantage for Lee. And correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you praising Grant's more aggressive stance as a reason he was superior to Lee? Trench warfare is about as far from aggressive as you can get.

Fredericksburg wasn't so much trench warfare. It was taking advantage of a sunken road behind a stone wall. Lee's army didn't necessarily entrench; more just improving an existing position.

My question is: Where was Grant's brilliant tactical victory against odds? Lee had his perfect battle at Chancellorsville, against 2:1 odds. But when did Grant ever outmaneuver a superior enemy? Vicksburg has been mentioned, but again, that was, at best, equal odds.

Secondly, a good historical comparison to this match-up would be Scipio Africanus vs. Hannibal. Hannibal lost the battle of Zama, when he finally went head to head with Scipio, but I'd still say that was inevitable. Same with Lee when he ran into Grant.

@ Jetsfan - great historical comparison. Yes, Scipio beat Hannibal at Zama, but Hannibal and his army were hardly at their zenith. And Hannibal, of course, goes down in history as the great general, while Scipio is nearly unheard of outside nerd circles. Yet in defense of Scipio, he managed to conquer Spain while Hannibal floundered in Italy. Hannibal was the brilliant tactician; Scipio knew how to win wars. An excellent comparison indeed.

Now, concerning Chancellorsville - I will concede the point there, that was a truly brilliant battle, Lee's finest, and I don't think Grant has a single set-piece battle to match it. My argument is that Grant's Vicksburg *campaign* was a series of tactical successes that led to a crushing strategic victory, and that Lee has no comparable campaing. And while Grant had even numbers in that campaign, the terrain heavily favored the defender. But Grant had the supreme respect of his fighting men, every bit as much respect as Lee commanded in his army. However, Grant never got the post-war love that Lee got, probably, as noted by someone else above, because of a combination of his alcoholism and his utter incompetence as a president.

Grant is a sort of tragic figure to me. He seems to have failed at everything in his life - at least in his public life and career - except a few years as a wartime officer. He was the man of the hour, the general who saved the Union, but history has passed him over in favor of Lee. Scipio is indeed an apt comparison, and I would add Wellington to the list. Which leads us to a new thread......

I think one reason Lee lost (and this has been touched on before) is that he fought a gentleman's war. He refused to attack noncombatants directly for the sake of terrorizing the enemy, which was the Union's policy throughout much of the war. Had Grant (and even more so Sherman) been on the Confederate side and done to the North what they actually did to the South, he would have been shot as a war criminal. As it was, though, he was on the winning side...

Total war in the Civil War was not the total war of the world wars. In WWI and WWII, countries mobilized their entire populace for war, not just the soldiers. In WWII especially, this resulted in attacks on civilian targets, but to get to the military ones that were embedded within the cities. Total war in the Civil War meant direct attacks on targets with no direct military significance in order to horrify the enemy into submission. Today, that's called terrorism.

More Lost Cause propaganda, I'm afraid. Yes, Sherman was a pioneer in modern total war. Yes, he understood that breaking the economic will of the South was necessary for victory. Yes, he destroyed a great deal of property - but there's the counter-argument that Hood destroyed as much or more trying to deny Sherman supplies. And finally, Sherman freed a lot more slaves than he hurt white people, and I suspect that to Southerners the prospect of widespread slave uprising was the most terrifying aspect of Sherman's march.

So, lest we moralize too much in favor of Lee over Sherman, let's not forget that Lee was fighting to defend slavery.

You realize that Lee did not own slaves at the time of the war, right? You realize that the majority of Southerners and Southern soldiers neither owned a slave nor had any (economic) hope of ever owning one? You realize there's no reason for three hundred thousand people to fight and die for the "rights" of others? I'm not saying slavery was a non-issue, but the majority of Southerners were not fighting (and did not vote for secession) in order to preserve slavery.

And I would find it arguable that Sherman freed more people than he murdered, either directly or by destroying their homes and food. I would at least need some numbers.

The American Lee and the British Grant were both fine variants of the same tank, but why not include the Australian Yeramba in this discussion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeramba_(artillery)

@ rs2 - whether or not Lee personally owned slaves is beside the point. The Civil War happened because of slavery. Certainly there were other issues, but slavery was the single unreconcilable difference between north and south. The "states' rights" argument is baloney thrown up by Lost Cause apologists. The Dred Scott decision, for example, was a crushing blow to states' rights, but the South ate it up because it protected slavery.

