Grant Or Lee (1 Viewer)

[sceic2]

Ron, did you know that Lee was really a democrat from Boston

 

[wellington]

Perhaps if Lee asked for Wellington's help on the subject he may have had a chance in winning but if I'm not mistaken he asked the French......


WELLINGTON

This is not to offend anyone I am only joking with the comments I have made...I have a deep respect for the French and they are allies to Canada....

 

[jazzeum]

Son of the South, Ron

Now, that explains everything

 

[binder001]

Just as the American Civil War marked a turning point in warfare, so did the personalities of those two famous commanders. Lee was a Southern gentleman from an old family, Grant was "blue collar". To reverse things to modern times - Lee was a Kennedy and Grant was Larry the Cable Guy. Lee was loved by his troops, believed in personal honor above all. He was probably the better at maneuver and the deep respect of his subordinates keep his plans on track. Grant had the problem of managing a "circus" of competing personalities among his subordinate generals, which had the effect of sabotaging some of his plans. Grant had the advantage of being more ruthless - he recognized the terrible realities of war and realized Bobby Lee's weakness - numbers and logistics. Grant recognized that Lee WAS the Confederacy's strength and initiated the grinding down of the Army of Northern Virginia. To heck with seizing cities - take out Lee's forces and the war would be won. So Grant was the more modern general and Lee was the more classical.

Plus the "Lee" M3 was just as good as the "Grant" M3, so it's a moot point.

 

[kilted vampire]

You Know - I cant get involved in this thread.

For one thing most of you on this Forum are Yankees. You dont understand the South - You dont understand our culture and you certainly dont understand Robert E. Lee.

I will close on this one statement:

Robert E. Lee took command of an Army that never existed before, lead the troops of a Country that for practical purposes barely existed, had no large amount of War material and supply to compete with his adversary - who was ten times his superior in both and finally managed to conduct a theater of operations for 4 YEARS under those circumstances.

Yes, my YANKEE friends - you will never understand.

Son of the South, Ron

There are a few southern sympathisers around! I resent that yankee remark Ron.

 

[Chuck Harris]

You Know - I cant get involved in this thread.

For one thing most of you on this Forum are Yankees. You dont understand the South - You dont understand our culture and you certainly dont understand Robert E. Lee.

I will close on this one statement:

Robert E. Lee took command of an Army that never existed before, lead the troops of a Country that for practical purposes barely existed, had no large amount of War material and supply to compete with his adversary - who was ten times his superior in both and finally managed to conduct a theater of operations for 4 YEARS under those circumstances.

Yes, my YANKEE friends - you will never understand.

Son of the South, Ron

Ron
I still have my Confederate money in mint uncalculated consecutive numbered paper currency. Confederate Bonds face value $ 1000.00 ea x 20 = $20,000 issued by the State of Mississippi Issue date Nov 15, 1862 @ 6% compounded annually. These bonds are not mint but are in VG condition. All of this was part of the Tenn. State Treasury and along with the Gold was carried out of Nashville, TN when then Gov. I. G. Harris had to leave. The Tenn. State Treasury was hidden on my Great great grandfather’s farm just south of Shiloh until after the war ended. I still have one the wooden trunks the money and gold was carried in.
I use it for coffee table in our den.
But I do love the USA.

 

[Capitolron]

Chuck and KV

I knew there some reason why I liked the both of you so much....

As for the rest of you - nope, na ga da - not going to do it !

 

[Capitolron]

Although there is one thing.....

Brad,

Could you give Wellington and I a standard disclaimer for our posts?

It seems we both have to come up with something different each time so we don't offend you internationalist or "slight" anyone in anyway. We certainly dont want to be NON-POLITCALLY CORRECT here. Thank you.

Your wanting to liberal friend, Ron

 

[maddadicus]

Just as the American Civil War marked a turning point in warfare, so did the personalities of those two famous commanders. Lee was a Southern gentleman from an old family, Grant was "blue collar". To reverse things to modern times - Lee was a Kennedy and Grant was Larry the Cable Guy. Lee was loved by his troops, believed in personal honor above all. He was probably the better at maneuver and the deep respect of his subordinates keep his plans on track. Grant had the problem of managing a "circus" of competing personalities among his subordinate generals, which had the effect of sabotaging some of his plans. Grant had the advantage of being more ruthless - he recognized the terrible realities of war and realized Bobby Lee's weakness - numbers and logistics. Grant recognized that Lee WAS the Confederacy's strength and initiated the grinding down of the Army of Northern Virginia. To heck with seizing cities - take out Lee's forces and the war would be won. So Grant was the more modern general and Lee was the more classical.

Plus the "Lee" M3 was just as good as the "Grant" M3, so it's a moot point.

This is as good an answer as I have heard......I intend to steal this and use it ,for when some 20 year old asks me what the ACW was ,since they never studied it in history class..........Michael

 

[jazzeum]

Ron,

The only rules would be try to avoid current politics (although it occasionally gets bent) and try not to be offensive to one another, such as name calling.

Other than that, your opinions are entitled to be expressed here. That's what it's all about.

 

[Shiloh]

In 1862 a conference was called of all the confederate generals. They were there to decide how to win the war. After much debate and deliberation it was decided if the south won the war we would have to send an army of occupation north of the Mason Dixon line to occupy the conquered territory. With all the overcrowding, traffic, and crappy weather not one general volunteered to inflict this horror on his troops. At this point they all knew the south must lose.

 

[kilted vampire]

Chuck and KV

I knew there some reason why I liked the both of you so much....

As for the rest of you - nope, na ga da - not going to do it !

Was that an apology? Chese and crackers. If it was I will not demand satisfaction. Otherwise my second will call upon yours. Your choice of weapons of course. Lancers or Fusilers at 12 inches?

