- 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: Born on this day 202 years ago…
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:12 am to Furious
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:12 am to Furious
quote:
The union army was twice the size as the confederate army and had the benefit of superior logistics.
That’s part of war
It’s like saying it wasn’t fair that Muhammad Ali had an insane chin and speed
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:14 am to RollTide1987
She had tons of family in the CSA army from Lexington. This is her nephew. 1stKY Cavalry CSA. Killed at Baton Rogue.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:16 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:14 am to RollTide1987
quote:
So Grant was the only intelligent general the Union had because not one of them could figure this out before Grant did?
The others tried to get cute with tactics where they got schooled by Lee and Stonewall. They didnt need to do that.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:16 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:15 am to Furious
quote:
The union army was twice the size as the confederate army and had the benefit of superior logistics.
So does that mean we have to discount the exploits of such storied American commanders as Leonard Wood, John Pershing, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, Chester Nimitz, etc. because they had superior logistics and manpower to their enemies? If that's the case then we have to go back to William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 to find an American commander worth a shite.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:17 am to RollTide1987
quote:
So does that mean we have to discount the exploits of such storied American commanders as Leonard Wood, John Pershing, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, Chester Nimitz, etc. because they had superior logistics and manpower to their enemies?
No
Just means they werent as brilliant as Washington, Winfield Scott, Jackson, etc.
Winfield Scott in the Mexican War was brilliant and almost nobody has any idea who he is.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:18 am to RollTide1987
His "greatness" as a commander was just all about having more. More men. More equipment. More guns. More food. More horses.
He knew he had enough to eventually overwhelm southern forces no matter what it cost the north. No matter how much you lose, just keep pressing forward until you drown them.
I mean, it works. The Red Army used the same strategy against Germany. But there's nothing "great" about it.
Most of us on here could have done the same.
He knew he had enough to eventually overwhelm southern forces no matter what it cost the north. No matter how much you lose, just keep pressing forward until you drown them.
I mean, it works. The Red Army used the same strategy against Germany. But there's nothing "great" about it.
Most of us on here could have done the same.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:18 am to RollTide1987
Ooof...shows your lack of Civil War history to laud Grant.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:19 am to No Colors
quote:
Mary Todd Lincoln
As if that woman’s word carries any weight
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:21 am to Cosmo
quote:
The others tried to get cute with tactics where they got schooled by Lee and Stonewall.
Oh, yeah. They got very cute with their tactics. McClellan loved to retreat after winning tactical victories against Lee just outside of Richmond. Very cute and very original. Pope loved to get cute with his tactics by ignoring virtually every report from his corps commanders that Lee and Longstreet had arrived in force on his left flank. Burnside was probably the cutest of all. Rather than rethinking his strategy and finding another place to cross the Rappahannock, he decided to get cute with Lee, cross right in front of him, and then march his army across swaths of open ground into entrenched Confederate positions located on high ground. Super cute that was. And then Hooker got cute by abandoning the initiative and giving it to Lee before retreating from the field against the advice of all of his subordinates despite the fact that less than half of the army had been engaged in combat.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:22 am to RollTide1987
Conversation between Lee and Jackson after the first day's engagement at Chancellorsville:
Hotchkiss returned to where Lee and Jackson had resumed their discussion and traced the route. There was a moment of silence. Then Lee said; “General Jackson, what do you propose to do?”
Jackson: “Go around here.” He pointed to the line Hotchkiss had shown.
Lee: “What do you propose to make this movement with?”
Jackson, without hesitation: “With my whole corps.” [31,000 men]
Lee: “What will you leave me?”
Jackson: “The divisions of Anderson and McLaws.” [14,000 men to face the 60,000 man Union army]
Lee: "Well you had better get on."
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:28 am to Cosmo
quote:
No
Just means they werent as brilliant as Washington, Winfield Scott, Jackson, etc.
Based on what?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:33 am to RollTide1987
It’s true that US Grant had a “Soviet style” of warfare, but to his credit he knew that was the fastest way to win.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:36 am to No Colors
quote:
Conversation between Lee and Jackson after the first day's engagement at Chancellorsville:
Hotchkiss returned to where Lee and Jackson had resumed their discussion and traced the route. There was a moment of silence. Then Lee said; “General Jackson, what do you propose to do?”
Jackson: “Go around here.” He pointed to the line Hotchkiss had shown.
Lee: “What do you propose to make this movement with?”
Jackson, without hesitation: “With my whole corps.” [31,000 men]
Lee: “What will you leave me?”
Jackson: “The divisions of Anderson and McLaws.” [14,000 men to face the 60,000 man Union army]
Lee: "Well you had better get on."
It was definitely an iconic moment but Jackson's flanking march and attack on May 2 did very little to alter the tactical picture of the battle when you actually look at what it did. Hooker had position his army poorly and done a bad job of making sure Howard's lines were secure and entrenched (none of which were true). While Jackson bloodied Howard pretty good that afternoon, in the end it was a move that made the Union position stronger and more compact. It also put Lee at a tactical disadvantage because his army was now split in half and the only way to bring it back together was to proceed with a costly, frontal assault against entrenched Union lines on May 3. Lee lost over 10,000 men in the fighting that day and while he succeeded in reuniting his army, he failed in his main objective to destroy the Union army before it could retreat back across the river.
Chancellorsville is Lee in a nutshell. He would win Pyrrihic victory after Pyrrihic victory, suffering high casualties, with little in the way of strategic success to show for it. Before the Battle of Chancellorsville Lee's army was occupying Fredericksburg while Hooker's army was occupying the town of Falmouth from across the river. After the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee's army was occupying Fredericksburg (less Stonewall Jackson and 13,000 men) while Hooker was occupying the town of Falmouth from across the river. Nothing had changed strategically and one could definitely argue that Lee's costly victory at Chancellorsville set the stage for his ultimate defeat at Gettysburg two months later.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:36 am to RollTide1987
quote:
greatest military commander in American history
Um no. Not even close. He was very effective in utilizing some main advantages, but even with that there is question on if he knew and was doing it on purpose, or if it was just how he did things.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:41 am to TejasHorn
quote:
It’s true that US Grant had a “Soviet style” of warfare,
It is not. Lee lost more men at a higher ratio in the war than did Grant.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:48 am to RollTide1987
I actually put more blame on the failure at Chancellorsville to result in a strategic victory on Jackson than on Lee.
He should have had his corps moving soon after midnight instead of 4 am. He didn't leave himself enough time. Thus the need for a night action.
But you have to admire the audacity
He should have had his corps moving soon after midnight instead of 4 am. He didn't leave himself enough time. Thus the need for a night action.
But you have to admire the audacity
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:54 am to No Colors
quote:
But you have to admire the audacity
Oh certainly. The balls on both men were huge that day. However, I do like to note that while that plan was very audacious, another - more audacious - march was starting around that same time below Vicksburg in Mississippi. Grant had cut himself off from his communications and supply base, entered enemy territory, and marched quickly through the state while outnumbered, fought and won five separate battles, before besieging an entire army within Vicksburg.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:55 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:54 am to RollTide1987
quote:
RollTide1987
What a loser you are.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:57 am to Damone
Not happy about, but Grant was a superb general. His Vicksburg campaign was a masterpiece. He defeated Confederate armies largely with maneuver until he bottled them up inside Vicksburg, accomplished some massive engineering to cut through the swamps, reduced his own logistical train. His Ft Donelson campaign was also expertly led. He was a master strategist, great leader, logistical expert and the best battlefield commander on the Union side.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:59 am to RollTide1987
quote:
RollTide1987
I hope you’re not a southerner. Because that would be a shame.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News