HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > American Civil War

Notices and Announcements

American Civil War The American Civil War.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 18 Feb 11, 22:12
scottmanning's Avatar
scottmanning scottmanning is offline
First Sergeant
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Scott Manning
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 244
scottmanning is on the path to success [1-99] scottmanning is on the path to success [1-99] scottmanning is on the path to success [1-99] scottmanning is on the path to success [1-99] scottmanning is on the path to success [1-99]
Lee was the real butcher?

Bonekemper III, Edward H. "The Butcher's Bill." Civil War Times L, no. 2 (April 2011): 36-43.



In the latest Civil War Times, Edward H. Bonekemper III makes a compelling argument about how Lee, not Grant, deserves nickname “butcher.” Although both inflicted more casualties than their combined opponents, Lee ultimately suffered more than Grant (208,922 vs. 153,642). However, Lee benefitted from a +37,000-casualty differential against his opponents whereas Grant only benefitted from a +31,000 differential. Then there are the goals and the results. Lee needed to force an end to hostilities and he failed to do that. On the other hand, Grant needed to be aggressive and defeat the armies of the South. Not only did he suffer fewer casualties than Lee, Grant was able to force three different armies to surrender. Lee ultimately lost more men without any of Grant’s total victories.

The author poses the age-old question about whether Lee should have been so aggressive. Had he fought defensively instead of invading the North twice, he would have increased the odds for the South. I have heard this argument before and I am not sure I am sold on it. I tend to think that had Lee not invaded at the times he did, he would have ensured more continuous fighting in Virginia, with the result being more Union troops pouring freely into the region. Lee’s best hope of convincing the Union populace that the war was pointless was by getting a victory on Northern soil. By always fighting in Virginia, Lee would have given the Army of the Potomac more chances to succeed.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
Facebook Connect and Magazine Promotions

World War II Magazine
$26.95

Armchair General Magazine
$26.95
Military History Magazine
$26.95
 

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.