 

[kilted vampire]

Lancers,

 

[kilted vampire]

or Fusilers?

 

[Capitolron]

Was that an apology? Chese and crackers. If it was I will not demand satisfaction. Otherwise my second will call upon yours. Your choice of weapons of course. Lancers or Fusilers at 12 inches?

Oh please not the Lancers on the couch.......I beg you to accept my apology.

In a term well know by the modern french : I SURRENDER

After Napoleon, it all went down hill for France.

 

[kilted vampire]

OH HOooo Your zurenderie is aczepted,mon amie!

 

[kilted vampire]

OK enough is enough, Going to work. Way late . Lots of fun see you all later

 

[Louis Badolato]

You Know - I cant get involved in this thread.

For one thing most of you on this Forum are Yankees. You dont understand the South - You dont understand our culture and you certainly dont understand Robert E. Lee.

I will close on this one statement:

Robert E. Lee took command of an Army that never existed before, lead the troops of a Country that for practical purposes barely existed, had no large amount of War material and supply to compete with his adversary - who was ten times his superior in both and finally managed to conduct a theater of operations for 4 YEARS under those circumstances.

Yes, my YANKEE friends - you will never understand.

Son of the South, Ron

Just for the record Ron, I, also a Northerner, but who also lived in the South for 8 years, gave an enormous amount of respect to Bobby Lee. I worked in the same courthouse with Federal Judge Howell Cobb, the great grandson of the Confederate General of the same name. However, you need to consider a few things in your assessment of Lee: He inhereited the majority of experienced U.S. Army Officers and troops (who were from the Southern "Cavalier" gentleman soldier tradition), and was up against rank incompetents like Burnside and McClellen while being suported by geniuses like Stonewall Jackson, who while trained as an artilleryman, was the greatest Infantry commander this country ever produced and James Longstreet, who understood modern warfare better than any other contemporary general, including Sherman and Grant, who made their careers on it.

Once Lee, however, lost Jackson (killed) and disregarded Longstreet's advice ("there were never 20,000 men born that could take that ridge"), he employed Napoleonic tactics against rifles and at Gettysburg, and cost himself the war. Had he understood the pre-eminence of the defense in modern war, he would have moved off the field in the direction of Washington, forced the Union troops to follow and attack him on ground of his choosing, and probably won the war for the South by handing the Union forces another sound defeat and ensuring that McClellen won the election. Gettysburg was Lee's equivelent of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The rest of the war was just endgame. Once the South's invasion was defeated, and the better Union commanders from the Western theater took command of the Union forces his defeat was inevitable. The enormous resources of the industrial North, and the unlimited manpower the North obtained via the Irish immigration simply could not have been overcome once Lincoln was re-elected.

Lee had one chance to win the war outright, and he failed. Like other great commanders who lost (like Rommel, Napoleon or Hannibal) that will always limit his consideration as the best general. Like these generals, however, I believe Lee was great.

 

[Capitolron]

Just for the record Ron, I, also a Northerner, but who also lived in the South for 8 years, gave an enormous amount of respect to Bobby Lee. I worked in the same courthouse with Federal Judge Howell Cobb, the great grandson of the Confederate General of the same name. However, you need to consider a few things in your assessment of Lee: He inhereited the majority of experienced U.S. Army Officers and troops (who were from the Southern "Cavalier" gentleman soldier tradition), and was up against rank incompetents like Burnside and McClellen while being suported by geniuses like Stonewall Jackson, who while trained as an artilleryman, was the greatest Infantry commander this country ever produced and James Longstreet, who understood modern warfare better than any other contemporary general, including Sherman and Grant, who made their careers on it.

Once Lee, however, lost Jackson (killed) and disregarded Longstreet's advice ("there were never 20,000 men born that could take that ridge"), he employed Napoleonic tactics against rifles and at Gettysburg, and cost himself the war. Had he understood the pre-eminence of the defense in modern war, he would have moved off the field in the direction of Washington, forced the Union troops to follow and attack him on ground of his choosing, and probably won the war for the South by handing the Union forces another sound defeat and ensuring that McClellen won the election. Gettysburg was Lee's equivelent of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The rest of the war was just endgame. Once the South's invasion was defeated, and the better Union commanders from the Western theater took command of the Union forces his defeat was inevitable. The enormous resources of the industrial North, and the unlimited manpower the North obtained via the Irish immigration simply could not have been overcome once Lincoln was re-elected.

Lee had one chance to win the war outright, and he failed. Like other great commanders who lost (like Rommel, Napoleon or Hannibal) that will always limit his consideration as the best general. Like these generals, however, I believe Lee was great.

Louis:

I agree with you 100% - actually that was one of the best three paragraphs of RE LEE I have ever read.

Breaking my silence - I will say that Louis is right that Lee had misunderstood the secret of his successes in the Campaigns around Richmond 1861-62 and completely misread the battelfield at Gettysburg. The fall of the South was at the High Water Mark and the clump of trees. The Confederacy at Gettysburg was lost do to bad decisions from Lee for three days in July 1863 - not so much from any great thinking from Northern Generals. The North did the right thing and held the HIGH GROUND - thus won the battle.

Lee is the Gentleman General - and should be respected as such.

Respectfully yours, Ron

 

[jazzeum]

I agree with Ron, a gentleman General.

However, I think the war was lost from the get go because the South was primarily an agrarian society whereas the North was primarily an industrial society. As such, they had the capacity and the werewithal to eventually beat the South. The South could just not call on the industrial capacity they needed to beat the North or at least recognize them as a separate country. Just as the Germans lost the war because of the incredible capacity of the United States, so was the South doomed as well.

In addition, and Louis mentioned this earlier, Lee was fighting a 19th century war whereas Grant was fighting the first war of the 20th century.