- 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: Confederates surrendered the city of Vicksburg to Ulysses S. Grant 159 years ago today
Posted on 7/4/22 at 8:42 pm to TutHillTiger
Posted on 7/4/22 at 8:42 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
They expected to be resupplied they just weren’t.
There was a very good reason for that.
His name was Ulysses S. Grant.
0
Posted on 7/4/22 at 8:47 pm to TutHillTiger
I agree with you. These are my stomping grounds been going to the park, Raymond, Champions Hill, etc since I was a kid. Almost every where you go around here was a battlefield and it’s sad to me people don’t know the history that’s right under their feet. My whole point is I don’t think the defenders of Vicksburg are getting the credit they are due. It wasn’t known as the Gibraltar of the South because it was easy to conquer.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 8:53 pm to killedbyindians
And I would love to just point out that most southerners, and a lot on this board, always criticise Grant and label him as a General who didn't care about his soldier's lives and only won because he sent wave after wave to slaughter until they finally overcame the confederates. That was the only way he could win battles (which isn't true at all).
And then Y'all turn around and criticise him for doing the opposite here and instead waited them out (which downplays the truth and brilliance of the Vicksburg campaign).
So which is it? Was he a callous leader who only won by sending his greater numbers to slaughter, or a coward who placed his army outside of the enemy's range to not lose life and wait them out?
And then Y'all turn around and criticise him for doing the opposite here and instead waited them out (which downplays the truth and brilliance of the Vicksburg campaign).
So which is it? Was he a callous leader who only won by sending his greater numbers to slaughter, or a coward who placed his army outside of the enemy's range to not lose life and wait them out?
Posted on 7/4/22 at 8:57 pm to RollTide1987
A siege is a Hail Mary. It worked. That is all.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:03 pm to turkish
quote:
A siege is a Hail Mary. It worked. That is all.
Explain your thought process here.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:04 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
Slavery would be long gone by now regardless.
Damn you dumb
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:05 pm to magildachunks
Not sure who said that about Grant but it wasn’t me.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:06 pm to turkish
quote:
A siege is a Hail Mary. It worked. That is all.
Nah.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:07 pm to lepdagod
quote:
Everytime i hear this i laugh... nothing would have changed
You think we’d still have slavery in 2022?
Economic untenability, international pressure, industrialization etc would have forced the CSA to phase out the practice. And it would have been done in a much less ham-fisted way.
The World Wars would have brought the two nations into alliance, and today we’d have a very close military/trade relationship. The difference would be each country would have a government more representative of its people.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:09 pm to killedbyindians
I will say that the actions of Grant and Sherman would make them war criminals by today’s standards.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:09 pm to killedbyindians
quote:
Not sure who said that about Grant but it wasn’t me.
You were the last post, that's all.
But so far in this thread, it has been alleged that Grant was a coward and did nothing but wait out a population while sitting in a field, instead of trying to fight the enemy up close.
And in every other CW thread, he's labeled a massacre artist who only won because he sent wave after wave of soldiers to overwhelm the confederates with no regard for their lives.
Both are bullshite.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:11 pm to ForeverEllisHugh
quote:
The difference would be each country would have a government more representative of its people.
Have you seen our state governments here in the south?
We probably came out better if we're being honest with ourselves.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:11 pm to killedbyindians
quote:
I will say that the actions of Grant and Sherman would make them war criminals by today’s standards.
Such as?
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:14 pm to UKWildcats
quote:
It's a whole different state out there. I'm in Lexington. Western Kentucky is the South. Eastern Kentucky is hillbillies. Central Kentucky is the Bluegrass region with horses and bourbon and basketball
I live in that far western part. We’ve got a lot of Chicago refugees here. It’s flat here but we have the four rivers. Unfortunately they’re full of Asian carp
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:14 pm to magildachunks
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:15 pm to magildachunks
quote:
magildachunks
Aren’t you the pansy who doesn’t lift?
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:15 pm to RollTide1987
fricking Pemberton
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:17 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
Exactly. Wasn’t some mastermind from Grant like people claim.
The run up to the actual siege was a masterpiece in how to maneuver an army deep in hostile territories and defeat several enemies while keeping his army supplied.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:20 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Have you seen our state governments here in the south?
Would have been a completely different landscape without reconstruction and carpetbaggers.
Posted on 7/4/22 at 9:20 pm to killedbyindians
quote:
Grants canal suggests otherwise it was so difficult to get past on the river he had troops and slaves dig a canal on the Louisiana side. Wound up being a horrible idea so they marched south and crossed at Port Gibson. Canal is there plain as day right behind PJ’s.
Grant initially built the canal to avoid the Confederate guns on the bluffs. The canal plan didn’t work; thus he decided to run the gauntlet anyway,
Only during the actual action was if discovered the guns weren’t effective on ships close to the Confederate side of the river.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News