Any civil war buffs here?

***Reynolds357*** · Jul 28th 2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Clavicula_Nox

It's too bad he was strategically incompetent.

Lee made some mistakes, but I think it is a stretch to call him "incompetent." Had lee had anywhere close to the same amount of men, cavalry, artillery, food, medicine, and supplies that his counterpart had; Lee would have won the war.

The incompetentcy was on the western front. Had the truly incompetent commanders the C.S.A. had there not let the country get sliced in half, and then lost Atlanta; Lee would have had much more opportunity to win in the Virginia theater. Lee was forced out of his battle plan due to loses in the west and deep south.

***RabbiKnife*** · Jul 28th 2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Reynolds357

According to Jefferson Davis, W.T. Sherman, and U.S. Grant, Forest was the best general in the C.S.A.

Agreed. Forrest gets a bad rap perhaps because of some of his post war activities....

***Clavicula_Nox*** · Jul 29th 2009, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Reynolds357

According to Jefferson Davis, W.T. Sherman, and U.S. Grant, Forest was the best general in the C.S.A.

I completely agree with this assessment. It's unfortunate that he gets dismissed because of his post-war activities.

Lee made some mistakes, but I think it is a stretch to call him "incompetent." Had lee had anywhere close to the same amount of men, cavalry, artillery, food, medicine, and supplies that his counterpart had; Lee would have won the war.

The incompetentcy was on the western front. Had the truly incompetent commanders the C.S.A. had there not let the country get sliced in half, and then lost Atlanta; Lee would have had much more opportunity to win in the Virginia theater. Lee was forced out of his battle plan due to loses in the west and deep south.

I just don't see it. Tactically, Lee was sound, but he was unable to translate his tactical victories into strategic and operational success. I agree that his personnel and war materials disadvantages hindered him, but he didn't account for it and both of his offensive campaigns were extremely poor. Not to mention Gettysburg and beyond.

I also agree in the West, and that it severely hampered the Eastern war. I just don't see Lee as the genius that most people seem to accredit him. Like I said earlier, I haven't studied this subject in great detail for some time, and I'm speaking entirely off of memory, so that could always be flawed.

***Firefighter*** · Jul 29th 2009, 01:58 AM

He definitely has a "colorful" history, but due to his being the first official Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, he will forever be largely ignored by history books. Never mind the fact that he also ordered the disbanding of the Klan due to it becoming all about hate.

***Clavicula_Nox*** · Jul 29th 2009, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Urban Missionary

He definitely has a "colorful" history, but due to his being the first official Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, he will forever be largely ignored by history books. Never mind the fact that he also ordered the disbanding of the Klan due to it becoming all about hate.

Sir, I must insist you do not insert facts into this discussion; let's try to keep it limited to rhetoric and blind generalizations.

**Buck shot** · Jul 29th 2009, 02:12 PM

yeah, we might actually learn some truth, wouldn't want that to happen on the Porch **turning my head to spit over the dog**

***Firefighter*** · Jul 29th 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Clavicula_Nox

Sir, I must insist you do not insert facts into this discussion; let's try to keep it limited to rhetoric and blind generalizations.

Somehow I forgot that the War of Northern Aggression, as history books teach it, has very little to do with the facts.

Sorry Sir. Won't happen again Sir.

***Clavicula_Nox*** · Jul 29th 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Urban Missionary

Somehow I forgot that the War of Northern Aggression, as history books teach it, has very little to do with the facts.

Sorry Sir. Won't happen again Sir.

You know, from reading our posts, I think it becomes obvious who the Southerners are.

***Reynolds357*** · Jul 29th 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Clavicula_Nox

I just don't see it. Tactically, Lee was sound, but he was unable to translate his tactical victories into strategic and operational success. I agree that his personnel and war materials disadvantages hindered him, but he didn't account for it and both of his offensive campaigns were extremely poor. Not to mention Gettysburg and beyond.

I also agree in the West, and that it severely hampered the Eastern war. I just don't see Lee as the genius that most people seem to accredit him. Like I said earlier, I haven't studied this subject in great detail for some time, and I'm speaking entirely off of memory, so that could always be flawed.

