- 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: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:30 pm to weagle99
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:30 pm to weagle99
I think Grant is definitely underrated.
Kind of off topic. I read his autobiography a good while ago. He witnessed a lot of history. Served near San Francisco and talked about the impacts of whites on the American Indian. Saw San Francisco before and after the gold rush. Served under Winfield Scott and drove all the way to Mexico City in the Mexican American war. Was encamped for a good period of time on the southwestern border of the US at the time, before moving on Mexico, which of course was Louisiana. Spoke of how well he was treated in Louisiana. Was actually incarcerated early in the civil war because he supposedly disobeyed an order and was overly aggressive (from his point of view).
On topic: If memory serves, he was very complimentary of Robert E. Lee. However, I don't remember him speaking negatively of hardly anyone. It is a shame he didn't get to write much about his presidency before he died.
I enjoyed the read. Might be a decent resource for a comparison of the two. I can't remember how much of Gettysburg was covered.
Kind of off topic. I read his autobiography a good while ago. He witnessed a lot of history. Served near San Francisco and talked about the impacts of whites on the American Indian. Saw San Francisco before and after the gold rush. Served under Winfield Scott and drove all the way to Mexico City in the Mexican American war. Was encamped for a good period of time on the southwestern border of the US at the time, before moving on Mexico, which of course was Louisiana. Spoke of how well he was treated in Louisiana. Was actually incarcerated early in the civil war because he supposedly disobeyed an order and was overly aggressive (from his point of view).
On topic: If memory serves, he was very complimentary of Robert E. Lee. However, I don't remember him speaking negatively of hardly anyone. It is a shame he didn't get to write much about his presidency before he died.
I enjoyed the read. Might be a decent resource for a comparison of the two. I can't remember how much of Gettysburg was covered.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 3:31 pm
0
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:31 pm to RollTide1987
it' been said by general lee that, if stonewall Jackson would have remained alive, the confederate army would have prevailed without question.
Jackson was such a mastermind at mathematics that no one was compared to him in artillery.
Jackson was such a mastermind at mathematics that no one was compared to him in artillery.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:31 pm to Big Scrub TX
Here's a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune from 1859:
quote:
To the editor of the N. Y. Tribune.
Sir:
I live one mile from the plantation of George Washington P. Custis, now Col. Lee's, as Custis willed it to Lee. All the slaves on this estate, as I understand, were set free at the death of Custis, but are now held in bondage by Lee. I have inquired concerning the will, but can get no satisfaction. Custis had fifteen children by his slave women. I see his grandchildren every day; they are of a dark yellow. Last week three of the slaves ran away; an officer was sent after them, overtook them nine miles this side of Pennsylvania, and brought them back. Col. Lee ordered them whipped. They were two men and one woman. The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped her himself. These are facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as good farm hands.
Yours,
A Citizen.
Washington, June 19, 1859.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:47 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Wow! A new line of thinking, eh?
a new line of thinking in the long-held belief that Robert E. Lee was the better general
Kind of like a new line of thinking rendering the Carter Presidency a roaring success?
Second Manassas
Troop #'s: CSA - 49,000 Union - 76,000
Casualties: CSA - 9,197 Union - 16,054
South Mountain
Troop #'s: CSA - 18,000 Union - 28,000
Casualties: CSA - 2,685 Union - 1,813
Antietam
Troop #'s: CSA - 52,000 Union - 75,000
Casualties: CSA - 13,724 Union - 12,410
Fredericksburg
Troop #'s: CSA - 72,000 Union - 114,000
Casualties: CSA - 5,309 Union - 12,653
Chancellorsville
Troop #'s: CSA - 57,000 Union - 105,000
Casualties: CSA - 12,764 Union - 16,792
Gettysburg
Troop #'s: CSA - 75,000 Union - 83,000
Casualties: CSA - 23,231-28,063 Union - 23,049
Wilderness
Troop #'s: CSA - 61,000 Union - 102,000
Casualties: CSA - 11,400 Union - 18,400
Spotsylvania
Troop #'s: CSA - 52,000 Union - 100,000
Casualties: CSA - 12,000 Union - 18,000
Cold Harbor
Troop #'s: CSA - 62,000 Union - 108,000
Casualties: CSA - 2,500 Union - 12,000
Deep Bottom
Troop #'s: CSA - 20,000 Union - 28,000
Casualties: CSA - 1,700 Union - 2,901
Petersburg
Troop #'s: CSA - 52,000 Union - 125,000
Casualties: CSA - 28,000 Union - 42,000
Appomattox (campaign)
Troop #'s: CSA ~ 40,000 Union - 113,000
Casualties: CSA - no record available Union - 10,780
Grant took up the gauntlet with the Wilderness Campaign. His forces consistently outnumbered Lee's 2-to-1. When the quality, advancement and sophistication of weaponry and supplies is considered, the fact Lee could keep the Union out of Richmond for four years is phenomenal. Grant was serviceable. Lee was brilliant.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:54 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Washington had given Lee the blue print for success. If you are a lightweight boxer going up against the heavyweight champion, do you run at him and challenge him directly?
