- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greatest military commander (any branch of service) in U.S. history?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:55 pm to MaroonWhite
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:55 pm to MaroonWhite
Yeah...Lee's first invasion of the North was absolutely nothing like Sherman's march through Georgia.
What people seem to forget is that Sherman wasn't the first military commander of the Civil War to pioneer the tactics he used against Georgia. Grant did it first in Mississippi when he and Sherman were marching on Vicksburg in 1863. Sherman simply expanded upon his teacher's tactics the following year.
What people seem to forget is that Sherman wasn't the first military commander of the Civil War to pioneer the tactics he used against Georgia. Grant did it first in Mississippi when he and Sherman were marching on Vicksburg in 1863. Sherman simply expanded upon his teacher's tactics the following year.
1
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:55 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Sherman's damages to GA reverberated for generations and what he did in SC was even worse.
Sherman wasn't going to win the war all by himself. Lee had the chance to.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:57 pm to MaroonWhite
quote:
The purpose of Lee's first invasion of the North in 1862 was to try to persuade Maryland to join the Confederacy. They were definitely not burning houses and destroying crops.
This and to get European support, right? And the second incursion was as much to get the war out of a devastated VA as it was to start taking Northern supplies. No where close to the scale of what happened in GA and SC nor with the same intent. Sherman intended to "make Georgia howl" but Lee merely wanted to bring relief to his home.
Sure that'll be seen with my Southern bias but as far as I know it's whats most accepted
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:58 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
Sherman wasn't going to win the war all by himself.
Never said he did?
quote:
Lee had the chance to.
What do you mean?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:58 pm to beachdude
I would put Caesar above Napoleon.
He would've never made Napoleon's mistakes.
He would've never made Napoleon's mistakes.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:00 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
What people seem to forget is that Sherman wasn't the first military commander of the Civil War to pioneer the tactics he used against Georgia. Grant did it first in Mississippi when he and Sherman were marching on Vicksburg in 1863. Sherman simply expanded upon his teacher's tactics the following year.
Yes. Jackson, MS is nicknamed "Chimneyville" because much of the city was burned by Grant prior to the Vicksburg campaign.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:01 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Sherman intended to "make Georgia howl" but Lee merely wanted to bring relief to his home.
Both were living off the land in enemy country. Sherman took it to another level as no commander in any way before of since lived as completely out of touch from his base of supplies, and as out of contact with his superiors.
The problem with the comparing the two campaigns is most southerners will not suspend emotion long enough to make a reasoned argument.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:02 pm to Damn Good Dawg
Lee's first invasion of the North was launched for 3 distinct reasons:
1) Northern Virginia had become a battlefield. He wanted to give the people a rest.
2) To bring Maryland into the fold as a Confederate state.
3) Win a significant battle on northern soil, forcing the Union to sue for peace, or forcing England and France to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate and independent nation.
1) Northern Virginia had become a battlefield. He wanted to give the people a rest.
2) To bring Maryland into the fold as a Confederate state.
3) Win a significant battle on northern soil, forcing the Union to sue for peace, or forcing England and France to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate and independent nation.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:03 pm to RollTide1987
Benedict Arnold.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:04 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
Both were living off the land in enemy country. Sherman took it to another level as no commander in any way before of since lived as completely out of touch from his base of supplies, and as out of contact with his superiors.
No one is arguing that and it was his decision to do that. Hell, Lincoln and Grant were hesitant and later admitted they underestimated him when he decided to go on with it.
quote:
The problem with the comparing the two campaigns is most southerners will not suspend emotion long enough to make a reasoned argument.
I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with his prowess or letting emotion get in the way. Sherman needed quick and total victory to help Lincoln in the election as well as galvanize a waning Northern support base while dividing the South in two and crushing the Southern will to fight. I get that. I think everyone's point was Sherman's march to the sea =/= Lee's invasions of the North
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:04 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Lee had the chance to.
What do you mean?
It's well known that if Lee had defeated the Union Army in Pennsylvania, The CSA would have tendered an offer of peace. And that Lincoln would have been forced to sign it.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:05 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
The problem with the comparing the two campaigns is most southerners will not suspend emotion long enough to make a reasoned argument.
There really is no comparison. Lee's army would only take from citizens if they allowed them to, with the promise of compensation after the war. Sometimes Lee's divisions would demand items but they would not forcibly take them or burn property. You have to remember, Lee was trying to woo Maryland to join the Confederacy.
Plus...Lee wasn't in Maryland long enough to really live off the land. His soldiers began crossing the Potomac from Virginia into Maryland on September 4. His army was all back in Virginia by September 19.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:06 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Lee wasn't in Maryland long enough to really live off the land.
I never mentioned Maryland. Only Pennsylvania.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:06 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
It's well known that if Lee had defeated the Union Army in Pennsylvania, The CSA would have tendered an offer of peace. And that Lincoln would have been forced to sign it.
Ok well there are a litany of examples throughout the war that could have ended it early had the other side won so that could be said about several leaders/battles
Had Johnston stayed in command and continued to stymie Sherman's advances or if Hood's counterattacks had worked then the McClellan could have won the election and the CSA gained it's independence.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:07 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
I never mentioned Maryland. Only Pennsylvania.
His army was in Pennsylvania for an even shorter period of time than it was in Maryland.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:10 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Had Johnston stayed in command and continued to stymie Sherman's advances or if Hood's counterattacks had worked then the McClellan could have won the election and the CSA gained it's independence.
That's my point though, no one was going to beat Sherman. Lee, on the other hand, managed to lose the war all by himself.
If Lee had listened to Longstreet, the Confederates would have entrenched themselves between Meade's army and Washington. Forcing Meade to attack...which was not his strength, rather than defend, which was.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:11 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
It's well known that if Lee had defeated the Union Army in Pennsylvania, The CSA would have tendered an offer of peace. And that Lincoln would have been forced to sign it.
Possibly. Keep in mind though that the day after the Gettysburg battle ended, Vicksburg surrendered along with 30,000 troops. This was a HUGE loss for the South.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
His army was in Pennsylvania for an even shorter period of time than it was in Maryland.
Only because he lost. His intention was to be there a bit longer, do more damage, then turn to Washington.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:14 pm to RollTide1987
Washington
Lee
Jackson
Grant
Patton
Lee
Jackson
Grant
Patton
Posted on 2/16/14 at 11:15 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
That's my point though, no one was going to beat Sherman.
You can't say that though. The Army of Tennessee made a major leadership change mid-campaign that only hastened the fall of ATL. There are several ways that could have gone.
quote:
Lee, on the other hand, managed to lose the war all by himself.
Seriously? Come on, man. I'd say a whole bevy of generals in the West did a good bit to hasten that. The war wasn't solely fought in the East. There's is so many things that went into the South's defeat that I can't honestly even begin to list them.
quote:
If Lee had listened to Longstreet, the Confederates would have entrenched themselves between Meade's army and Washington. Forcing Meade to attack...which was not his strength, rather than defend, which was.
Hindsight is 20/20. Lee was an aggressive minded General and to that point his aggression had worked to his advantage. He had several things go wrong and I'll admit he was too adamant in sticking with his plan but again, hindsight is 20/20.
Not saying Lee is infallible but to blame Lee for the CSA's losing the war is nuts
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 11:16 pm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News