Despite a string of Union successes in mid-1863, including Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and the capture of Chattanooga, Union prospects remained uncertain, and the new year would include elections in which voters unsatisfied with the progress of the war could support an accommodationist government. More comprehensive means were needed against a large democratic opponent. The only experience of strategy for most Americans was the war with Mexico (1846–1848) against a dictatorship in which the strategy was straightforward: defeat the army and capture the capital. For over 2 years, Lincoln and his commanders pursued objectives without a unifying strategic goal. In February 1864, Lincoln appointed Grant General-in-Chief of the Union armies, and they began piecing together the means to win the war.
By orchestrating a complete national strategy, Lincoln and his top general, Grant, provided the template for American success in war-a template that 21 st-century strategic leaders would be well advised to follow. power to achieve results brute force and abundant resources alone are most often insufficient to achieve the desired outcome. When American leaders have been successful in war, it has been because they, as did Grant and Lincoln in 1864, implemented an overarching strategy that incorporated all aspects of U.S. The United States has enjoyed such advantages in every subsequent conflict and has generally sought to take advantage of them. This comprehensive strategy, which included political, economic, and diplomatic elements as well as military operations, led to victory.īy the early 20 th century, however, a consensus had emerged among many Americans that endorsed General Lee’s view of how the war ended: the Union simply had advantages in population and economy that made victory inevitable. Although there was no written plan, Lincoln and Grant combined the separate elements of Union power in a complementary way to make continuing the war more painful to the Confederate population than rejoining the Union. In concert with Lincoln’s other strategic efforts to weaken the Confederate will to resist, Grant devised a military plan that ultimately gave Lee no choice but to surrender. Yet the key to victory was found in 1864, after President Abraham Lincoln appointed General Ulysses S. 3 Strong cases can be made as to why each was important to the Confederacy’s downfall. Many explanations have been proposed for the Union victory: political, economic, military, social, even diplomatic. 2 Indeed, its success in repelling invasions over the first 2 years of the war led many to believe that the war had almost been won.Ī century and a half later, there remains considerable debate among historians as to the reasons for the outcome of the Civil War. The Confederacy, many felt, would not have embarked on a war it could not win. Lee’s immediate view of the circumstances, that the Confederate armies had done everything possible but were overmatched by Northern numbers, provided a means by which his veterans could feel that they had served honorably, but it was challenged almost immediately by other Confederate military and political leaders who blamed instead such factors as incompetent government, social divisions, and political squabbling for their defeat. Lee wrote a letter to the soldiers of his army that began, “After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been forced to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.” 1 At this moment, the Civil War essentially ended in victory for the Union, and the process of reuniting the United States of America began. General Grant, Lieutenant Colonel Bowers, and General Rawlins at Grant’s headquarters, Cold Harbor, June 1864 (LOC)
0 kommentar(er)
