[civilwarwest] Re: Grant
- In a message dated 11/22/1999 12:57:53 PM Mountain Standard Time,
<< Subj: [civilwarwest] Re: Grant
Date: 11/22/1999 12:57:53 PM Mountain Standard Time
From: neho69@... (Mike Meno)
If Lee had taken Washington after Gettysburg, my guess is the North would
surrender immediately. It's one thing when Richmond is captured because it
was a rebel capital of a country still trying to declare independence.
Washington on the other hand was the capital of an already sturdy nation and
if it were captured by rebels, I don't think there would be time for Grant
to move east, the war would have been over. The northern public wanted the
war to end and didn't care in whose favor. It still would be interesting
Your Obedient Servant:
>From: "Carl Themes" <darthcarl13@...>It's difficult to envision a confederate victory at Gettysburg, given the
>Subject: [civilwarwest] Grant
>Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:20:50 -0800
>Hows about another what If?
>What if Lee had taken Washington after a victory at Gettysburg.
>Lincoln's last order out is to send for Grant's Army of the Tennessee.
>Rosencrans marks time opposite Bragg. Grant's army moves east to
>retake Washington. What do y'all think?
circumstances that Lee was attacking a numerically superior army in a strong
defensive position and he lacked adequate supplies and knowledge of the
enemy's position and capability. A far more likely scenario would be complete
disaster if Meade had been inclined to pursue.
However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that Lee had decided to
attack Washington on his way back to Virginia. To do so, he would have again
been attacking a vastly superior numerical enemy in an extemely strong
defensive position while his forces would have been greatly weakened and with
ammunition in short supply from his battle in Pennsylvania.
Again for the sake of discussion, let's assume that he did capture
Washington. Washington was, like Richmond, a symbol without great strategic
importance. In fact, the geographical location of Washington was a great
disadvantage, being nearly surrounded by unfriendly territory. Lincoln would
have had ample opportunity to move the government to Philadelphia or New
Again, to assume that the North wanted the war over at any cost (including
surrender) is just not justified by the facts. While there were a significant
number of Copperheads, the overwhelmingly sentiment was pro-union. In fact,
the capture of Washington would likely have infuriated the North and led to
large numbers of recruits to avenge the insult.
None of which would have brought Grant back East quickly since he had to
consolidate his gains in the West.
Just my opinions,
- At 2:48 AM +0000 9/16/05, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Laurie,Sorry to hear this - and so it goes... That's why I try to give what
> The farm between the Park and the Interstate 24 has just sold
>(500A) and zoned commercial hwy. The farm on the old Wilkinson Pike.
I can to the CWPT.
>Excellent idea, Lt. Col. Fremantle!
>The chance for winning...
>We are at the head knocking wall . Would you like a cup of English tea.
>Let me turn this debate to a subject I've only listened to in the past.Good question and I will pass for the moment - I've other work to do
>If the North is so strong that no possibility of winning militarily
>then does that put Grant in another light. Did he just keep throwing
>men into the fire and had no real strategy to beat Lee other than
>wear him down. Could any General have accomplished this.
and I think have talked enough for now. Back to a bit of lurking as
I've got an official visit for a recruit about to start.
Talk to you soon.
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller Civil War First Person Impressions
Maitre d'Armes William Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
Department of History
Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference
Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association
Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division
Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/