Favorite battles or campaigns...POLL

[Henry Moon]

Which of these battles or campaigns has drawn you to it, more so than the others, and if you feel like it post a sentence or two why that particular clash has become your favorite.  Of course there are many more battles than what's listed above. If your most-studied battle is not listed, send me a message on the board or you can email me at bullrun1@sigecom.net , and I'll add it on the list.   Thanks.


Terry

[Henry Moon]

My favorite would be the Spring Hill, Franklin, Nashville campaign in late 1864. The reason: the utter, selfless bravery of thousands of cold, shivering Confederate boys who were killed and wounded at Franklin, because of a poorly planned attack by the commander of the Army of Tennessee, John Bell Hood. Many a southern boy, full of promise and hope, of which General Patrick Cleburne was one, fell on that hallowed ground, following orders, knowing full well they were marching into certain death, with many of them knowing it didn't have to be that way.

The above, of course, is my own opinion.

Terry

[Johan Steele]

For me it is the Atlanta Campaign; the level of tactical & operational manuevering was IMO far superior to anything done in the East and the men on both sides were IMO the finest of the war.

I've hiked & driven through that terrain; a terrain I swear to God was designed for the defender.  Seeing those hillls and forrests that Armies moved through... uffda.

It is my opinion the AoP could never had pushed to Atlanta never mind held there against Hoods hammer blows.  Those boys of Cleburne & Cheatum etc were as tough as they got.

[Henry Moon]

Shane I agree with your assessment of the terrain at and around Atlanta. It was an obstacle only the western boys could have handled under Sherman's leadership. The AOP would have had a great deal more difficulty tackling that landscape.


Terry

[leadhead]

For me it is Gettysburg, followed by Franklin and Cold Harbor.

Shane/William42,

I'm curious about your comments concerning the AOP. Do you really feel that there was a superiority in the average line soldiers from the Western Theater? IMHO The AOP's problems arose from officers, the inept ones that led them and the superior ones that they faced.

TomH
(A tried and true Eastern Theater guy)

[Johan Steele]

I have been reading & researching the boys in the western theatre a lot over the last ten years or so.  For me the difference was one of style more than anything else.  The western soldier, on avaerage, was less polished than his eastern counterpart participated in far more marches totaling a lot more mileage covered and IMO in far more decisive campaigns than his counterpart in the east (either ANV or AoP).  The AO of the AoP & ANV were generally never more than 100 miles from their re3spective capitals.  Compared to both AoT's who covered far more territory.  Then when you look at the campaigns they participated in the difference seem even more telling.  THe difference IMO is simply put they style & area covered.

If I had my druthers I would call the CS AoT the finest of the CS Army; they managed to stay cohesive far longer than they had any right to and accomplished far more w/ less than the ANV.

Now the AoT was IMo the dominate Army of the US; the victories it won were decisive and on a strategic level won the war.  Now the AoC was more like the AoP than not; even that said they covered far more mileage and really only Chickamauga was what the AoP would have called a defeat.  While Stones River (2nd Shiloh I've heard it called too) was at best a draw... what those boys managed (on both sides) was nothing short of increadible.

The AoP & ANV was plenty good; but IMO the nearness of the big media outlets made them #1 in the papers.  When compared to those hard marching hard scrapping westerners who did far more w/ far less... they are found wanting.

I'm reminded of an incident after Chickamauga when one of Longstreets Regiments made a comment about some of Cleburnes men being "slow" they agreed to a measured march.  When the Regiment of Longstreet made it to their established point they found that Regiment of Cleburnes boys sitting in camp waiting for them.

The fighting around Atlanta was some of the most ferocious of the war and when one looks at the casualties created in such a short time one has to wonder... how in gods name did they carry on.  Those were MEN.  IMO the boys of the AoT & ANV were just men.  But they were fighting men one and all.

[Henry Moon]

Tom, in answer to your question, the western soldiers under Grant and Sherman took Vicksburg, then moved to save Chattanooga, attacked up steep mountain slopes across the Tennessee from Chattanooga, and took Missionary Ridge, Lookout Mountain, Tunnel Hill, all under tremendous fire, and going almost vertically uphill at that, defeating Bragg. Then Grant left and went east, Sherman stayed, and his western boys headed due South, took Atlanta in a long, hard-fought, brilliant campaign, then marched southeast to Savannah, and back up into South Carolina, the cradle of Secession. None of these rebel armies, from Vicksburg, to Atlanta, to Savannah, and North were slouches. They were hard-seasoned soldiers, and a match for any Union foe. Now, having said that, the AOP leaves nothing but bitter failure in my thoughts, because of their endless succession of inept leaders, and humiliating defeats. Their leaders, of course, were not their fault, but even after Grant joined Meade as they kicked off the Overland Campaign, they were whupped at every stop along the way, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and finally ended up in a siege position against a smaller, less well-supplied army, while they (AOP) continued receiving men, materiel, and an abundance of food, enabling them to finally break through the Petersburg lines, where by that time Lee's men were hungry, starving, barefoot, and low on ammo. So, I can only go by what I've read in this regard, and from that I would have to put my money on the western Union armies, as the better of the two. I know you live in Gettysburg, and I'm not detracting in any way the hard fighting that went on there by both armies. They both showed their mettle those three days in July. But Meade could've ended the war had he stepped up his boys to double-quick, and not delay in chasing Lee. The terrain was nothing compared to Atlanta, and the AOP could've redeemed itself fairly well there, but...it didn't.

Terry

[ole]

Can't pick one, Terry. Sorry. They all had serious importance in one way or another at the time. From this arm chair, I'd have to say Chattanooga in the West and Gettysburg in the east, but I might change my argument tomorrow.

Ole

[leadhead]

Terry,

I completely agree with your assessment of the western engagements and men, my only objection is the reputation that the eastern (especially Federal) forces have garnered. Even the battles that you mentioned were, in my humble opinion, examples of good men led by inept officers. The Wilderness was in essence a huge meeting engagement where noone had a clear picture of where their own troops were, never mind the enemy. Spottsy was yet another ill advised assault against well entrenched (albeit tired and wet) defenders. Cold Harbor was Grant's biggest mistake and possibly the best position held by the CS in the eastern operations, yet the troops made the assault and actually pierced the line in the south.

I agree that the terrain in the west presented some particular problems, especially the inclines faced during the assaults that you mentioned, but I am not sure which I would rather do, assault up a mountain or slam into the line at Fredericksburg, Spottsy or Cold Harbor (or Gettysburg or Franklin for that matter). My contention is that the soldiers were the same, dedicated young men willing to put their lives on the line and follow orders even when those orders were obviously inept.

I understand that the western theater has never received the attention that the eastern theater has, and I agree that the eastern proximity to the media centers of the period was a huge contributing factor. My only concern is that lately it seems that the western theater has finally drawn some well deserved attention, but at the expense of the eastern soldiers. While I agree that the western campaigns were no less important and the soldiers no less valiant than their eastern counterparts my concern is that we should not elevate the efforts in the west by degrading the efforts of the common soldier in the east.

Again, just a humble opinion,
TomH

[ole]

Couldn't agree more TomH. Save the degrading for the generals.

Ole