• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Celebrate the 151st Anniversary of Lee's Surrender

The original American revolutionaries of 1776 did more with less.

Helix said:
i'll also say that the Confederacy did more with less than any other American rebellion will probably ever do again.

.....
 
Yes? That is the point of my disagreement.

really? so your argument is that an armed rebellion these days would gain anywhere near the traction that a force with similar weaponry to the established government managed in the nineteenth century? because, if so, we certainly disagree on that point. the armed rebellions these days are taking over birdwatching stations for a couple weeks and are still handily defeated.
 
really? so your argument is that an armed rebellion these days would gain anywhere near the traction that a force with similar weaponry to the established government managed in the nineteenth century? because, if so, we certainly disagree on that point. the armed rebellions these days are taking over birdwatching stations for a couple weeks and are still handily defeated.

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand so thoroughly. My point was that the American revolutionaries of 1776-1783 had done more with less than did the Confederates of 1861-1865.
 
I'm not sure how you could misunderstand so thoroughly. My point was that the American revolutionaries of 1776-1783 had done more with less than did the Confederates of 1861-1865.

ok, one last try.

Helix said:
i'll also say that the Confederacy did more with less than any other American rebellion will probably ever do again.

do you understand?
 
ok, one last try.



do you understand?

Understood it the first time. I was just pointing out the Confederates' achievement wasn't so impressive. Not sure where all your shouting is coming from.
 
Understood it the first time. I was just pointing out the Confederates' achievement wasn't so impressive. Not sure where all your shouting is coming from.

i never said anything about the Revolutionary War, nor even alluded to it. that's an entirely different subject.
 
i never said anything about the Revolutionary War, nor even alluded to it. that's an entirely different subject.

No dispute, but they were American insurrectionists who did more with less.
 
No dispute, but they were American insurrectionists who did more with less.

yeah, i'm not going to argue just to argue when i have already explained what i was saying multiple times.
 
To be in Lee's shoes Grant would have had to be someone else. While it is conceivable to imagine Lee fighting for the North, it is impossible to imagine Grant fighting for the South.

This is what I am talking about when I mention that Lee is judged because of the side he chose. Not because of what he did. The same is said for Grant. You really cannot remove the bias of side and decide for yourself if Grant would have led a successful campaign from a position of extreme disadvantage like that if the South? Where any war fought on your own soil meant starving your own people?

And that isn't an answer about how Lee would have faired as a Union General. Do you think he would have been as masterful for them? You are talking about someone who was able to divide his army 3 times. Lee was such an able commander that he is essentially was the only reason that the South's situation remained plausible until 1863. Do you think Grant would have been capable of that command?

Lee served with distinction in previous wars. He was the leading Choice for the union but resigned. He was a genius of a General, and to flatly state that he was "out generaled" while fighting a war against such overwhelming odds is hilariously naive and does a disservice to history. If we can recognize the brilliance of the German's in both world wars, I think we can make some room for Lee.
 
The South had it coming. The north had better: manufacturing, population, transportation, technology, etc.

The only things the South had that were superior overall were: Tactics, and defender's advantage (you fight harder when you fight for your home)

Those two can only take you so far before your face gets pummeled in the ****ing sand.

There were other minor advantages like cavalry for scouting (Jeb Stuart) And of course home field knowledge, stonewall Jackson making incredible use of that.
 
the math didn't work, and Pickett's charge was a disaster. i will say that i admire Lee for his loyalty to his state and home. i'll also say that the Confederacy did more with less than any other American rebellion will probably ever do again. if today's idiot partisan morons mounted another rebellion, they'd be put down in about ten minutes if they tried to do it with firearms. back then, they actually had a brief chance of victory.

but **** slavery right in the ear, and yeah, that was a major reason for the Civil War.

When discussing tactics you must ignore the cause. When discussing historical significance you cannot. Look at the Huns. Military genius responsible for the slaughter of 80 million or so. The same for the Germans of the first and Second World War.
 
