What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

[Juin]

Leave?

After the rebel traitors fired on an American Union military installation?

If they had been allowed to "leave" and had not attacked the Union at Fort Sumpter it would have only been a matter of time before the rebel traitor south would have taken up arms against the North in their desire to preserve and expand their "peculiar institution" and their other southern ways to the West.

I agree. Independence would not have solved the slavery problem for the South. The new Confederate States of America would have been still torn internally over the slavery question. And it's relationship with the rump Union in the North hostile for the reasons you cited.

 

[Juin]

The greatest general, ok, still the losing general.

Correct.

 

[neil]

The USA was right to free the slaves. They were wrong to then occupy and force the sovereign confederate people to be citizens of the USA.

Was it wrong to occupy Germany following WW2?

I thought the confederate states had to apply to rejoin the union.

The topic is far more complex than that and how its boiled down to just slavery. It was ultimately about power, economics, and liberty (for whites).

Given that slaves were non-whites, is there a substantial difference?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Won't that doom critical race theories?

It might or might not, but I wouldn't care either way.

 

[j brown's body]

I consider Robert E Lee the greatest General on both sides.

Did he ever win a battle outside of his home state?

 

[j brown's body]

I am currently reading this fascinating book. Highly recommended!

Review of “Grant” by Ron Chernow

Ron Chernow’s “Grant” was published in 2017 to almost immediate acclaim and was named a Top 10 Book of the Year by The New York Times. Chernow is bestselling the author of “Alexander Ha…

bestpresidentialbios.com

 

[TurtleDude]

Don't pout.

what a stupid response. why would I be the one pouting. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you merely respond after seeing my handle?

 

[iguanaman]

Well, I think that a wiser President than Mr. Lincoln would have let the South leave.

1. This would have saved the lives of more than 600,000 young men.

2. Probably the South would have eventually asked to return.

3. There would have eventually been a peaceful dissolution of slavery, for the anti-slavery movement was gaining traction throughout the world -- led by the British.

4. The newly freed slaves would have been gradually introduced into general society. Instead, Reconstruction was a shock to Southern Caucasian people and gave them the incentive to establish a system of separation that lasted until the 1960s.

5. Another President might have been able to work harmoniously with the South in setting a timetable for the abolition of slavery.

The USA would have failed as a nation if it let the south secede. There would be no USA today and the Germans and japanese would have won WWII too. Just look at how we are failing today because we are not united against Covid.

 

[NoahUSA]

Well because I don't have the energy to respond to everyone, it is clear some of you need to be educated. He was considered one of the greatest generals and people in America. If you believe he is horrible you know nothing of him. When he surrendered he did it in clear disregard for President Davis order and saved 40,000 lives. He helped greatly during reconstruction and is recognized, by libs and conservatives alike, as an amazing American. He could have fought for the North or South, he went to West Point and only fought for the south as it was his homeland.

 

[Tigerace117]

[]

The USA was right to free the slaves. They were wrong to then occupy and force the sovereign confederate people to be citizens of the USA.

The topic is far more complex than that and how its boiled down to just slavery. It was ultimately about power, economics, and liberty (for whites).

Considering there was no way to free the slaves without crushing the slavers, your post is nonsensical.

The South was EXPLICITLY fighting to defend slavery. Claiming it was about “liberty” is laughably wrong.

 

[Tigerace117]

It was called the "war of Northern Aggression", although 'attrition' was the practical result ....................the south hoped to prolong the war long enough to make the North agree to terms, etc, etc.

Which is a bad joke because the South was the one who started it in the first place.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Lee was undoubtedly a good general. Specifically though, he was a very gifted tactician.

The problem with tactically focused generals is the focus on tactical affairs tends to result in less attention given to the "big picture", namely strategic matters. In industrial war the tactical often matters less than the strategic. Generals like Rommel and Patton are other examples of this.

That's not to say Lee wasn't a good general, he excelled at what he was good at. And while you can point out he often was outnumbered, he also benefitted from some truly exceptional corps commanders and from facing largely hapless opposition early on in the war. Once he lost those benefits his performance fell sharply, and his tactical acumen wasn't enough to overcome the strategic advantages of the North.

The same goes for Grant. You can say he only won because he hard numbers, but other generals with even greater advantages of numbers have lost. Grant won because he knew how to properly use his forces, and he managed to command large armies across difficult terrain, which is no small feat. There's a reason so many generals today are often selected for their organizational skills; they're very important to the functioning of a modern army.

 

[neil]

Unless you're over 150 years old, it ended long before you were born. Either way, what's the point dwelling over something that ended over a century and a half ago?

 

[Tigerace117]

Well because I don't have the energy to respond to everyone, it is clear some of you need to be educated. He was considered one of the greatest generals and people in America. If you believe he is horrible you know nothing of him. When he surrendered he did it in clear disregard for President Davis order and saved 40,000 lives. He helped greatly during reconstruction and is recognized, by libs and conservatives alike, as an amazing American. He could have fought for the North or South, he went to West Point and only fought for the south as it was his homeland.

