- 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: Who was the Unions greatest soldier?
Posted on 4/4/20 at 7:55 pm to makersmark1
Posted on 4/4/20 at 7:55 pm to makersmark1
I said Soldier, not commander
Chamberlains courage at little round top is something else
Chamberlains courage at little round top is something else
1
Posted on 4/4/20 at 7:57 pm to Nobelium
The only way the south could have won the war is by abolishing slavery. That would make foreign intervention possible.
James Longstreet mentioned this.
James Longstreet mentioned this.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 7:57 pm to CockCommander
The ones who stole the train from Big Shanty (Kennesaw) .
"Andrews Raid" they called it.
Wiki link LINK
"Andrews Raid" they called it.
Wiki link LINK
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:00 pm to CockCommander
Sheridan was a POS but Grant thought enough of him. Average as a commander but dogged, ruthless, and confident.
This post was edited on 4/4/20 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:26 pm to Nobelium
quote:
the South possessed far superior commanders and soldiers at the beginning of the war.
Just. No. Who is in this pantheon of great leaders? Sterling Price, who was busy losing Missouri? Joe Johnston, who was running the war in Virginia? Beauregard, who was calling the shots in the western theater, but never won anything after Fort Sumter? How were any of those three going to win the war? None of them ever won anything of note.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:36 pm to RockChalkTiger
The south had better division, corp and army leadership until the final phase of the war.
Guys like AP Hill, Gordon, Cleburne, Forrest and TJ Jackson didn’t have equivalents on the Union side.
If you did a draft of civil war generals it would be stacked towards the CSA 65-35.
Guys like AP Hill, Gordon, Cleburne, Forrest and TJ Jackson didn’t have equivalents on the Union side.
If you did a draft of civil war generals it would be stacked towards the CSA 65-35.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 8:56 pm to tide06
Sherman. He was a dick head asscrack though. 
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:02 pm to tide06
Forrest was successful tactically but utterly failed at the operational and strategic levels of warfare. Same for most of the rest, which is why they never ascended to Army command. From ‘62 on, the South had no one who could compare with the war-winning team of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. All were operational-level geniuses capable of achieving strategic effects. The myth of superior southern military leadership is largely an invention of the UDC, SCV, and the ‘Myth of the Lost Cause.’ Even the great Bobby Lee wasn’t all that: Lee Considered
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:20 pm to CockCommander
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/2/21 at 7:25 am
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:21 pm to RockChalkTiger
quote:
From ‘62 on, the South had no one who could compare with the war-winning team of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan.
Aren’t you convoluting strategic resources and outcomes with war leadership?
Rank the top generals for both sides while weighting the resource advantage the north had in almost every single fight and its heavy to the south when ranking the top 20 generals.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:23 pm to red sox fan 13
Initially the North had a bunch of frictards running the war whenit realized Winfield Scott was too old and Robert E.Lee was not going to take it. But once they got Grant in charge in the West, they knew they had something special because he would fight.
The South should have rethought things as soon as it realized that the North was going to keep Kentucky and therefore control all of the Ohio River which also meant they could now send barges of men and material to Nashville and as far south as Muscle Shoals, AL. When your enemy can drop 65,000 troops into the center of your territory, it is over.
If Shiloh and Nashville were not enough, when Farragut races past those forts South of New Orleans and trains all of his cannon on the New Orleans levees it was really over then.
The rest was just gratuitous slaughter for the hell of it.
The South should have rethought things as soon as it realized that the North was going to keep Kentucky and therefore control all of the Ohio River which also meant they could now send barges of men and material to Nashville and as far south as Muscle Shoals, AL. When your enemy can drop 65,000 troops into the center of your territory, it is over.
If Shiloh and Nashville were not enough, when Farragut races past those forts South of New Orleans and trains all of his cannon on the New Orleans levees it was really over then.
The rest was just gratuitous slaughter for the hell of it.
This post was edited on 4/4/20 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:32 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Likely George Armstrong Custer
His brother Tom won two (2) Medals of Honor.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:33 pm to FightinTigersDammit
Longstreet "We should have freed the slaves, and then fired on Ft Sumter"
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:34 pm to CockCommander
quote:
James Longstreet mentioned this.
Unfairly turned into the South's scapegoat after the war.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:49 pm to RockChalkTiger
quote:
Starting a war you have no chance of winning....
And yet they came so close.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 9:52 pm to tide06
Grant’s Vicksburg campaign was pure genius, one that made Pemberton and Johnston (more great southern generals?) look like fools. Sherman could have suffered tactical reverses on the way to Atlanta but skillfully shifted his forces so that none could be defeated in detail (though Hood still tried, shattering his army in the process—more brilliant leadership) while still protecting his supply lines. Sheridan devastated the Shenandoah, literally starving the Confederacy.
If a few of those great southern generals had won a few more victories at the beginning of the war, when the odds were closer to even and the Union hadn’t fully mobilized the USCT yet, maybe all the southern armies wouldn’t have been plagued by mass desertion from ‘63 on. Even the most uneducated Confederate soldier could see where the war was headed by then and many of them voted with their feet.
Every now and then a gifted military leader like George Washington or Vo Nguyen Giap comes along and enables a weaker power to defeat a stronger one. Luckily, the so-called Confederacy didn’t have anyone like that.
If a few of those great southern generals had won a few more victories at the beginning of the war, when the odds were closer to even and the Union hadn’t fully mobilized the USCT yet, maybe all the southern armies wouldn’t have been plagued by mass desertion from ‘63 on. Even the most uneducated Confederate soldier could see where the war was headed by then and many of them voted with their feet.
Every now and then a gifted military leader like George Washington or Vo Nguyen Giap comes along and enables a weaker power to defeat a stronger one. Luckily, the so-called Confederacy didn’t have anyone like that.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 10:03 pm to CockCommander
Meade was a quiet dependable successful commander. He should be on the short list.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 10:11 pm to CockCommander
Who would win between Spider-man and Skeletor?
Your question is dumb.
Your question is dumb.
Posted on 4/4/20 at 10:24 pm to reddy tiger
I'd throw Montgomery C. Meigs who was quartermaster for the union army and played a critical role in supplying the army
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News