The Super Summary of World History - Alan Dale Daniel [121]
Figure 40 Grant’s Overland Campaign
In the course of seven weeks, Grant lost sixty-five thousand men.[140] As Grant moved to the east and south of Richmond to Petersburg, Lee’s men dug in, and the two armies became locked in trench warfare for nine months in a bloody and terrible prelude to World War I. The main difference between this trench warfare and World War I was equipment, such as the lack of machine guns, heavy howitzers, sophisticated artillery shells, and quick-firing bolt-action rifles. Even under conditions where the defense was muzzle-loaded rifles and cannons, the Union could not break through because of the intense defensive fire.
Think how much harder it would be against machine guns and modern rifles. The American Civil War was the first modern war, but the Europeans avoided studying the American Civil War calling it a fight between two armed mobs. The world missed what was going on. This was modern war, and it would only get worse.
A lesser president may have given up after seeing the casualties and the stalemate; however, Lincoln never faltered. Winning the war was all.
With Lee’s men in trenches to the front, Grant decided to extend his trenches causing the Confederates to do the same to protect their flanks. However, Grant was not flanking Lee, he was trying to thin out the Confederate line by making them cover additional ground. It worked, and in a surprise attack at Five Forks on April 1, 1864, the Confederate line broke. Grant’s men flooded into Richmond, raising the stars and stripes over the Confederate capitol.
Sherman
To the west, as Grant began the Overland Campaign, Sherman started his attack to reach Atlanta, Georgia, and then the sea. No southern army could stop Sherman. General Joseph Johnson commanded the Army of Tennessee and, conservative by nature, he avoided risking the loss of too many men in action. If Sherman were to destroy his army the South had nothing left. General Johnson attempted to force Sherman to attack prepared defenses, but Sherman avoided such attacks. Knowing assaults on prepared defenses was suicide, Sherman kept finding ways to circumvent Johnson’s defensive lines forcing the Rebels back toward Atlanta. In one instance, Sherman almost got a blocking force positioned to trap Johnson’s entire army, but a subordinate moved to an inappropriate location losing the chance to destroy the Army of Tennessee. Time after time, Sherman consistently forced Confederate retreats out of well prepared defensive lines, thereby winning battles without heavy fighting. Sherman’s campaign to win Atlanta was brilliant in all respects as he accomplished the goal of the campaign with few Union losses. No other civil war general did as much with so few losses, with the possible exception of Bedford Forrest, the commander of various Confederate cavalry units.
Figure 41 Sherman Takes Atlanta—1864
By conserving his men, Johnson at least put Sherman at constant risk. The Army of Tennessee was a tough veteran unit not to be underestimated. Johnson’s strategy infuriated the political leaders of the South who demanded an all out assault to defeat Sherman.[141] Johnson dared not take such a risk so they replaced him with General John Bell Hood. Hood was reckless—at times to the extreme. He was a poor choice to lead the Army of Tennessee, the last army between Sherman and the deep south. Hood assumed command as Sherman’s forces moved on Atlanta, Georgia.
At the Battle of Atlanta on July 20, 1864, Hood attacked Sherman’s army. He set up a plan to roll up Sherman’s flank and deliver a blow to his rear-supply areas. By attacking Sherman’s supply line Hood hoped to damage the Union army’s logistic situation enough to stop the advance. At least focusing on logistics was the correct strategy. The Confederates needed to get at the Union’s supply and communication line (there was only one rail line) and block it to stop the advance.[142] Johnson missed his chance to accomplish