- 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: OTD in 1865, Gen. Lee gave his sword to Gen. Grant
Posted on 4/9/18 at 9:55 am to magildachunks
Posted on 4/9/18 at 9:55 am to magildachunks
Yes it was. They didn’t have what was considered the home front and civil war wasn’t against an entire people like WWII was.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 9:59 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
civil war wasn’t against an entire people like WWII was.
You're right.
It was to free an entire people.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:01 am to lsu1919
quote:
The Union, not the Confederacy, had the burden of winning the war, and the South, outnumbered four-to-one in white men of fighting age, had a severe manpower shortage. Nevertheless, Lee acted as though he were a Union general and attacked again and again as though his side had the burden of winning and also had an unlimited supply of soldiers.
Well one could argue that had Lee gone defensive, the same outcome would have occurred. The Union could send as many men out there as they wanted. Lee had to use aggressive tactics in trying to end the war with a favorable outcome. He knew the risks in his action to stay aggressive. Now, I do think had they listened to Forrest, the Union would’ve said screw it and dropped out after a time.
But just going on the defense when you’ve got no supply, no food, you’re cut off from any outside shipping, and you’re running out of bullets and men, was not going to win the war.
They either had to attack and achieve a quicker outcome, or go guerilla and lengthen the war.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:10 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Lee, Jackson, Beauregard, Forrest, Stuart, Longstreet, A.P. Hill, Bragg, etc.
All better than any Northern commander
Stonewall individually may have been better than most, but to say Lee was the best is just you being dishonest with yourself.
Lee lost the war. Period.
An excerpt from an article written by Edward H. Bonekemper whose written several books on the Civil War.
Why Grant Won and Lee Lost
quote:
Grant’s Vicksburg Campaign, which gave the Union control of the entire Mississippi Valley, was greatly assisted by Lee. In early May 1863, Lee had repelled a Union offensive commanded by Hooker at Chancellorsville, but Rebel frontal assaults on the final days of that battle (often ignored by historians) cost Lee many casualties. Riding the crest of his influence following Chancellorsville, Lee convinced Jefferson Davis to allow him to keep Lieutenant General James Longstreet’s First Corps with him in the East for what became his Gettysburg Campaign. Longstreet had been seeking new opportunities in other theaters, but Lee argued that Longstreet’s corps was needed for an offensive in the East and that the semi-tropical Mississippi climate would defeat the Vicksburg Campaign of Grant, who was sweeping through Mississippi at that very moment.
Instead of sending the First Corps to oppose Grant in Mississippi or even to aid the outnumbered General Braxton Bragg’s Army of Tennessee, Lee retained that corps for his own offensive campaign in the East. Early in June 1863, while Grant besieged Vicksburg, Lee began troop movements toward Pennsylvania. In the ensuing Gettysburg Campaign, Lee committed a series of costly errors, and his army suffered 28,000 casualties before retreating back to Virginia once again. By the close of the Gettysburg Campaign, Lee’s cumulative casualties had reached more than 80,000 while he had imposed about 75,000 on his Union opponents, who could afford the losses much more than he. Lee’s army thereafter would remain relatively inactive until it faced Grant in 1864.
With Lee’s assistance in ensuring that his Mississippi Valley foes received no help from the East, Grant completed his Vicksburg Campaign with little difficulty. As he had done at Fort Donelson, Grant maneuvered so that he would capture a Confederate army as well as a critical place. Those two armies who surrendered to Grant were the only Civil War armies that surrendered to their opponents before Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Their surrenders demonstrate Grant’s focus on going after enemy armies as well as places – a focus shared by Lincoln and critical to Union victory. After Vicksburg, Grant’s cumulative casualties were about 31,000 while he had imposed over 77,000 on his foes. So Grant had gained control over a wide swath of the western Confederacy and made Confederate armies pay the price for opposing him, while Lee had decimated his own army in a series of strategic and tactical offensives that were unnecessary to the stalemate the Confederacy needed.
The most important sentence ever spoken about Lee.
quote:
while Lee had decimated his own army in a series of strategic and tactical offensives that were unnecessary to the stalemate the Confederacy needed.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:15 am to lsu1919
The Confederacy wasn’t going to win a stalemate, the outcome would have been the same because the Union could afford a stalemate, the Confederacy couldn’t.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:18 am to lsu1919
quote:
lsu1919
What you failed to mention in that entire fake article is that R.E. Lee was a very sick man at the end of the war suffering what is assumed to be several heart attacks after 1863.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:21 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
The Confederacy wasn’t going to win a stalemate, the outcome would have been the same because the Union could afford a stalemate, the Confederacy couldn’t.