:applaud:applaud:applaud

RIP to both sides who fought in the conflict, but one side was the just side.. Long live the Union.
 
There's nothing anti-Southern in this. I'm among those who regard Nathan Bedford Forrest as the Confederacy's best, a soldier of true genius. My problem with Lee is that he represented the finest soldiering of an era that was passing from the scene, and he seems not to have understood that. Whether Grant understood this evolution consciously can be debated, but he was a "modern" general in a way Lee was not. The difference can even be captured in a single moment, IMHO. In 1864, after the Wilderness, Grant's famous right turn toward Spotsylvania (rather than left to rest and refit as had hitherto been the custom after a major battle) was the first glimpse of the continuous combat engagement that would characterize the warfare of the 20th century.

Are you aware of the technology at the disposal of Grant vs Lee? Lee had troops armed with smooth bore weapons while grants men were consistently rifled and even had lever action and breech loaders. Not to mention trains.

Would Lee have better utilized this technology had he had it at his disposal? I think so.
 
Are you aware of the technology at the disposal of Grant vs Lee? Lee had troops armed with smooth bore weapons while grants men were consistently rifled and even had lever action and breech loaders. Not to mention trains.

Would Lee have better utilized this technology had he had it at his disposal? I think so.

I suggest you review the material. Both sides had rifled muskets. Breech loaders were largely restricted to cavalry and I don't recall any significant use of lever action. As for trains, the South had them too until Union raids crippled the rail network. No, Lee's shortcomings are not explained by technological inferiority.

Are you aware that Lee and Jefferson Davis sponsored the plot that led to Lincoln's assassination?
 
This is what I am talking about when I mention that Lee is judged because of the side he chose. Not because of what he did. The same is said for Grant. You really cannot remove the bias of side and decide for yourself if Grant would have led a successful campaign from a position of extreme disadvantage like that if the South? Where any war fought on your own soil meant starving your own people?

And that isn't an answer about how Lee would have faired as a Union General. Do you think he would have been as masterful for them? You are talking about someone who was able to divide his army 3 times. Lee was such an able commander that he is essentially was the only reason that the South's situation remained plausible until 1863. Do you think Grant would have been capable of that command?

Lee served with distinction in previous wars. He was the leading Choice for the union but resigned. He was a genius of a General, and to flatly state that he was "out generaled" while fighting a war against such overwhelming odds is hilariously naive and does a disservice to history. If we can recognize the brilliance of the German's in both world wars, I think we can make some room for Lee.

Overwhelming odds? The American revolutionaries faced longer odds and won.

If Lee commanded the North and Albert Sidney Johnston the South it likely would have been a stand off.
 
I suggest you review the material

You mean the material I have been read in books, but seen at the battlefields, and studied in college as well as high school? I think I'm good.


.
Both sides had rifled muskets.

Yes. The north had significantly more and it took a serious effort early for the South to equip their men with rifles. An impressive feat too. Early on they still were turning out regulars with smooth bore muskets.

Breech loaders were largely restricted to cavalry and I don't recall any significant use of lever action.

You need to visit Chickamauga. If you haven't already that is. Read about Wilder and how the efforts of his men with breech loaders prevented what would have no doubt been a disastrous Union route. Keep in mind that battle was the second bloodiest of the war.

And Breech loaders played a pivotal role at the bloodiest as well. They allowed General Buford's cavalry to delay against a larger force. Whenever they were employed...they were deadly decisive.

As for trains, the South had them too until Union raids crippled the rail network.

The south did NOT have railroads like the Union. They had different sized tracks all throughout the south. And that pretty clearly played a major role in transport. Getting off one train to get on another slows you down a lot more than just refueling. This is basic knowledge.

No, Lee's shortcomings are not explained by technological inferiority.

