- 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 4/24/17 at 8:49 am to crispyUGA
Posted on 4/24/17 at 8:49 am to crispyUGA
quote:
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.
Exactly. Lee made major mistakes. He didnt put the North on the defensive at all. Heck sending 100 soldiers out to wreck shite and covertly cause havic would have done more for the confederate side than winning a few major battles in the north.
1
Posted on 4/24/17 at 9:36 am to shinerfan
With Jackson still in charge, Lee's army takes the heights on the first day of Gettysburg. They flank the Union Army, shatter it from 2 sides, resupply with the depot in the town, and march on Washington. McClellon defeats Lincoln for reelection and the south is granted independence. That's how close it came: one day at Gettysburg.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 12:34 pm to madmaxvol
quote:
We'll tell you when it's over.
It is over. Nobody in the South wants to leave this great Country.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 12:37 pm to SouthernHog
Lee was a superior tactician. Grant was a superior meat grinder.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 12:38 pm to RollTide1987
Lee...did more with less...was asked by Lincoln to lead the North at the very beginning of the conflict...BUT...neither had success all their own...they each had a supporting General that would help them achieve their goals, it's just that Lee lost his and Grant didn't...im talking Stonewall and Sherman...
the correct answer is Lee
ETA: just to clarify..i answered the OP before reading through the thread..
the correct answer is Lee
ETA: just to clarify..i answered the OP before reading through the thread..
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 12:38 pm to RollTide1987
The best way to answer this question is how would their rivalry look were the roles reversed. What would have been the outcome if Lee had Grant's Army while Grant had Lee's.
I think it's pretty obvious had the roles been reversed, Lee would have crushed Grant in a matter of two weeks, four tops. Thus...
Lee > Grant
I think it's pretty obvious had the roles been reversed, Lee would have crushed Grant in a matter of two weeks, four tops. Thus...
Lee > Grant
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:21 pm to kingbob
quote:
With Jackson still in charge, Lee's army takes the heights on the first day of Gettysburg.
If this happened, the Battle of Gettysburg is only one day long as Meade would have fallen back from Gettysburg and re-positioned his army along Pipe Creek as he originally planned. In the end the Confederates would still have to fight outnumbered against an opponent entrenched upon high ground.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Premiere
So...they were the generals on opening night?
It's premier.
And Lee.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 6:33 pm to RollTide1987
you are correct even if the South had one at Gettysburg there is no guarantee of anything but prolonging the war
Posted on 4/24/17 at 7:11 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.
Sherman himself said "According to what I was taught at West point, I should be hanged for war crimes."
Posted on 4/24/17 at 8:18 pm to texag7
Grant for the big win
Posted on 4/24/17 at 8:54 pm to bamafan1001
You guys forget, he didn't have his Calvary and had no clue what was going on.
The truth is Meade acted swiftly to counterattack Lee's movements into Pa. and without Stuart to provide intelligence Lee didn't know that.
The truth is Meade acted swiftly to counterattack Lee's movements into Pa. and without Stuart to provide intelligence Lee didn't know that.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 8:56 pm to RollTide1987
Lee by any measurable you care to introduce. Quite the topic at the academies.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 9:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
You guys forget, he didn't have his Calvary and had no clue what was going on.
And that was his own fault. Lee was piss poor at giving clear and concise orders. Stuart's orders were could have been interpreted thusly - screen the army's movements but if there is an opportunity to break off and do what you did on the Peninsula, go for it. Stuart did just that. Unfortunately for him, Meade moved the Union army harder and faster than any other Federal commander before him.
That is one thing Grant never had a problem doing - writing orders. There was no leeway. His orders were straight and to the point. If he wanted you to be somewhere he told you to be there. He didn't offer caveats like Lee did.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 9:06 pm to nc14
quote:
Lee by any measurable you care to introduce.
We've already established that Grant was better at strategy, logistics, and managing his primary subordinates more effectively. While he wasn't as great of a tactician, Grant never thought he needed to be. He was unique among his contemporaries in that he didn't believe in one battle to win them all. He understood that modern technology was changing the way wars were fought. As such, his methods ushered in the era of modern warfare.
The Civil War, particularly the final two years of it, was a sneak peek at the horrors that would befall Europe 50 years later during World War I.
This post was edited on 4/24/17 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 4/24/17 at 9:14 pm to RollTide1987
Lee was a much better taction. The Union had the numbers.
Grant wasn't a horrible General but he was no Lee.
On a side note, Lee liked black people better than Grant, that's for sure.
Grant wasn't a horrible General but he was no Lee.
On a side note, Lee liked black people better than Grant, that's for sure.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 9:53 pm to RollTide1987
Indy says in his Great War series that the generals really screwed up by not studying th civil war.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 10:17 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
I'd take Sherman
This x 1,000. Sherman was the greatest American general ever. It wasn't until WWII that other generals fully caught up to his example. Oh, and he was the first president of my beloved alma mater.
Posted on 4/24/17 at 10:27 pm to LSU03
quote:
This x 1,000. Sherman was the greatest American general ever. It wasn't until WWII that other generals fully caught up to his example. Oh, and he was the first president of my beloved alma mater.
Sherman put the nail in the coffin, for sure. We dont wage war like that any more. If we did, wed have much fewer problems with our enemies.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News