Lee had the advantage of going up against some pretty mediocre generals. The second he ran into commanders who weren’t terrified of his reputation, it was all downhill from there.

 

[j brown's body]

Well because I don't have the energy to respond to everyone, it is clear some of you need to be educated. He was considered one of the greatest generals and people in America. If you believe he is horrible you know nothing of him. When he surrendered he did it in clear disregard for President Davis order and saved 40,000 lives. He helped greatly during reconstruction and is recognized, by libs and conservatives alike, as an amazing American. He could have fought for the North or South, he went to West Point and only fought for the south as it was his homeland.

Interestingly, there were eight generals from Virginia in the military at the time of the Civil War. Lee was the only one to betray his oath to his country, and the only one to own slaves.

 

[NoahUSA]

Lee was undoubtedly a good general. Specifically though, he was a very gifted tactician.

The problem with tactically focused generals is the focus on tactical affairs tends to result in less attention given to the "big picture", namely strategic matters. In industrial war the tactical often matters less than the strategic. Generals like Rommel and Patton are other examples of this.

That's not to say Grant wasn't a good general, he excelled at what he was good at. And while you can point out he often was outnumbered, he also benefitted from some truly exceptional corps commanders and from facing largely hapless opposition early on in the war. Once he lost those benefits his performance fell sharply, and his tactical acumen wasn't enough to overcome the strategic advantages of the North.

The same goes for Grant. You can say he only won because he hard numbers, but other generals with even greater advantages of numbers have lost. Grant won because he knew how to properly use his forces, and he managed to command large armies across difficult terrain, which is no small feat. There's a reason so many generals today are often selected for their organizational skills; they're very important to the functioning of a modern army.

This is very true, I agree, even Lee agreed with us about Grant, he was an amazing General. This is what he had to say.

“We all thought Richmond, protected as it was by our splendid fortifications and defended by our army of veterans, could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our Capital, and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now, I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant's superior as a general. I doubt that his superior can be found in all history.”
― Robert E. Lee

 

[j brown's body]

Lee had the advantage of going up against some pretty mediocre generals. The second he ran into commanders who weren’t terrified of his reputation, it was all downhill from there.

He also had the benefit of merely protecting his home turf, which he knew very well. His attacks on the north were not successful.

 

[Tigerace117]

He also had the benefit of merely protecting his home turf, which he knew very well. His attacks on the north were not successful.

His invasion of West Virginia, for instance, was a colossal fiasco.

 

[NoahUSA]

He also had the benefit of merely protecting his home turf, which he knew very well. His attacks on the north were not successful.

Well if the South only wished to succeed then the primary goal would be get the North out of the South, they never tried to take over the North, just drive them back away from their country.

 

[neil]

Well if the South only wished to succeed then the primary goal would be get the North out of the South, they never tried to take over the North, just drive them back away from their country.

No, the South wanted to expand slavery into the western territories.

 

[armycowboy]

Lee sucks? As a General? I consider him the most brilliant General of the Civil War, hands down.

Gettysburg and Malvern Hill proved Lee was far from a brilliant General.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well if the South only wished to succeed then the primary goal would be get the North out of the South, they never tried to take over the North, just drive them back away from their country.

Gee, other than the invasion of Kentucky....and West Virginia....and Kansas.....and New Mexico.....and Maryland.....and....well gee, you get the idea.

 

[LouC]

Well because I don't have the energy to respond to everyone, it is clear some of you need to be educated. He was considered one of the greatest generals and people in America. If you believe he is horrible you know nothing of him. When he surrendered he did it in clear disregard for President Davis order and saved 40,000 lives. He helped greatly during reconstruction and is recognized, by libs and conservatives alike, as an amazing American. He could have fought for the North or South, he went to West Point and only fought for the south as it was his homeland.

Doctor, heal thyself!

 

[armycowboy]

Well because I don't have the energy to respond to everyone, it is clear some of you need to be educated. He was considered one of the greatest generals and people in America. If you believe he is horrible you know nothing of him. When he surrendered he did it in clear disregard for President Davis order and saved 40,000 lives. He helped greatly during reconstruction and is recognized, by libs and conservatives alike, as an amazing American. He could have fought for the North or South, he went to West Point and only fought for the south as it was his homeland.

He was a traitor, who should have been executed. And I say this as someone who was born and raised in Virginia. You have a very naive and biased view of this time period.

 

[j brown's body]

I gather that Lee was an excellent tactician and in the heat of battle was virtually peerless, while Grant, a good tactician, was much better at strategy and understanding the bigger picture.

Grant believed that a path to victory could be discerned in the aftermath of a defeat. He understood that the other side had suffered as well and had weaknesses that it did not have before and could be exploited. So he did not despair after a setback, he continued on, often to an ultimate victory.

This seems to be a major distinction between him and the Union generals who went before him in the war against Lee.