Second - post-war propaganda has always left out the fact that Hood was conducting a scorched-earth policy as he retreated in front of Sherman. Much of the destruction of Georgia was wreaked by Southern forces. Interesting. Also, Sherman's army "murdered" very few, if any, civilians. Plenty of property destruction to be sure, but you'll have to provide documentation for the "murders".

Lee did not fight for slavery. Lee was against the Civil War, and wanted the Union to remain intact, but he considered his loyality to lie with Virginia. Even if you disagree with his priorities, you cannot say Lee fought for slavery

Most of Sherman's murders weren't "I just shot you in the face and you died" murders, though those did happen. They were more of "I'm going to take all of the animals and crops you were going to use to feed your family this winter. You'll be okay, though, right? No? Oh well."

Besides, Hood's army was destroyed at Franklin and Nashville. When Sherman went into Georgia there was no significant Confederate force in the state.

Another thing noteworthy about the Civil War in general is that Lee never had the command of the army Grant had. Lee had to deal with people like Bragg to be in charge of the other armies. Interesting to consider what would've happened if Lee had the control Grant had over the army, if it would've made a difference

One thing, going back to the Scipio comparison. There is one big difference between him and Grant: ego.
Though I've been arguing for Lee this entire time, I will say that Grant deserves respect for his lack of ego. Scipio considered himself the greatest general of all time after beating Hannibal. Even Lee developed a bit of an ego, and it bit him. But Grant remained humble. So props to him for that.
And I'd also disagree that the Civil War was over slavery. Superficially, yes, that was the divisive issue, but this was really the culmination of a longstanding debate. The South believed in the strength of the states over the federal government, and the North vice-versa. So, when the North attempted to force reform on them through the federal government, the South resisted. Also, when the North hypocritically ignored a Supreme Court ruling and claimed state's rights, that finished driving the wedge.

Jetsfan, southern states' rights talk was a cover for protecting slavery. That's why southerners supported the Dred Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Law. Slavery caused the Civil War.

Thank you ckroberts.

It is utterly bizarre to argue that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery - unless you're arguing that all those southern gentleman who really loved the Union so much actually secceeded and triggered a massive war just to prove a constitutional point.

Example @ Jetsfan - what were the odious reforms that the North was trying to force on the South?

Tariffs, for one. Also, the fact that the North had begun to dominate the government.

And didn't we secede and trigger a massive war just to prove a constitutional point in the American Revolution? Or was that over slavery, too?

@Tariffs - sure, there were arguments over tariffs. Aren't there always arguments over taxes? But nothing irreconcilable. Nothing - *nothing* - generated irreconcilable hatred at the level of slavery. Everything else was a side issue, smoke and mirrors. Taxes go up, taxes go down, we all hate 'em but we know we need 'em. On the other hand, holding millions of people as chattel is a pretty big deal. Either you believe in chattel slavery or you don't.

@ the North dominating the government - so, what was the problem there? The problem was that if the North dominated the government they would - wait for it - abolish slavery.

@ the American Revolution - wow, that opens up another can of worms. Maybe we should tackle that in a "Washington vs. Cornwallis" thread :-)

Or, if the north controlled the government, they would use that power to further their own economic interests at the expense of the south.

You know, exactly what they were doing.

And yes, there are always arguments over taxes, but when they are used to specifically target one section of the population... (And if you remember, a big part of the Revolution was... you guessed it... taxes.)

Most people in the north didn't care one way or the other about slavery. Most people in the south didn't either. It was only a central issue to Southern plantation owners (a small fraction of the population) and Northern abolitionists (which were a small radical group at the time). You find it bewildering that people say the war wasn't over slavery. I find it bewildering that so many people believe that millions on both sides would volunteer to fight and maybe die over something that didn't really affect them.

Almost a third of southern households owned slaves, much higher in the Deep South (approaching 50% in some states). Just as importantly, slaves made up a big part of the population -- again, close to 50% in some Deep South states. To say that "Most people in the south didn't" care about slavery is simply incorrect -- it was the most important single issue to southerners. That's like saying that most Americans don't care about the stock market, since only a small portion of Americans directly own stock market shares (outside of employee sponsored retirement and the like). Slavery was popular and growing, making the South one of the richest regions in the whole world. It was the defining social institution in the South -- slavery what decided who had power and social standing, and how much.

