Things I've been wrong about

[GraniteStater]

This is posted here only as a pointer to the History forum and a short reference. For discussion, please go there.

After some moderately extensive reading lately (Catton's trilogy on the war, a bio of Lincoln from the '90s, a book contrasting Grant & Lee, and Keegan's analysis of the war), I stand corrected (or learned) on a few things, viz.:

* Yes, indeed the US merchant marine never really recovered from the war.

* The received wisdom was on forts vs. ships. Two caveats - I still draw the line on siege mortars - siege mortars, that is. There were anti-shipping pieces, but they weren't siege mortars. Also, Farragut and others did OK when running forts - not slugging it out. Two different things.

* Generals, down to the last day, were enamored of the Big Decisive Battle that would end it all. The better ones in the North disabused themselves of this notion, but none were completely immune to it.

* Cavalry did not do an especially good job of track busting; as a matter of fact it was poor at it.

* The South never ran out of powder, not until the very end.

* Armies learned early on to throw up something, anything, for defense. As time went by, veteran troops could dig in very, very effectively, even in one day, or hours.

* The war was fought almost entirely by large bodies of infantry with rifled muskets. Compared to European practice, cavalry was scanty, used mostly for recon and flank guarding. There were no European decisive cavalry charges that were the KO in a battle.

* Same for artillery - not used in the same proportions as in European armies. Thus, the ACW was almost entirely infantry duels or assaults. This also helps to explain why positions were not really reduced that much before assaults.

* Southern generals made some Really Bad Decisions in KY/TN in early 62, the first one being not occupying Paducah, instead of Columbus, KY. Fort Henry's placement was simply idiotic.

* Ben Butler shouldn't have been anywhere near troops, but Lincoln couldn't touch him because of political considerations. After Nov 64, he was Outta There. His decision about contrabands, though, was correct and actually had huge ramifications.

* From what I can see, KY was never going to join the CSA. Divided? Yes - not enough, though. Two campaigns were predicated on raising the people of the state to the cause; Bragg brought thousands of muskets with him for issue - very, very few joined the colors.

* Lyon chased a legal governor of a state right out of the state - in essence, Lyon just took Missouri right over. One determined officer, if you ask me. From what I read, I would say that MO was about 65/35, Union. Maybe 60/40, but not 50/50.

There are some others, but I'll close with this: Lincoln was a stupefyingly good judge of the public's views and what to do, when. The more and more I read of his decisions and the context thereof, I find it extremely hard to fault him to the least degree in any of them. He was a political genius whose judgement and timing cannot be surpassed by anyone in history, imho. He was a pretty good strategist, too - very early on, he saw that the object was to destroy the South's armies, their capability and will to resist. Too many generals in the North persisted for too long in being happy with 'taking places', not seeing that the places were means to an end, not the end itself.


**********

Again, please go to History forum.