- 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: Today marks 161 years since Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox...
Posted on 4/9/26 at 10:37 pm to Junky
Posted on 4/9/26 at 10:37 pm to Junky
quote:
And a bunch of lunatics on Reddit think Lee should have been hung like the rest of the generals. Idiots not knowing how “done” everyone was with the war, not taking into consideration generals on both sides were old friends. Just vapid people who can’t see past their nose.
And look what the failure of reconstruction brought us towards today XD
0
Posted on 4/9/26 at 11:14 pm to RollTide1987
The Day the most overrated War Time General in US History surrendered to Arguably the Greatest War Time General in US History.
I know that people love to point out what a great Strategist and Tactician Robert E Lee was, but all of his "Genius" happened before the battle would commence.
Once hostilities began, he had the mindset that he had done everything in his power to prepare for victory and it was now in God's Hands. If things went South (no pun intended) for his Army, he was almost incapable of adapting. He relied too much on the Generals under his Command to make decisions on their own. That's why Stuart wasn't there at Gettysburg with the Intelligence Lee needed.
Whereas Grant was brilliant at battlefield adaptation. He had his attention on every aspect of the Battle and how things were happening and made commands and decisions to his Generals of how they should proceed to events as they were happening.
That's why he was able to win at Shiloh. His actions on the first day of riding and monitoring the entire battlefield allowed the his army the chance to merely survive the surprise attack and the first day. By surviving that first day, he was able to rally his army and overcome the enemy on the second day.
Lee would have been incapable of that feat because of his philosophy of "It's in God's Hands"
I know that people love to point out what a great Strategist and Tactician Robert E Lee was, but all of his "Genius" happened before the battle would commence.
Once hostilities began, he had the mindset that he had done everything in his power to prepare for victory and it was now in God's Hands. If things went South (no pun intended) for his Army, he was almost incapable of adapting. He relied too much on the Generals under his Command to make decisions on their own. That's why Stuart wasn't there at Gettysburg with the Intelligence Lee needed.
Whereas Grant was brilliant at battlefield adaptation. He had his attention on every aspect of the Battle and how things were happening and made commands and decisions to his Generals of how they should proceed to events as they were happening.
That's why he was able to win at Shiloh. His actions on the first day of riding and monitoring the entire battlefield allowed the his army the chance to merely survive the surprise attack and the first day. By surviving that first day, he was able to rally his army and overcome the enemy on the second day.
Lee would have been incapable of that feat because of his philosophy of "It's in God's Hands"
Posted on 4/9/26 at 11:21 pm to KingOrange
quote:
Lee should have taken DC after Bull Run. Things would have worked out much better.
Better for who? No one has ever benefited more from losing a war than the South
Posted on 4/9/26 at 11:34 pm to StansberryRules
quote:
Shoulda just gone with widespread guerrilla warfare rather than an "honorable" surrender.
Military occupations never last. They woulda eventually washed their hands of the situation and left.
Woulda been a very ugly period but likely worked out much better in the long run.
Who was going to fight that Guerilla War? The starving conscripts that made up 20-25% of the confederate Army? Hell, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was made of 25-33% conscripts, which was the largest amount of conscripts in any of the Armies.
People seem to ignore the fact that the Confederacy enacted Conscription first in 1862 (North enacted it in 1863) and then adjusted the age from 18-35 to 17-50 later that same year.
20-25% of Confederate soldiers were conscripted, while only 6% of Union soldiers were conscripted.
But only the Union Conscription is ever brought up. We are led to believe that the confederates were willing to fight because they believed it was a noble cause, while Union Soldiers were forced to fight for something they didn't believe in.
The numbers don't support that.
The Confederacy and it's war wasn't as popular as Lost Causers love to preach it was.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 11:40 pm to DesScorp
quote:
No brilliant maneuvers, no clever deception in tactics. Just "more". Grant's answer to everything was just to throw more at the enemy. More men. More firepower. A wave of men get mowed down? Eh so what. I've got plenty more. Send in the next wave.