And, even if most southerners didn't care about slavery (which isn't true), it doesn't really matter. Political power in the South was dominated by the slaveholding interest. Most southerners probably didn't support secession, either, but that didn't matter -- the elites who controlled politics did, and they were willing to do anything to protect slavery. If we want to get more specific, they were fighting not just to protect slavery where it lived (which wasn't much of an issue in and of itself), but to ensure that it continued to expand and prosper in territorial possessions of the United States (scholars of the period don't argue about whether or not slavery caused the Civil War, but exactly how it did so).

If the North was controlling the government, maybe that's because there were more northerners? That's democracy. If Mormon Utah had rejected a presidential election to maintain forced polygamy, the federal government would have rightly sent troops to enforce it; the same thing happened with the Civil War, the South, and slavery.

I'd like to see where you get those numbers. It seems to be much, much lower from what I've found.

Most southerners didn't support secession? I'll admit that I'm not sure how other states did it, but I know that Virginia put it to a vote. The people of Virginia (not the slaveholding aristocracy) voted not to secede, and then when Lincoln called for troops the vote was held again and the people decided to do so. Even if it was the slaveholders that made the decision to secede, and even if 1/3 of Southern households had slaves, that's still well over half that did not own, nor would ever have any hope of owning, a slave. Yet still they volunteered in droves to fight. Tell me, do you think middle to lower class people would join an army fighting for the right of corporate business owners to drive Lamborghinis? I know I sure wouldn't.

Democracy is supposed to work for the good of all parties. The majority rules, but the minority still gets a say. When a portion of the nation takes control and uses their power to the disadvantage of another, that's slavery on a larger scale. That's what we fought to get rid of in the American Revolution, and tried to prevent with the Constitution and the Missouri Compromise (which, incidentally, was instituted because the South looked to be gaining too much influence in the government--but when it was the North that is in power, there's no compromise).

Here we go again.

It was the south that broke the social compact and took up arms against the government, because they didn't like the outcome of the 1860 election. It would be no different than the blue states deciding in 2000 that they were not going to let the election of Bush stand, and had declared themselves a new nation under Al Gore.

"Democracy is supposed to work for the good of all parties."

How was democracy working out for the millions of southern slaves? Did they get a vote for secession? How many southern states would have seceded if negroes had been allowed to vote?

@ ckroberts - you wrote: "If we want to get more specific, they were fighting not just to protect slavery where it lived (which wasn't much of an issue in and of itself), but to ensure that it continued to expand and prosper in territorial possessions of the United States"

Outstanding point. Bloody Kansas wasn't bloody because settlers were arguing over protective tarrifs. Missouri wasn't a powderkeg because people thought the constitution was vague about whether states could unilaterally secede. John Brown didn't raid Harpers Ferry to tip the balance of power in the Senate.

Final devastating points. The Confederacy, facing a serious manpower shortage, considered offering manumission to any negro who would bear arms for the South. Why, if states rights and freedom from the wicked Union were the heart of the cause, did the South not free the slaves? Also, the South could easily have won if they had gained recognition from England and France. They knew they would never gain recognition without freeing the slaves. Why, if freedom and states rights were the heart of the cause, did the South not do the very simple thing that would have allowed them to win?

Answer: The South preferred defeat and subjugation to freeing the slaves. That makes very clear the South's priorities and reasons for secession.

"Democracy is supposed to work for the good of all parties."

Nonsense, Democracy works for (50% +1) of the people, by definition. If any more than that benefit, it's just good luck.

Which is why we have a "Representative Republic", by which an electerd representative is supposed to have the greater good in mind, and not be swayed by the emotion of the moment and be swayed by the opinion of the mob at the moment...and as a result, we have a system far worse than a Democracy, in that the government serves the purpose of a small minority of the wealthy elites and corporations...far less than the (50% +1)...

In theory, of course, serving the needs of the corporation *should* serve the needs of the people, who work for the corporations, and buy from the corporations.

As it stands, the corporations are run by the self-serving elite, who will get their golden parachute regardless of the success of the company...thus companies can buy the government off, while failing to meet the needs of the workers at the same time...and yet the elites still profit regardless...