It seems Lee lacked the benefit of a 3300mile wide moat, along with a major European ally.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 3:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It seems Lee lacked the benefit of a 3300mile wide moat, along with a major European ally.
What I was getting at earlier.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:15 pm to weagle99
Southern revisionists history says Lee was the better general because he had fewer troops and had fewer casualties in fighting Grant in 1864 and 1865. That is Southern revisionism.
Grant had better resources and used them correctly, Grant does not get enough credit for fully using his resources to maximize his advantage. Lee was arrogant and was too caught up in maximizing his own glory and prestige and image. Grant just wanted to win, Lee cared more about style and thought War was a game of chess and was caught in his own world of Cavalier honor that never existed.
Grant wanted to destroy Lee and his army and won. Modern warfare began with the Civil War and Grant is the one fought the first modern war who utilized railroad, telegraph and technology and logistics to arm and feed his troops and get them where they needed to be. Grant's Army fought hard and well and took the casualties because they believed that they were going to win. Lee's troops just wanted to survive because Lee didn't fight to win.
Grant had better resources and used them correctly, Grant does not get enough credit for fully using his resources to maximize his advantage. Lee was arrogant and was too caught up in maximizing his own glory and prestige and image. Grant just wanted to win, Lee cared more about style and thought War was a game of chess and was caught in his own world of Cavalier honor that never existed.
Grant wanted to destroy Lee and his army and won. Modern warfare began with the Civil War and Grant is the one fought the first modern war who utilized railroad, telegraph and technology and logistics to arm and feed his troops and get them where they needed to be. Grant's Army fought hard and well and took the casualties because they believed that they were going to win. Lee's troops just wanted to survive because Lee didn't fight to win.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:15 pm to RollTide1987
Lee was in the same position as Hannibal. And he knew it. He knew genius would only take him so far. The Metarsus (sp?) meant more to Hannibal than Cannae for the same reasons as losing Vicksburg did to the South.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:18 pm to NC_Tigah
Style points don't count in War. It's win and win at all costs. Lee didn't fight to win and great Generals fight to win.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:20 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Nope. Neither did Hannibal. Rome was fighting to destroy Carthage. Hannibal was fighting a battle with more political aims, to reduce Rome. Never once intended to conquer the city itself.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Unlike many people in the South - Lee knew time was not on his side
In this we can compare Lee to Yamamoto.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Grant took up the gauntlet with the Wilderness Campaign. His forces consistently outnumbered Lee's 2-to-1.
Which means absolutely dick when you are assaulting an entrenched enemy. In the Civil War, with only a handful of exceptions, the attacking force almost always suffered heavier casualties.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:24 pm to RollTide1987
See Dien Bien Phu. French lost but look what it cost the gooks.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:32 pm to RollTide1987
Say there boy, get yer Yankee-lovin' arse off my tigerdroppings.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:36 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:That doesn't make any sense.
Grant's Army fought hard and well and took the casualties because they believed that they were going to win. Lee's troops just wanted to survive because Lee didn't fight to win.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:45 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Perhaps you could cite some historic examples involving substantially underequipped, and vastly outnumbered forces performing comparably to Lee's over a span of regional campaigns?
His forces consistently outnumbered Lee's 2-to-1.
Which means absolutely dick when you are assaulting an entrenched enemy.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:54 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Southern revisionists history says Lee was the better general
FAIL.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 4:57 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Lee didn't fight to win
I disagree. I don't think he went on the offensive just for his own glory. I believe he wanted to bring the war to the North and also persuade the Europeans to enter the war on the South's side.
Again, Lee lost his right arm when Jackson died.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:10 pm to weagle99
An interesting fact about Gettysburg.
Almost the entire student body of Ole Miss (135/139), formed Company A, 11th Misssissippi, known as the "University Grey's. Company A incurred 100 % casualities in Pickett's Charge.
Almost the entire student body of Ole Miss (135/139), formed Company A, 11th Misssissippi, known as the "University Grey's. Company A incurred 100 % casualities in Pickett's Charge.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:16 pm to weagle99
quote:
I don't think he went on the offensive just for his own glory.
Time was short. He thought he had the better troops and just wanted to duke it out.
Now if he'd just cut and ran towards Washington, DC like some of his advisors wanted while the Union guys were digging in at Gettysburg...
Page 2 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News