What? A stalemate would have been the Union calling off the dogs and saying go be your own country, we can't stop you.
quote:this implies the Confederacy would have had to invade and defeat the north. That was never going to happen. A stalemate was their only chance and Lee played it wrong.
The Confederacy wasn’t going to win a stalemate
Lee needed 2 for 1 casualties (like Grant achieved in the western campaign) to have a chance. Instead, he racked up bloody battle after bloody battle then didn't have the manpower to win a war of attrition.
Lee was good. But if he was the best he would have won. All I'm saying.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:23 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Saddest day in the south’s history, boys and girls.
STFU
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:25 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
What you failed to mention in that entire fake article is that R.E. Lee was a very sick man at the end of the war suffering what is assumed to be several heart attacks after 1863.
So the frick what? There is an argument that Lee was the 2nd best general in U.S. history and now the excuse is that he had a heart attack.
If he was so sick why didn't he resign? Why didn't Davis replace him?
Does that somehow excuse the fact that Lee made mistake after mistake and lost?
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:26 am to Barbellthor
quote:
We? WE?
calm down
i meant "we" as a continent
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:26 am to lsu1919
You know what I meant, a defensive war, much like WWI. If the war bogged down and the south stopped attacking, they would’ve had literally zero chance at winning the war. With them attacking, it still wasn’t great but it was a helluva lot better than going defensive. Hell, the Union probably wanted the Confederates to go defensive because then they could use their numbers to squeeze the life out of them.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:27 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Well one could argue that had Lee gone defensive, the same outcome would have occurred. The Union could send as many men out there as they wanted. Lee had to use aggressive tactics in trying to end the war with a favorable outcome. He knew the risks in his action to stay aggressive. Now, I do think had they listened to Forrest, the Union would’ve said screw it and dropped out after a time.
But just going on the defense when you’ve got no supply, no food, you’re cut off from any outside shipping, and you’re running out of bullets and men, was not going to win the war.
They either had to attack and achieve a quicker outcome, or go guerilla and lengthen the war.
Lee's strategy was to bloody the Union enough to have the sue for peace. He knew the South had no legitimate chance of winning a prolonged war.
I'm a Union guy but have to admit Lee nearly succeeded.
Had Gettysburg gone the other way, the South would have won the war.
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 10:48 am
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:29 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Hell, the Union probably wanted the Confederates to go defensive because then they could use their numbers to squeeze the life out of them.
That was the North’s Plan all along.
LINK
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:34 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Still the best rendition of Dixie...
Start around the 2:30 mark.
Start around the 2:30 mark.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:35 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
at idea Grant and Sherman can be considered anything like "good guys" - some of the most prolific butchers in U.S. history - and that's mainly of their own troops.
1) Lee's army suffered far more casualties than Grant's, and at a much higher rate.
2) You obviously know nothing about Sherman because the man did everything in his power to avoid needlessly incurring high casualties on the army during his campaign against Atlanta.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:38 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Lee's strategy was to bloddy the Union enough to have the sue for peace. He knew the South had no legitimate chance of winning a prolonged war.
That was Lee's strategy in 1864, not 1862. In 1862, he truly believed he could win the war outright. In fact, he believed this all the way up until Gettysburg in 1863.
quote:
Had Gettysburg gone the other way, the South would have won the war.
Debatable.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:40 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Had Gettysburg gone the other way, the South would have won the war.
Wrong.
Vicksburg still fell and Grant was still going to bring his campaign east.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:46 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Because the southern leadership was immensely better than the union’s, especially at the outset.
Except at the very top. Jefferson Davis was a shitty President and a shitty leader. He was vindictive, spiteful, and didn't know how to let go of a personal grudge. A lot of his temper tantrums while in office proved to be a detriment to his government's war effort.
Love him or hate him, Abraham Lincoln was a far superior leader when compared to Davis.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:49 am to magildachunks
quote:
Had Gettysburg gone the other way, the South would have won the war.
Wrong.
Vicksburg still fell and Grant was still going to bring his campaign east.
You guys are forgetting about popular opinion. I fully believe Had Gettysburg fallen, the northern populace would start rancoring for peace.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 10:53 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
I fully believe Had Gettysburg fallen, the northern populace would start rancoring for peace.
Public opinion would have amounted to squat in 1863 because it wasn't an election year. Lincoln and his coalition would have still been in power and would have continued to press the fight until the war was won or until they were thrown out of office in the national election of 1864.
A victory at Gettysburg would only have turned into a total victory for the Confederacy if Lee had managed to march on Washington and dictate terms to Lincoln in the White House. That wouldn't have happened due to the fact that the defensive ring around Washington was the most impregnable in the world at that time.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News