I don't remember where I originally got that statistic, but here it is in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution (which also notes that almost half of volunteers from Virginia in 1861 came from slaveholdering families)
and some other website that I don't think I've read but must have because it makes a similar comparison about the stock market: http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

Regarding support for secession: you're obviously not counting slaves. But even among whites it was very close, even with the emotion of the crisis. Virginia is an interesting choice; as you note, secession was rejected once. Here's how Wikipedia describes the popular secession referendum: "The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the state government's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election. The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved in to northern Virginia before the referendum was held." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War#Secession_convention) It's a bit of an oversimplification to put it this way, but southern states held secession conventions, many of them rejected secession, and in some the secessionists kept trying until the conventions approved it anyway, and it didn't really matter what the population wanted.

It's also interesting that you mention democracy and Virginia. After all, enough Virginians opposed secession that they started their own state. Similar movements were afoot throughout the South. And if so many southerners volunteered in droves, why did the Confederacy have to introduce conscription so early (well before the Union, in fact)?

As to fighting for slavery or corporate business owners etc, you're missing two important points. First, almost all white southerners would have agreed on the important of unity for the sake of white supremacy. The great southern fear was not just that slavery would end, but that those slaves would challenge white social positions.

Second, southerners wouldn't have seen themselves as fighting for the slaveholders, just as Americans today don't support capitalism because it has rich people. It's because slavery was the avenue of wealth, success, and prestige. It's aspirational -- the antebellum white southern version of the modern American dream.

Finally, "a portion of the nation takes control and uses their power to the disadvantage of another, that's slavery on a larger scale." -- no. American slavery was slavery on a larger scale. Nothing else the federal government has ever done comes close to the violations of human liberty that were inherent in the system of slavery; not even everything else that every level of government combined has done comes close.

Also, to build on what FlemGem was saying about manumitting slaves to win etc, let's take it back even a step further. If the South was really fighting to protect secession, would Virginia et al have raised arms to ensure that New England could have left the United States? The western territories that southerners pushed so hard for the USA to take from Mexico? Southerners seemed to have given up their self-determination bona fides back in the 1840s, when they helped forcibly seize thousands of square miles from another country.

Had New England seceded, and had the southern states insisted that Virginia raise troops to put them down and that the troops of other states should be allowed through Virginia to invade New England, quite probably.

Many in the south were against freeing the slaves even to preserve their country, yes. There were many (including Lee, incidentally) that advocated doing just that. And, in fact, it did happen, if only on a small scale. There were blacks who fought in the Confederate army (yes, with rifles in their hands). A Vermont (I believe) artillery battery's after action report shows their position being overrun by two regiments of black Confederate soldiers.

Again, I'm not saying slavery was a non-issue. It was a point of disagreement, and the foremost one in the minds of some. But every Southerner wasn't an evil pro-slavery racist, and every Northerner wasn't a good freedom-loving abolitionist. There was actually a fair share of racists in the North (the New York draft riots included quite a bit of anti-black sentiment and lynchings), and slavery was't an important enough issue in the North (to most people, and even if the South had gone to war to protect the institution) for so many to join up.

@dipplayer: No, it wouldn't have been--if the red states had been consistently suppressing the interests of the blue states for decades. And I'm not sure what social compact you speak of--the last time I read the Constitution, it mentioned no such obligation to submit to a tyrannical government just because it maintained the trappings of democracy.

@ck: also, the South instituted a draft sooner than the North because (gasp) there were fewer people in the South.

"last time I read the Constitution, it mentioned no such obligation to submit to a tyrannical government just because it maintained the trappings of democracy"

So where's the evidence of this supposed tyranny of the North, besides the growing abolitionist movement (who's the tyrant?) and the disagreement about whether states could secede. Interestingly, the Confederacy did not enshrine the right to secede in their own constitution. There's an even stronger argument that the South was tyranizing the North, using the power of the Senate and the perverse 3/5's law to subjugate the majority to the will of the minority.

In democracy (or representative government, krellin) elections matter. You can't cry "tyranny" just because the other side happens to win at the ballot box.

"There were blacks who fought in the Confederate army"

"The loyal negro" is one of the most cherished myths of the Lost Cause. It's also one of the most racist and false myths of the Lost Cause. True, a very few negroes were armed at the very end of the war when all had been lost. But the vast, vast, and may I say vast, majority of slaves took the first opportunity possible to get out of slavery.