- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 9,640
- Reaction score
- 3,591
- Location
- Seoul/Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If I was just a better general than lee, then maybe I could speak..sigh...
Oh and nice stances
pro: government
anti: tax
Facepalm
I can't choose sides on issues like this - the past is the past, it was what it was.
It lives on. You should know that. You live in the South.
Not really - at least not where I live. There's not much of it that's given any attention. I think in other areas that might be true - say - where a major battle or event took place.
I don't want to see Southern pride die. My son, who is a Southerner, doesn't like it when I say that. I can't help it, though.
LONG LIVE THE SOUTH.
Maybe it's my lack of a ring of friends here or my location but I just don't see that from anyone - I've heard it, I know it's there - I just dont' feel it nor am emersed in it at all.
That's sad. All America is going the way of PC-Globalization. "We are the world. We are the world. WE ARE ONE." Poop.
I'm not sure that is accurate and I doubt it, but it would make sense. Maybe from a non-official standpoint.
To my knowledge the only notable entity that officially recognized the south as a seperate country was the Catholic Church, not that it matters.
The thing is, earlier, he could have managed to win. Once Grant took over and had a free enough hand to do what had to be done, no, Lee had no chance. However, prior to this, Lee could have had his campaigning been more successful.
Confederate agents were given sanctuary and allowed to run black ops against the U.S. out of Canada.
The most notable entity to recognize the Confederate States of America, was England, who shipped thousands of tons of war materials to the South, through Canada and Mexico. The Confederates imported P58 Enfield rifled muskets by the hundreds of thousands; plus thousands of cannon, sets horse equipments and infantry accoutrements, blankets, uniforms. Just about every piece of military equipment that existed in the period was imported from England at one point, or another during the war.
We even got pretty close to intervening militarily on the confederate side but there was a huge movement against it as the public was more sympathetic (rightly or wrongly) to the union side. Possibly the first anti war movement in history.
By the summer of '63, Lee had lost the better part of his most talented generals: Jackson, Armistead, Garnet, Gregg; then Stuart in May of '64; not to mention the loss of hundreds of very talented regimental and brigade officers. At some point during Gettysburg, Lee suffered a stroke, or a heart attack. The talent he had left: Longstreet, Pickett, Ewell, D.H Hill, A.P. Hill et. al. were burnt out and were more interested in finding a way to end the war as painlessly as possible. All these things combined, were the reason that Grant's strategy was successful.
At the end of the day, the talent that existed in the officer corps of all three military departments of the Confederacy, worked against them: the best leaders lead from the front. This leadership style cost the lives of many expert tactical leaders.
There is alot of truth to this, however it doesn't really talk to my point.
Attrition is a sound strategy for those with the most men, especially in that era. It was the one strategy that Lee had no way to counter. Like it or not, Grant was the better strategist, since he devised a simple strategy that Lee could not counter. Lee could have put together a strategy earlier in the way that led to a South win, but never did.
Again, Lee was an excellent tactician, but an average strategist.
Forrest would have done terribly managing a large army. It would have been too unweildy for him. The size of the force that he had and the freedom he had to use it was perfect for his skillset. Under those conditions, he had no superior.
Forrest would have done terribly managing a large army. It would have been too unweildy for him. The size of the force that he had and the freedom he had to use it was perfect for his skillset. Under those conditions, he had no superior.
When he wasn't, which occurred later in the war, this was when he was at his best. A mid-sized command of cavalry, with total freedom to do as he felt necessary.
There is alot of truth to this, however it doesn't really talk to my point.
By the summer of '63, Lee had lost the better part of his most talented generals: Jackson, Armistead, Garnet, Gregg; then Stuart in May of '64; not to mention the loss of hundreds of very talented regimental and brigade officers. At some point during Gettysburg, Lee suffered a stroke, or a heart attack. The talent he had left: Longstreet, Pickett, Ewell, D.H Hill, A.P. Hill et. al. were burnt out and were more interested in finding a way to end the war as painlessly as possible. All these things combined, were the reason that Grant's strategy was successful.
At the end of the day, the talent that existed in the officer corps of all three military departments of the Confederacy, worked against them: the best leaders lead from the front. This leadership style cost the lives of many expert tactical leaders.
To follow up a little bit. I just do not see how the South could have prevailed from the get-go. Once blood is spilt in any quantity, who really cares why the first shot was fired. I am sure something constituted the first shot between the Hatfields and McCoys too, but who cared after that.
Even now, how much credit does a world leader get for turning the other cheek ? It would so often be the wise thing to do, but politically can be as suicide. Look at Vietnam, and how we missed so many opportunities to GTFO, when we never should have GTFI to begin with.
Perhaps, with Lee's first invasion of the North, had it not been for 3 lost cigars, maybe he creates enough havoc to where an accomodation prevails. As it was, instead we get the political environemt for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln gets his second term, and the killing continues.
As always, NBF was an excellent battle commander, would of loved to see him in a Generalship position.
I think he would of decimated the opposition.
Your point is somewhat erroneous, because had 1) the leadership that existed in the Army of Northern Virginia still been alive in mid '64 and into '65 and 2) Lee had been in the same state of mind that he was in before Gettysburg and 3) the moral of the gerneral officers that were left was still intact, Lee would have never went head to head with Grant and therefore Grant's strategy would have been a complete failure. Had Grant taken command of the Army of The Potomac at anytime prior to the spring of '63, he would have marched his Army to death, trying to even catch a glimpse of the ANV, much less get into a headlong fight with it.
Perhaps, with Lee's first invasion of the North, had it not been for 3 lost cigars, maybe he creates enough havoc to where an accomodation prevails. As it was, instead we get the political environemt for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln gets his second term, and the killing continues.
Exactly, Forrest loved being in the field. He loved it precisely because he was able to do what he did best. He was masterful in many ways, damn near magical in some ways, however he would have hated commanding a large army and he wouldn't have been good at it. Had he commanded the Army of Northern Virginia Forrest would never have had the respect of his staff or his field officers.
This is actually pretty accurate. The bravery of the Confederate generals worked against them. Btw... you forgot Clerburne, another one of the South's very talented, offensively minded, "lead from the front" kind of generals. If you look at it, the North lost far fewer good strategists/tacticians. McPherson and to some degree Sedgwick are the only two that come to mind right off the top of my head.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?