Answer:
Was Grant Justified in His Actions in 1864?
Step-by-step explanation:
The American Civil War was a bloody and costly conflict that lasted from 1861 to 1865. It pitted the United States of America, or the Union, against the Confederate States of America, or the Confederacy, over the issues of slavery, states’ rights, and territorial expansion. The war resulted in more than 600,000 deaths and left millions of people wounded, displaced, or impoverished. The outcome of the war also determined the fate of the nation and its future course of development.
One of the most influential and controversial figures in the Civil War was Ulysses S. Grant, who rose from obscurity to become the commander of all Union armies in 1864. Grant was a decisive and aggressive leader who pursued a coherent and effective strategy to defeat the Confederate armies and end the war as quickly as possible. His actions in 1864 included launching simultaneous campaigns against multiple Confederate targets, engaging Lee’s army in a series of battles in Virginia, and besieging Petersburg and Richmond. In this essay, I will argue that Grant was justified in his actions in 1864 because he achieved his military objectives, shortened the war, and preserved the Union.
Grant’s simultaneous campaigns aimed to destroy or capture Confederate armies and restrict their ability to wage war. He coordinated the movements of several Union armies to attack different parts of the Confederacy, such as Sherman’s march to Atlanta and Savannah, Banks’s expedition to Mobile, Sigel’s advance in the Shenandoah Valley, and Butler’s landing at Bermuda Hundred. These campaigns had various results and impacts, such as Sherman’s capture of Atlanta and Savannah, which boosted Union morale and weakened Confederate resources and infrastructure. These campaigns also supported Grant’s main objective of defeating Lee’s army by preventing reinforcements, supplies, and communication from reaching the Confederate capital.
Grant’s engagement of Lee’s army in Virginia was a bold and relentless attempt to break the Confederate resistance and end the war. He crossed the Rapidan River on May 4, 1864, and initiated a series of battles with Lee’s army in the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor, and other locations. These battles were brutal and bloody, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides. Grant lost about 55,000 men and Lee lost about 33,000 men. However, unlike previous Union commanders who retreated or regrouped after suffering heavy losses, Grant continued to press on and maneuver around Lee’s flank, forcing him to retreat or defend his positions. Grant’s strategy differed from previous Union commanders who sought to capture Richmond or avoid direct confrontation with Lee. Grant realized that Lee’s army was the main threat and source of strength for the Confederacy, and that destroying it would end the war.
Grant’s siege of Petersburg and Richmond was a decisive move that cut off the Confederate lifeline and paved the way for the final surrender. He reached Petersburg on June 15, 1864, and attempted to break through the Confederate defenses before Lee could reinforce them. However, he was repulsed with heavy losses and settled for a nine-month active siege of Petersburg. During this time, he conducted various actions and events that occurred during the siege, such as the Battle of the Crater, the Weldon Railroad raid, the Battle of Five Forks, and the fall of Richmond. These actions succeeded in isolating Lee’s army from its sources of supply and support, forcing it to abandon Petersburg and Richmond and retreat westward until it was surrounded and compelled to surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.
In conclusion, Grant was justified in his actions in 1864 because he pursued a coherent and effective strategy to defeat the Confederate armies and end the war as quickly as possible. His actions in 1864 included launching simultaneous campaigns against multiple Confederate targets, engaging Lee’s army in a series of battles in Virginia, and besieging Petersburg and Richmond. His strategy achieved his military objectives, shortened the war by preventing further bloodshed or prolongation of hostilities, and preserved the Union by restoring its authority over all states. His actions also demonstrated his leadership, determination, and vision for ending the Civil War and securing peace for the nation. However, his actions also raised some ethical questions about the costs and consequences of waging total war against an enemy that inflicted immense suffering on both soldiers and civilians.