- 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: The Ultimate Civil War Debate: Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee?
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:15 pm to dwr353
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:15 pm to dwr353
quote:
Please take your leave from us and pollute a Big 10 board.
Mizzou is in the SEC and we will be here for a long time. Mizzou is happily sitting at the seat of 14.
0
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:16 pm to montanagator
"Liberation"? 
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:17 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
To start, I believe something that - if true - is perhaps more interesting than the Civil War itself, and that is that the CW is the only conflict in history that was not written by the victors (the North) but instead by the losers (the South)
Great point, and something which while it grew stronger overtime with all of the revisionist Southern historians was present almost immediately after the cessation of hostilities Davis and Stephens weren't exactly lifting up the Cornerstone speech when they wrote their versions of the war and its causes.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:20 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
He was a piece of shite and a terrorist. If I ever find his grave, I'm shitting on it. One of the worst Americans in history.
His post war career out west certainly earns this emnity but his wartime service is almost as laudable as his post war service was disgraceful.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Lee was a genius.
Yeah Pickett's charge was brilliant and not at all a wasteful gamble that tossed away men and material chasing a victory that was never going to come.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:24 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
His men burned down entire cities and raped no telling how many women.
Hell, much of the Southern Officer class viewed raping women as a hobby and a potentially lucrative one at that so long as they held the deed to the woman in question and could sell the products of their crime for a profit.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:26 pm to dwr353
quote:
When someone asks why you Yankees do not belong in the SEC, I can use you as an example. Thanks.
Sherman has a clearer link to the SEC than any other major civil war figure of his stature.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:31 pm to RollTide1987
Lee
I didn't go through all the pages, maybe already here but I'm pretty sure Lincoln tried to recruit Lee to lead the north. obviously he failed.
I didn't go through all the pages, maybe already here but I'm pretty sure Lincoln tried to recruit Lee to lead the north. obviously he failed.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:32 pm to X123F45
quote:
Sherman was an American hero.
Sherman was a coward and piece of shite
To be fair both of these can be true the former describes Sherman's service in the Civil War- the liberation of Atlanta, etc. The latter his post War service in the West.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:40 pm to Sentrius
quote:
If an American General did the same shite today overseas in any location whatsoever that Sherman did in the Civil War, he would be court martialed today and thrown in prison for the rest of his natural life at the very least.
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki- all suffered far, far more civilian casualties than Atlanta or any other supposedly ravaged Southern city and yet Le May, Truman et al died free men untouched by criminal or civil sanction.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:49 pm to montanagator
quote:
Hell, much of the Southern Officer class viewed raping women as a hobby and a potentially lucrative one at that so long as they held the deed to the woman in question and could sell the products of their crime for a profit.
Man you are boringly predictable.
Posted on 4/23/17 at 11:49 pm to RollTide1987
Both were overrated. Lee should have pulled a Sherman instead of invading the North for territory, just destroyed easy targets. You think the North would have wanted to continue fighting the war then?
Defeating the North was not going to happen. Breaking their will to fight would have been much better.
As much as I believe in State's rights...slavery needed to end. Only the rich and elite owned slaves..in effect they were taking advantage of poor whites as well by utilizing their patriotism to wage a war for their interests.
A war was not needed...just something other than incompetent leaders in Washington(sound familiar) and major league incompetence of Lincoln.
Defeating the North was not going to happen. Breaking their will to fight would have been much better.
As much as I believe in State's rights...slavery needed to end. Only the rich and elite owned slaves..in effect they were taking advantage of poor whites as well by utilizing their patriotism to wage a war for their interests.
A war was not needed...just something other than incompetent leaders in Washington(sound familiar) and major league incompetence of Lincoln.
This post was edited on 4/23/17 at 11:55 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 12:32 am to bamafan1001
quote:
Lee should have pulled a Sherman instead of invading the North for territory, just destroyed easy targets.
You do realize that Sherman had to maul an entire Confederate army in order to have the freedom to do what he did in Georgia and South Carolina, don't you?
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:03 am to montanagator
quote:
Yeah Pickett's charge was brilliant
I'm not in the position to defend every single thing he did - operationally or tactically. And we all have the benefit of hindsight. But, we don't go around and find things that Newton or Einstein did that weren't perfect then say, "A HA! Not a genius."
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:16 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
your traitorous ancestors.
French and German. We didn't arrive in this country until 1875 or so.
But the south, who didn't have a moral leg to stand on, were correct to secede.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:10 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Let's say that Lee accepts command of the Union army in 1861.
The war would have been over by 1862.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:17 am to RollTide1987
Lee was a tactically superior general. But Grant had the resources and the will to do the job. If I had to hire one, I'd hire Lee. But that's not to deny what Grant did.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:22 am to bamafan1001
Both of Lee's incursions North were smart to try and shift the focus out of an already ravaged Virginia and into enemy territory. However, both times he let himself get bogged down into large-scale pitched engagements. Heath was chasing a shipment of boots when he ran into a Union cavalry division. Next thing you know, both armies were marching double time to action. Lee should have ordered Heath back and continued moving through Pennsylvania and turned towards D.C.
Sherman fought numerous engagements through Georgia but never let his men get bogged down; if an attack failed, he simply maneuvered around the Army of Tennessee and forced them to abandon their position in order to defend Atlanta. It's what Lee should have done at Gettysburg after the first day.
Sherman fought numerous engagements through Georgia but never let his men get bogged down; if an attack failed, he simply maneuvered around the Army of Tennessee and forced them to abandon their position in order to defend Atlanta. It's what Lee should have done at Gettysburg after the first day.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:23 am to TxTiger82
quote:
But that's not to deny what Grant did.
Yeah I mean, people need to realize that Grant essentially won the war on both fronts, east and west.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 8:45 am to Peazey
quote:
Who won?
We'll tell you when it's over.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News