Was the American Civil War inevitible?

[Valmy]

Cold Harbor was a pretty ginormous hook.  He even said so himself.

Not going in for the kill at Seven Days, Antietam, Gettysburg etc... resulted in many times the dead than were lost at Cold Harbor.  It was a big mistake but the butcher move would have been to stop because of the casualties and let the war go on.

[PDH]

Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).  Lee suffered high casualties in some battles, but most of the time he had no choice.

Nope.  Outside of a few notable incidents - the assault on the trenches at Vicksburg, the Cold Harbor Assault, and maybe Spottsylvania, Grant was by far a better offensive general than he is given credit for.  The entire Vicksburg campaign was a model of how a Civil War campaign could have been fought, his taking of Western Tennessee was brilliant, and even the Overland Campaign was well planned (though not well executed by subordinates) to move and fight advantageously.

Lee sought decisive offensive battles, and he cost his armies dearly.  Note, much of Lee's butchery was earlier in the war when the defensive tactics were not as well developed.  It took a special kind of butcher to outdo the casualties of the later campaigns when Grant had to face trenches and prepared defenses.

[KRonn]

Not unlike Grant, I think?

I think Peedy is being ironic.

No, Lee had a far higher casualty % than Grant.  He was overly offensive when he didn't need to be.  Iirc, he had about 1/3 more casualties in overall numbers than Grant - and that was with smaller armies that could ill afford it.  Lee was a butcher.

Grant was a butcher (but followed the surest strategy for winning).  Lee suffered high casualties in some battles, but most of the time he had no choice.

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

[PDH]

Are you letting Grant off the hook, then?

There's no hook to let him off of.

Cold Harbor was a pretty ginormous hook.  He even said so himself.

Yep.  Cold Harbor is the one real incident of butchery he can be credited with.  As mentioned above the Vicksburg assault might rank up there too.  Still, Lee won the Seven Days by repeatedly losing battles and decimating his troops, he won at Chancellorsville by nearly wrecking his army but defeating a stunned Hooker, he lost Gettysburg by taking both the strategic and tactical offensive, he lost thousands in the Fall 1863 campaigns against Meade.

He was stirring, he could get troops to love him, he commanded the loyalty and (mostly) obedience of his subordinates, but he was a butcher far worse than Grant.

[derspiess]

Nope.  Outside of a few notable incidents - the assault on the trenches at Vicksburg, the Cold Harbor Assault, and maybe Spottsylvania, Grant was by far a better offensive general than he is given credit for.  The entire Vicksburg campaign was a model of how a Civil War campaign could have been fought, his taking of Western Tennessee was brilliant, and even the Overland Campaign was well planned (though not well executed by subordinates) to move and fight advantageously.

Comparing the West and East is apples to oranges.  In the West both sides had a lot more room to maneuver and were not hindered by having to defend their respective capitals.  Not that Grant doesn't deserve credit for his success there.  And while the Overland campaign was most definitely the correct strategy it still involved butchery on the part of Grant. 

Lee sought decisive offensive battles, and he cost his armies dearly. Note, much of Lee's butchery was earlier in the war when the defensive tactics were not as well developed.  It took a special kind of butcher to outdo the casualties of the later campaigns when Grant had to face trenches and prepared defenses.

Lee blundered a bit in the Seven Days battle, but he succeeded in effectively booting the Union army from the Peninsula.  From his perspective I'd take a pyrrhic victory over the enemy permanently situated a few miles from his capital.  And days 2 & 3 of Gettysburg, no question that's a huge knock on him.  But apart from that what do you have to call him a butcher?

[DontSayBanana]

I suppose, setting aside purely the qualms that may exist in invading your neighbors because you hold their domestic policies to be disagreeable

If the domestic policy had been merely disagreeable and not a widespread, institutionalized violation of human rights, you might have a point.

[Valmy]

Lee blundered a bit in the Seven Days battle, but he succeeded in effectively booting the Union army from the Peninsula.

Sure but he lost every battle except one.  I mean sure he knew how to unnerve McClellan but it was a pretty messy series of frontal assaults.

From his perspective I'd take a pyrrhic victory over the enemy permanently situated a few miles from his capital.

Well sure but that does not negate the fact a lot of his victories were Pyrrhic in nature.

And days 2 & 3 of Gettysburg, no question that's a huge knock on him.  But apart from that what do you have to call him a butcher?

Pretty much every time he was on the offensive (well except Second Bull Run, that was a perfectly executed flank attack but Pope was in denial Longstreet's Corps was even there).  He counted on the sheer audacity of the attack to unnerve the Union General and it often worked but man there was a reason those attacks were audacious.  The only difference between Gettysburg and the others is that at Gettysburg the Union Army stopped being rattled by his assaults.

[derspiess]

Sure but he lost every battle except one.  I mean sure he knew how to unnerve McClellan but it was a pretty messy series of frontal assaults.

Yep.  Lee's back was against the wall, so I do cut him a small bit of slack for that.

Well sure but that does not negate the fact a lot of his victories were Pyrrhic in nature.

In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

Pretty much every time he was on the offensive (well except Second Bull Run, that was a perfectly executed flank attack but Pope was in denial Longstreet's Corps was even there).  He counted on the sheer audacity of the attack to unnerve the Union General and it often worked but man there was a reason those attacks were audacious. 

I wouldn't call Chancellorsville butchery. Besides that we have Gettysburg and Seven Days.  If there's anything else I'm drawing a blank.

The only difference between Gettysburg and the others is that at Gettysburg the Union Army stopped being rattled by his assaults.

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

[Valmy]

I wouldn't call Chancellorsville butchery.

Chancellorsville was a completely crazy and suicidal plan.  Which was why it worked but there was a reason it was considered crazy and suicidal.

[Valmy]

In the sense that the South could hardly replace any losses, sure.  But that being the case it's unavoidable unless they just give up.

I don't think the South was required to fight the war by launching crazy assaults all the time.  What they needed were battles like Fredericksburg where they maneuvered the North into making the crazy assaults.  You know, like what Joe Johnston was always trying to do.

[Valmy]

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

[CountDeMoney]

That's one way not to fuck up quotes.

[Valmy]

That's one way not to fuck up quotes.

That's weird.  I did that without even noticing.

[derspiess]

There were a few other factors.  Not having Jackson anymore/not taking Culp's Hill on Day 1, lack of effective recon, and defensive terrain to name some.

Jackson was late and bungled a lot during the Seven Days campaign.  But details like that don't matter when your opponent is being psychologically beaten.

Yeah, Jackson was terrible in the Seven Days, but I was talking about Gettsyburg. 

[viper37]

I always figured that the nature of the Civil War, outdated tactics and newer weapons, ensured a heavier casualty toll in the ACW, rather than the Generals being overly harsh about casualties. 

And strangely, we saw more of the same in WW1.  It's as if the higher officers still tought themselves in the Napoleonic era.