Much of the genius of Lee, died with Jackson. However, a leader is entitled to the credit earned him by his subordinates. I think Lee was better than any of his counterparts in the Union army. Gettysburg was a mistake, but it was also an act of desperation. Lee knew that even though he was winning, the CSA was losing the war. He knew that the blockade was tightening. He knew that the west was shrinking. He knew that the union army was growing. He had to do something to try to break the will of the northern people to continue hostility. Gettysburg was, in my opinion, an act of desperation. Lee would have won Gettysburg is his field commanders had carried out his orders in a timely manner. The same ones who second guessed him after the battle were the ones who caused him to lose the battle. The South would have won Gettysburg on day 1, they would have won on day 2, if Lee's orders had been followed precisely. They probably would have even won on day 3 if his orders had been followed.

***Clavicula_Nox*** · Jul 29th 2009, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Reynolds357

Much of the genius of Lee, died with Jackson. However, a leader is entitled to the credit earned him by his subordinates. I think Lee was better than any of his counterparts in the Union army. Gettysburg was a mistake, but it was also an act of desperation. Lee knew that even though he was winning, the CSA was losing the war. He knew that the blockade was tightening. He knew that the west was shrinking. He knew that the union army was growing. He had to do something to try to break the will of the northern people to continue hostility. Gettysburg was, in my opinion, an act of desperation. Lee would have won Gettysburg is his field commanders had carried out his orders in a timely manner. The same ones who second guessed him after the battle were the ones who caused him to lose the battle. The South would have won Gettysburg on day 1, they would have won on day 2, if Lee's orders had been followed precisely. They probably would have even won on day 3 if his orders had been followed.

You know, you're probably right and you make me want to get some books on the subject. I think there is the possibility I've been too harsh on Lee.

***grit*** · Jul 29th 2009, 04:14 PM

so.... do I hear you saying that what really lost us the war was a lack of German scientists and ensuing technical difficulties in further developing our submarine fleet?

***Firefighter*** · Jul 29th 2009, 04:58 PM

I bet if NBF was around at the time Sherman would have never made it to Atlanta...

***Reynolds357*** · Jul 29th 2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Urban Missionary

Somehow I forgot that the War of Northern Aggression, as history books teach it, has very little to do with the facts.

Sorry Sir. Won't happen again Sir.

Revisionist History!

Our children are not taught that the war did not begin over slavery. They are not taught that many northern generals owned slaves. They are not taught that Lincoln only "freed the slaves" to keep England and France from entering the war. The do not teach that when Lincoln "freed the slaves," he only freed the slaves in the C.S.A. He did not free the slaves in the union. The books do not teach that much of the union army left (tried to leave anyway) after the emancipation proclamation because they
said they were fighthing to preserve the union not free slaves. The history books leave out the fact that the CSA had a christian constitution. They leave out a lot of facts about Sherman's terrorist campaign in Georgia. They leave out the fact that most of the Southern army was not fighting to keep slaves. Most southerners did not even own slaves.

**Buck shot** · Jul 29th 2009, 05:13 PM

I believe it was God's guiding in it all that the United States was not permanently divided. We do not see a world power in the end times the way i understand it but God has used the US in a mighty was to spread the Gospel around the world. Maybe this is why He wanted us to stay as one nation.

It was a lot easier to see the boundary lines back then. Today, we are not divided by state lines but by a moral line.

If we could only learn from what happens when government tries to force citizens to do what they want we would still be a strong country. History really does have a habit of repeating itself.

***Reynolds357*** · Jul 29th 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Buck shot

I believe it was God's guiding in it all that the United States was not permanently divided. We do not see a world power in the end times the way i understand it but God has used the US in a mighty was to spread the Gospel around the world. Maybe this is why He wanted us to stay as one nation.

It was a lot easier to see the boundary lines back then. Today, we are not divided by state lines but by a moral line.

If we could only learn from what happens when government tries to force citizens to do what they want we would still be a strong country. History really does have a habit of repeating itself.

I think that if the South had won the war, it would have remained a moral and Godly nation. The North would have continued on its path of liberalism.