The South of necessity had always mostly fought defensive battles up to Gettysburg. When Lee against advice from all his subordinate officers, got his nose wide and PO, attacked a superior enemy in defensive positions. The battle cry of the Union troops at Gettysburg was “Fredericksburg” from battle of same name where they suffered huge losses when situation was the reverse.
The actual trench warfare you reference did not come into being until last months of the war around Petersburg, VA.
I think the best defensive Confederate General was Joe Johnston, where in the Hundred Days Battle in Georgia he so skillfully frustrated Sherman’s advance on Atlanta. But after much back stabbing politics, President Davis relieved and replaced him with General Hood. Who immediately went out in front of Atlanta, attacked Sherman in a series of battles, and was soundly defeated for his efforts.
Hood in1864, IMO, totally destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee, when against all advice, stupidly attacked a much superior foe who was in very strong defensive positions at the Battle of Franklin TN.
Old Joe certainly was more effective than Hood. However, his skillful maneuvers always ended in retreats, not surprisingly since he was usually outnumbered 2 to 1.
Over the entire campaign from Chattanooga to Atlanta in which he so skillfully fought Sherman, he retreated every time. Hood, OTOH, attacked and was quickly clobbered.
The only difference in the outcome was how long it took. A purely defensive strategy can never defeat the enemy militarily, although it can wear him down until he gives up and goes home, which was the sole CSA hope in the last two years of the war.
A lot of people trash the decision by Lee and Davis to invade the north in the Gettysburg campaign. I don't. After the failure of hopes for foreign intervention, it was the only realistic hope for winning southern independence.
Lee never really wanted to fight at Gettysburg and in another location he very well might have won.
Even at Gettysburg itself, the fate of the battle and of the South hung in the scales at least half a dozen times, and could easily have come down on the other side.
Had Lee been able to put together a victory as complete as Chancellorsville or Second Bull Run, which he came very close to doing, he could have marched on and probably occupied Washington. Whether this would have ended the war is anybody's guess. Certainly the CSA did not have the military potential to overwhelm the Union in purely military terms, but Union morale and confidence might have crumbled to point they would have accepted southern independence.
IOW, Lee's second invasion of the North was the moral equivalent of Hood's battles for Atlanta, though much better managed. A last desperate gamble for victory chosen over the certainty of slow but well-managed defeat.
Grant was widely considered and called a butcher at the time and since because of the high casualties his troops suffered.
It is therefore interesting to learn that of all the major generals of the war, the one with the highest casualty rate for troops under his command was ... R. E. Lee.
Grant, I believe, came in second.
Grant was widely considered and called a butcher at the time and since because of the high casualties his troops suffered.
It is therefore interesting to learn that of all the major generals of the war, the one with the highest casualty rate for troops under his command was ... R. E. Lee.
Grant, I believe, came in second.