- 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 5:19 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:19 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Ralph, you are one eccentric character.....
1
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:23 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
Ralph, you are one eccentric character.....
He is something alright, he has no problem dragging something out of his arse and posting it as truth.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:47 pm to NC_Tigah
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?
How about the Iraqi insurgency, Hannibal and his legions, Washington and his colonials, William Wallace and his Scottish rebellion, and the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances in World War II?
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:48 pm to son of arlo
quote:Had JEB Stuart done his job, Lee might have been in a position to make that decision
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...
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:50 pm to NC_Tigah
If Lee had gone with the USA instead of the CSA the war would have been a lot shorter. I don't believe Grant would have made that much difference to the South.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:55 pm to gthog61
quote:If Lee had gone with the Union, the Civil War would have basically ended with the First Battle of Manassas.
If Lee had gone with the USA instead of the CSA the war would have been a lot shorter. I don't believe Grant would have made that much difference to the South.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:57 pm to weagle99
quote:If Lee had listened to Longstreet Gettysburg could have been different.
I believe had Jackson been alive Gettyburg could have ended differently.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:57 pm to gthog61
Common error is believing that, had Lincoln lost the Election of 1864, that "President" McClellan would have sued for peace. McClellan strongly supported continuing the war and complete victory against the Rebels. He publicly repudiated his party's platform which called for cessation of hostilities and campaigned to continue the war.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 5:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Had JEB Stuart done his job, Lee might have been in a position to make that decision
If you read Lee's actual orders to Stuart, you'd probably get the sense Stuart believed he was doing his job. That's one thing Grant completely has over Lee. Grant's orders contained no ambiguity.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:01 pm to GeorgeWest
True. But his party's platform was strictly anti-war, as was McClellan's running mate.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:02 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
How about the Iraqi insurgency, Hannibal and his legions, Washington and his colonials, William Wallace and his Scottish rebellion, and the French, Dutch, and Polish resistances in World War II?
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't know the difference guerilla and conventional warfare. Not one of those comes even close. Lee's men had for the most part been fighting barefoot and going into battle with five cartridges and living on next to nothing for two years and still managed to win against an opponent that was numerically superior and well supplied. The only way your scenario works is by ignoring several factors but by all means continue to be delusional.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:23 pm to RollTide1987
quote:I have. Stuart was doing his own thing.
If you read Lee's actual orders to Stuart, you'd probably get the sense Stuart believed he was doing his job.
quote:Hate Lee all you want, and you do.
That's one thing Grant completely has over Lee. Grant's orders contained no ambiguity.
The only thing Grant "had" on Lee was a population and manufacturing base, along with cigar & alcohol consumption.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:40 pm to NC_Tigah
He did exactly as Lee instructed:
He moved out to the right and started collecting supplies for Lee's army once he saw Hooker beginning to move North.
quote:
If you find that he [Hooker] is moving northward, and that two brigades can guard the Blue Ridge and take care of your rear, you can move with the other three into Maryland, and take position on General [Richard] Ewell’s right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy’s movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army.
He moved out to the right and started collecting supplies for Lee's army once he saw Hooker beginning to move North.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:44 pm to bencoleman
quote:
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't know the difference guerilla and conventional warfare.
You never stipulated guerrilla vs. conventional warfare. You asked a broad question. In the case of conventional warfare, Hannibal and William Wallace are very comparable to Lee.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:47 pm to RollTide1987
quote:one of the greatest generals in the annals of world history.
Hannibal
Yet you have gall to bad mouth Lee?
Seriously?
Posted on 3/29/14 at 6:56 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
one of the greatest generals in the annals of world history.
I grant he was a brilliant tactician and leader of men, but on an operational/strategic level he comes up short.
He basically started a war with Rome out of a personal/family grudge, that he had no real plan to win. Much like Napoleon invading Russia, he thought, "Well...if I beat their armies they'll just give up." But when Fabius refused to fight he basically had no answer to defeating an alliance/country far superior to Carthage in resources. In fact he never developed an alternative way to beat the Romans.
In contrast, the Romans, realizing that fighting him face-to-face was too dangerous, deprived Carthage of resources by taking Spain, Sicily, and keeping Macedon occupied meanwhile forcing the Carthaginians to send Hannibal's reinforcement to the other theatres.
To avoid going on, he was a good leader/tactician but, like Lee, he had no real understanding of the "indirect approach" or larger strategic picture.
This post was edited on 3/29/14 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 3/29/14 at 7:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:You just compared him with Hannibal.
on an operational/strategic level he comes up short.
You lose!
Posted on 3/29/14 at 7:22 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I grant he was a brilliant tactician and leader of men, but on an operational/strategic level he comes up short.
Again you fail. Hannibal and Lee were fighting two different types of war. You are not very good at this are you?
Posted on 3/29/14 at 7:33 pm to Zach
quote:
So, do we have any war reinactors up in here? Just read La. Life Mag. Lots of reinactments going on in La. this Spring. Make sure you buy your wife/girlfriend a nice hoop skirt.
I have a female friend who reenacts as a nurse. When they yell "nurse," she runs out and reenacts helping them. When they yell, "medic," it means somebody is really hurt and the EMT's go out there.
Posted on 3/29/14 at 7:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You just compared him with Hannibal.
I also compared him to the Iraqi insurgency. So what?
quote:
You lose!
That's fine. Lee and Hannibal did, too. I guess that makes me one of the greatest debaters of all-time.
Page 3 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News