- 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 3/30/14 at 5:16 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:16 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Only because a Priest convinced him God would rein vengeance on him and his troops if he burned churches.
But he didn't, did he?
quote:He burned homes, businesses, and absolutely anything else that suited him. Which is to say, he burned down about 4600 out of the 5000 buildings comprising Atlanta at the time, anything and everything. Just as he did in route to Savannah.
Instead he shifted his focus to only things of military value. His troops, however, decided to burn other things.
His intent was not to demilitarize, it was to demoralize.
Claims to the contrary are pure fiction.
Incidentally, relative to Grant's supposedly running the show, Sherman was not in anyway ordered by Grant to loot, pillage, and burn southern Georgia to the ground. Grant had nothing whatsoever to do with planning or execution of any of it. That, just as every other single solitary action in Sherman's campaign was of Sherman's determination. He simply informed Grant and Lincoln of his intentions. Both were uneasy about it, but they went along.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 5:22 pm
2
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
He burned homes, businesses, and absolutely anything else that suited him. Just as he did in route to Savannah.
"War is Hell". -General Sherman.
" ...War is cruelty....& those who brought war into our Country deserve all the curses & maledictions a people can pour out.
..We do not want your Negroes....or anything you have,but we want & will have a just obedience to the laws of the U.S. That we will have & if it involves the destruction of your improvements. We cannot help it."-Sherman
Read "Grant & Sherman: The Friendship........" to get a better understanding of the relationship..
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
His intent was not to demilitarize, it was to demoralize.
And it worked. Many soldiers in Lee's army deserted that fall and went back home to their farms in Georgia to protect their families.
quote:
Incidentally, relative to Grant's supposedly running the show, Sherman was not in anyway ordered by Grant to loot, pillage, and burn southern Georgia to the ground.
And yet Grant probably approved of it considering his Army of the Tennessee did the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, when they moved through Mississippi on their way to Vicksburg.
quote:
He simply informed Grant and Lincoln of his intentions. Both were uneasy about it, but they went along.
But he still had to wait for Grant's approval. And on November 2, 1864, he received one simple message from Grant: "Go as you propose."
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:38 pm to RollTide1987
Chattanooga was a more important city at the time of the war than was Atlanta.
Bragg's failure to listen to Longstreet in Chickamuaga is one reason the South lost the war. Longstreet wanted to immediately pursue Rosecran back to Chattanooga--only a few miles away--but Bragg wanted to regroup. That allowed Grant to reinforce Rosecran and Chattanooga remained in the hands of the Union. Bragg did not believe he had actually prevailed at Chickamauga but Longstreet recognized the yankees were in full retreat.
Bragg's failure to listen to Longstreet in Chickamuaga is one reason the South lost the war. Longstreet wanted to immediately pursue Rosecran back to Chattanooga--only a few miles away--but Bragg wanted to regroup. That allowed Grant to reinforce Rosecran and Chattanooga remained in the hands of the Union. Bragg did not believe he had actually prevailed at Chickamauga but Longstreet recognized the yankees were in full retreat.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:39 pm to sugar71
“My aim was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their innermost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.” - William T. Sherman
Posted on 3/30/14 at 5:49 pm to I B Freeman
quote:The reason the South lost, is the reason they could never have won. It had little whatsoever to do with an action at Chickamauga or a July outcome in Pennsylvania. If one was to cast blame on any single military action, it would be cast on Charleston Harbor in April of 1861.
is one reason the South lost the war
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:13 pm to RollTide1987
Mr. rolltide87 where is it that you are from?
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:19 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
If one was to cast blame on any single military action, it would be cast on Charleston Harbor in April of 1861.
Of course.
Do you think the CSA could have negotiated an agreement allowing them to exist as a separate country??
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:35 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Mr. rolltide87 where is it that you are from?
I was born and raised in Alabama.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:37 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Do you think the CSA could have negotiated an agreement allowing them to exist as a separate country??
Not in 1861. Lincoln was determined to keep the union together.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:44 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I was born and raised in Alabama.
Traitor.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 6:49 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Do you think the CSA could have negotiated an agreement allowing them to exist as a separate country??
Had things happened just a little differently in 1862, 1863, or 1864 - most definitely. There were several points of contingency where, had the South played its cards right, they could have turned public opinion completely against the war. That would have forced the Lincoln Administration to negotiate a peace.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 8:53 pm to RollTide1987
Navytiger, think what you want about Lee, but traitor does not fit. Millions of people at the time believed that states were members of a union of states, not subjects of the USA. They fought for Southern independance, not to overthrow the US. They fought to defend their homes from an invader. Your use of the word traitor is offensive to me, my ancestors, and millions of decendants of Confederates. I will have you know that Confederates are recognized as Veterans by the US government. Even today the Veteran's Administration provides grave markers for Confederates. I do not think they would do this for traitors. I also do not think the army would name military bases for traitors (Polk, Bragg,Hood, among others). Please think about these facts.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:13 pm to dwr353
Robert E. Lee, by very definition, is a traitor of the United States - as is any Confederate who was a former member of the U.S. Military. Why? Because unlike the citizen soldiers who served under their command, they swore an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, its Constitution, and also swore to obey the orders of the President of the United States. They went against that very oath when they decided to go South.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:21 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Robert E. Lee, by very definition, is a traitor of the United States - as is any Confederate who was a former member of the U.S. Military. Why? Because unlike the citizen soldiers who served under their command, they swore an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, its Constitution, and also swore to obey the orders of the President of the United States. They went against that very oath when they decided to go South.
Wrong. They swore to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. He was also pardoned.
He also resigned his commission before he went south.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:24 pm to RollTide1987
They resigned their commission first and were not held to that oath any longer. Heros not traitors.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:28 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Wrong. They swore to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. He was also pardoned.
No. I'm not wrong:
quote:
"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."
quote:
He also resigned his commission before he went south.
To take up arms against the United States. Just because he resigned his commission before he did so doesn't make it right.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:30 pm to dwr353
quote:
Heros not traitors.
Heroes who fought for a Confederacy that was formed based solely on the preservation of the institution of slavery. That's what I want my ancestors to be remembered for right there!
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 9:31 pm
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:43 pm to RollTide1987
I can tell that you have bought into the fable of the rightous North. It is pointless to discuss the many causes of the war with you. Your ancestors would be proud...not.
Posted on 3/30/14 at 9:50 pm to dwr353
quote:
I can tell that you have bought into the fable of the rightous North.
Ah...another person who believes states' rights was the heart of the conflict.
Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights - that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.
On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War.
South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer - and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. .?.?. A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.
quote:
Your ancestors would be proud...not.
I had ancestors on both sides of the conflict. I'm sure at least one or two of them would be proud.
This post was edited on 3/30/14 at 9:52 pm
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News