Lee's "shortcomings" are absolutely explained by being technologically crippled, crippled by being out numbered, crippled by not having the supplies to win. No SERIOUS military historian would say that Lee was not a great general. And the thing that was his worst decision? He had no choice but to get involved in the North. He couldn't starve his own people by being on their land.

And again I ask...do you think Grant could have done as well in Lee's shoes?

Are you aware that Lee and Jefferson Davis sponsored the plot that led to Lincoln's assassination?

I need proof of that. Because I have never heard that and my Google fu has not found anything on that either.
 
Overwhelming odds? The American revolutionaries faced longer odds and won.

If Lee commanded the North and Albert Sidney Johnston the South it likely would have been a stand off.

The American revolutionaries didn't face the British alone. I'm not taking away from what Washington did either. He was brilliant as Was Nathaniel Green. They fought long drawn out chases and forced British supply lines to lengthen. They used the British navy against itself basically (they relied so heavily on it that it was nearly impossible to go inland because of the inability to stay resupplied). That is why the South was such a disaster for the British and why the French navy was so important at Yorktown. Not to mention what was happening in Europe at the time. Heck the British had no major allies globally during that war. While we had France and France had Spain and the Netherlands.

Trying to compare the wars doesn't really make sense to me. Especially not the odds. The south was alone. They were poorly supplied. They were an agrarian society fighting an industrial society. The odds were clearly stacked against them. And they didn't have the presence of mind to fight a political war against the Union (draft riots?)
 
Y


I need proof of that. Because I have never heard that and my Google fu has not found anything on that either.

[h=3]Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the ...[/h]www.amazon.com › Books › History › Americas


Amazon.com, Inc.


Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln Paperback – September 1, 1988. ... With John Wilkes Booth as its agent, the Confederate Secret Service devised a plan of retribution--to seize President Lincoln, hold him hostage, and bring the war ...
 
The American revolutionaries didn't face the British alone. I'm not taking away from what Washington did either. He was brilliant as Was Nathaniel Green. They fought long drawn out chases and forced British supply lines to lengthen. They used the British navy against itself basically (they relied so heavily on it that it was nearly impossible to go inland because of the inability to stay resupplied). That is why the South was such a disaster for the British and why the French navy was so important at Yorktown. Not to mention what was happening in Europe at the time. Heck the British had no major allies globally during that war. While we had France and France had Spain and the Netherlands.

Trying to compare the wars doesn't really make sense to me. Especially not the odds. The south was alone. They were poorly supplied. They were an agrarian society fighting an industrial society. The odds were clearly stacked against them. And they didn't have the presence of mind to fight a political war against the Union (draft riots?)

Comparing the wars makes at least as much sense as imagining Lee and Grant swapping sides.
 
Last edited:
[h=3]Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the ...[/h]www.amazon.com › Books › History › Americas


Amazon.com, Inc.


Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln Paperback – September 1, 1988. ... With John Wilkes Booth as its agent, the Confederate Secret Service devised a plan of retribution--to seize President Lincoln, hold him hostage, and bring the war ...

Ah. This book. I haven't read it, but I read some reviews on it and even the authors admit that the evidence is circumstantial. Not to mention the sponsoring of an intelligence network in a time of war is not the same as being directly involved in an assassination plot. For all intensive purposes, even if Booth was an agent, he was not operating under the direction of Lee. Davis? I don't know. Not Lee.
 
Comparing the wars makes at least as much sense as imagining Lee and Grant swapping sides.

I'm not asking that they ACTUALLY swap sides. I was asking you to perform a mental exercise and if you believe Grant would have been able to lead an army under the same conditions as Lee. The fact that you are leery to answer makes me suspicious that you don't believe Grant could have done as well from such a distinct disadvantage. Supply troubles and so on.
 
He was neither out generated or out smarted. He didn't have the money or industry to win. Recognizing those advantages should not have taken that long. But it did. Lee was a genius and had he been fighting for the union...he likely could have ended the war much sooner.

Ahhh, someone that actually knows their history, a rare thing these days.
 
Back
Top Bottom