What is the dilemma that students of the US Civil War have to deal with when describing the strategies and tactics of US Grant after he had been name US Lieutenant General?

Answer 1

In any drawn out war there often comes a time where the leaders of a war reach a decision that the war must end no matter what the cost. It's a painful decision when there actually is a choice involved.And, it's especially true when it's a civil war and the weaker side has no ambition to conquer its opponent. The extra pain is when it is realized that the matter of "heavy costs" involves the soldiers of the more powerful side.

The winning side reaches a juncture where they say to themselves this " We have lost so many men, their lives are lost in vain unless we continue". Now, the actual cause of the war is forgotten. And the leaders of the more powerful side understand that they will have hell to pay if they don't win. In the US Civil War, we can look back and say that US Grant had to win if he wanted to be US president for 8 years. This is a cynical statement, because it places it place us in the position of an all knowing God.

One is instantly drawn back the the US war in Vietnam. And the result is a chief of state basically resigning from office ( in all practically he did ). But it's not a true comparison, but as close as one can get.

When US President Lincoln asked why he overlooked any of Grant's faults, his reply was something like " I finally found a man who would fight ". He made that reply because there were many in the North who wanted him removed earlier on, like Shiloh for example. No one can read hearts. In his last years we see President Lincoln in his second inaugural, 1864, blaming the war on no side. Each side was to blame. This is true. There would have been no war if there was not slavery, yet at the same time, there would have been no war if people knew it would kill 620,000 soldiers and leave tens of thousands with lost limbs .

On the other side of the dilemma, we have the Confederates. Vanity, greed, and shortsightedness caused yes, a viral disagreement into a war that cost heavily. Very much so.

It cost both sides a total of $3 billion. More then enough to, as Lincoln pressed for, a gradual reduction of slavery to zero and clearly enough funds to pay all the major and minor owners of slaves.

Did the South survive? Yes it did. But it would have survived so much better if they "took the money " and let their slaves go free, It survived in the worst way possible, but could have survived happily with any foresight at all.

Every war is avoidable. Especially the worst failure in US history, the Civil War.