Two new books now sit on my nightstand. One of these books is Stonewall Jackson by renowned historian Bud Robertson II. It is one of the best biographies of Jackson I have read thus far. The other book is another biography of George Stannard. I wanted to learn more about him because he seemed to have an acute sense of tactics and terrain. He performed well at Gettysburg and Fort Harrison. Therefore, I wanted to learn more about his service during the war. It certainly does not go into the depth I would enjoy, but it gives more information than most other material. Nevertheless, I am reading about his time during the Battle of First Bull Run.
There is always one week I look the most forward to during the school year. One day out of the school year, I lectured on the Overland Campaign and conversed with my class about its significance. This year, I provided a slide presentation with a map of the movement of Grant and Lee's armies across Virginia. We covered each battle in some detail, hitting important items such as Longstreet's arrival at the Wilderness, the "Mule Shoe" at Spotsylvania Courthouse, the Union attack on 3 June, and the pinning of Lee at Petersburg. We talked about officers who performed well and others who fell short of expectations in each engagement.
My students' comments and interpretations always humble me because their voices look at the campaign with new eyes, seeing the bigger picture that I often overlook. They made the following conclusions: There was a lot of movement between both armies looking at the tactical and operational maps; they thought it was impressive that Lee held off Grant for as long as he did with the numbers he possessed. They also needed clarification about why Lee let Grant around his right flank multiple times since he did not deviate from that plan. Finally, they are still determining who won each battle but know that Grant had the upper hand by the end of the campaign. I told them stories about specific people during the campaign, such as Emory Upton, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, Ambrose Burnside, and George Meade. I was impressed and proud of their conclusions.
A quick announcement, I am always looking for feedback and input from these articles. I greatly enjoy writing these small pieces each week. I have to thank Darren for taking the time to put them up. However, I would love it if you rate each one of these articles that you read to help me improve my writing. I am always looking for feedback on how to improve myself. Secondly, feel free to make suggestions in the comments about any historical topic you want me to write about or interpret. I may not be an expert, but I would happily give my two cents.
Questions of the Week: What is a historical event or topic you know little about but would love to learn more about?
My comment is that while he was moving south towards Richmond Grant caused the near destruction of his army. He was trying to destroy Lee’s army and did better it very badly. Grant arrived at the Banks of the James River with a bad way depleted army. He finished wrecking the army of the Potomac between June 15 and June 18, 1864. After that the flower of the army was gone, and he had to rely on substitutes and bounty jumpers, and draftdodgers, There is no way that post June 18 army could take Petersburg.