- 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 Channel's 'Grant' Is a Timely Reminder of Which General Actually Won the Civil War
Posted on 5/21/20 at 7:24 pm to Rep520
Posted on 5/21/20 at 7:24 pm to Rep520
Grant defeated the Confederate armies in the West
He then initiated the strategy where Sherman destroyed Georgia on his way to the sea. That was his plan. Not Halleck or Lincoln’s. He developed a total war strategy that lead to a swift victory
He then ground down Lee in 13 months using his logistic and manpower advantages beautifully.
He wasn’t much of a President, but he was the greatest General in American history.
He then initiated the strategy where Sherman destroyed Georgia on his way to the sea. That was his plan. Not Halleck or Lincoln’s. He developed a total war strategy that lead to a swift victory
He then ground down Lee in 13 months using his logistic and manpower advantages beautifully.
He wasn’t much of a President, but he was the greatest General in American history.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 7:26 pm
1
Posted on 5/21/20 at 7:33 pm to Rep520
Study Grant's Overland Campaign. This was a strategic general with manpower and logistics advantage going against a tactical general who had little logistics to support him. Grant knew that the only way to end the war was not by taking Richmond but by destroying Lee. The war was over for Lee once he was driven into trenches at Petersburg. Lee's biggest advantage was in being able to manuever in open ground. Rather difficult to do that in trenches.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 7:38 pm to RollTide1987
Grant fought like a Roman. The South had no chance after Gettysburg.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 8:30 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
He was one of the first to understand total war.
Yeah definitely wasn't the romans hundreds and hundreds of years before...
Posted on 5/21/20 at 8:42 pm to Mootsman
quote:
Romans...hundreds and hundreds of years before...
A span actually of one thousand six hundred to two thousand three hundred years before.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 8:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In fairness, he was a raging drunk. But that is more broadly connected with his time as POTUS rather than his service in the Civil War.
He buried is his tomb
Posted on 5/22/20 at 3:16 am to Mootsman
quote:If you have a point to make in the context of the American civil war, make it. Grant was among the first to clearly understand the totality of the conflict and fought it accordingly. But muh Romans.
Yeah definitely wasn't the romans hundreds and hundreds of years before...
Posted on 5/25/20 at 5:39 pm to RollTide1987
Bump.
The North shall rise again...wait
The North shall rise again...wait
Posted on 5/25/20 at 5:44 pm to Commandeaux
I look forward to the series.
Ron Chernow is a great writer.
Ron Chernow is a great writer.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 5:47 pm to LSUBadger
quote:
He wasn’t much of a President, but he was the greatest General in American history.
Washington, Arnold, Scott, Jackson, Pershing, Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Ridgway, and Schwartzkopf all say "hold my beer."
I'm sure I'm forgetting quite a few as well.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 5:57 pm to RollTide1987
and which one was the most corrupt piece of shite the White House has ever seen
shite, I could have won if I had infinite resources.
shite, I could have won if I had infinite resources.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:02 pm to X123F45
Lee was outnumbered.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:09 pm to gthog61
quote:
shite, I could have won if I had infinite resources.
So how do you explain the following commanders who couldn't?
Irvin McDowell
George McClellan, Part I
John Pope
George McClellan, Part II
Ambrose Burnside
Joseph Hooker
George Meade
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:12 pm to gthog61
Grant didn't have infinite resources, it's that the North had a strong central government to produce and allocate resources.
The Confederacies unwillingness to ever grant Davis and the Confederate Congress true power led just as much to their downfall as anything.
Davis had to deal with railroad gauges varying from state to state, factories that produced uniforms price gauging, but damn those Tar Heels looked good, ration supplies being hoarded by individual states, etc.
Also, even if a field army has an overwhelming amount of soldiers, it does not automatically grant success. Leadership still plays a huge role in how the force is used.
It's no different than saying the only reason Marshal Zhukov was only successful because he had a larger army. Zhukov was a brilliant tactician, look for further than Kursk.
The Confederacies unwillingness to ever grant Davis and the Confederate Congress true power led just as much to their downfall as anything.
Davis had to deal with railroad gauges varying from state to state, factories that produced uniforms price gauging, but damn those Tar Heels looked good, ration supplies being hoarded by individual states, etc.
Also, even if a field army has an overwhelming amount of soldiers, it does not automatically grant success. Leadership still plays a huge role in how the force is used.
It's no different than saying the only reason Marshal Zhukov was only successful because he had a larger army. Zhukov was a brilliant tactician, look for further than Kursk.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:13 pm to OrangeEmpire
quote:
The Confederacies unwillingness to ever grant Davis and the Confederate Congress true power led just as much to their downfall as anything.
Davis had to deal with railroad gauges varying from state to state, factories that produced uniforms price gauging, but damn those Tar Heels looked good, ration supplies being hoarded by individual states, etc.
Also, even if a field army has an overwhelming amount of soldiers, it does not automatically grant success. Leadership still plays a huge role in how the force is used.
It's no different than saying the only reason Marshal Zhukov was only successful because he had a larger army. Zhukov was a brilliant tactician, look for further than Kursk.
I may have disagreed with your earlier posts, but frick me if I can't agree 100% here.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:24 pm to Centinel
quote:
Washington
Lost a shite ton more than he won. He won when he absolutely needed a victory, however, so mad props to him.
quote:
Arnold
A traitor who had one major victory to his credit that wasn't even credited to him in the moment.
quote:
Scott
An inspired choice and definitely one of the Top 5 greatest military commanders in American history.
quote:
Jackson
An overrated battlefield commander if there ever was one. For every Chancellorsville there was a Seven Days or 2nd Bull Run. The man was highly inconsistent.
quote:
Pershing
I honestly can't say I know enough about his tenure in command of the AEF to make an informed opinion on him. However, clearly he was well thought of as a battlefield commander in his day - just like Grant was.
quote:
Marshall
Never commanded an army in the field. There is no better administrator in the history of the United States Army, however.
quote:
MacArthur
Just about as overrated as they come. Admiral Nimitz and Admiral Spruance were the true heroes of the Pacific War.
quote:
Eisenhower
As a strategist he ranks up there among the greats. However, like Marshall, he never commanded an army in the field.
quote:
Patton
Definitely among the Top 10 greatest American military commanders of all-time.
quote:
Bradley
Like MacArthur, extremely overrated. He owed his position to his even temperament as well as to Patton's misdeeds during the invasion of Sicily.
quote:
Ridgway
A good commander who, unfortunately, failed to get the win. That automatically disqualifies him in the discussion for all-time greatest.
quote:
Schwartzkopf
Nothing says "greatest of all-time" like a commanding general beating the shite out of an over matched third world nation. He was a solid commander but he was facing off against Iraq
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
In fairness, he was a raging drunk.
Lincoln: If I could find out what brand of whisky Grant drank, I would send a barrel of it to all the my other commanders.
This post was edited on 5/25/20 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:30 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
An overrated battlefield commander if there ever was one. For every Chancellorsville there was a Seven Days or 2nd Bull Run. The man was highly inconsistent.
Wrong Jackson.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:32 pm to Amadeo
Grant's campaigns out west were models of maneuver and logistics. He wasn't just a heartless general who expended his men in frontal assaults like his caricature would have you believe.
Posted on 5/25/20 at 6:34 pm to Centinel
quote:
Wrong Jackson.
Ah. Ol' Hickory is definitely Top 10-15.
This post was edited on 5/25/20 at 6:35 pm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News