Robert E Lee lost more men during the War than Grant did.
Grant lost more men during the final push than Lee did because he was on the offensive and Lee was on the defensive. Offensive maneuvers will almost always have a higher casualty rate than a defensive position.
if Grant truly believed in the philosophy that you are purporting he did, then he wouldn't have laid siege to Vicksburg.
ETA:
quote:
Over the entire Civil War, Robert E. Lee’s army incurred roughly 209,000 total casualties (killed, wounded, captured, missing), while Ulysses S. Grant’s armies incurred roughly 154,000. Despite Lee operating largely on the defensive, his army sustained approximately 55,000 more casualties than Grant’s over the course of the war.
Considering the claim above that Lee lost 55,000 more men despite operating largely on the defensive, his abilities as a "Strategist" and "Tactician" should be reexamined.
This post was edited on 4/10/26 at 12:09 am
Posted on 4/10/26 at 4:18 am to DesScorp
quote:
US Grant was the Georgy Zhukov of his time. No brilliant maneuvers, no clever deception in tactics. Just "more".
His campaign against Vicksburg alone completely undermines this argument. The whole crossing of the Mississippi River was based on clever deception tactics and his envelopment of the city was a result of brilliant maneuvering that saw his army fight and defeat one Confederate army while pinning the other inside the city's defenses.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 4:46 am to KingOrange
quote:
Lee should have taken DC after Bull Run.
Too bad Lee wasn't in charge of the Confederate army at First Bull Run. Joseph E. Johnston was. Lee was Davis's senior military adviser and was in Richmond when the battle was fought.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 5:40 am to RollTide1987
Chamberlain was thus responsible for one of the most poignant scenes of the American Civil War. As the Confederate soldiers marched down the road to surrender their arms and colors, Chamberlain, on his own initiative, ordered his men to come to attention and "carry arms" as a show of respect. In memoirs written forty years after the event, Chamberlain described what happened next:
Gordon, at the head of the marching column, outdoes us in courtesy. He was riding with downcast eyes and more than pensive look; but at this clatter of arms he raises his eyes and instantly catching the significance, wheels his horse with that superb grace of which he is master, drops the point of his sword to his stirrup, gives a command, at which the great Confederate ensign following him is dipped and his decimated brigades, as they reach our right, respond to the 'carry.' All the while on our part not a sound of trumpet or drum, not a cheer, nor a word nor motion of man, but awful stillness as if it were the passing of the dead.
Gordon, at the head of the marching column, outdoes us in courtesy. He was riding with downcast eyes and more than pensive look; but at this clatter of arms he raises his eyes and instantly catching the significance, wheels his horse with that superb grace of which he is master, drops the point of his sword to his stirrup, gives a command, at which the great Confederate ensign following him is dipped and his decimated brigades, as they reach our right, respond to the 'carry.' All the while on our part not a sound of trumpet or drum, not a cheer, nor a word nor motion of man, but awful stillness as if it were the passing of the dead.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:50 am to RollTide1987
The South's surrender came at the right time. After a bombing campaign by the North had damaged much of the Confederate state's infrastructure, the South was forced to close the Straits of Hampton, located on the James River. The placement of cannon batteries along the banks of the James insured this. Lee would only allow fishing boats who's crews were sympathetic to the South to pass, often buying barrels full of cod to feed the troops. The North responded by targeting and killing much of the senior officer class, essentially decapitating their leadership. Grant also considered destroying Chapel Island, which housed most of the South's heating oil reserves, but decided against this, as it would cost the lives of many Union soldiers, as well as ensure the war would be extended into the next year.
Unbelievably, the tactics surrounding the final days of the War Between The States would be repeated 161 years later.
Unbelievably, the tactics surrounding the final days of the War Between The States would be repeated 161 years later.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:57 am to DesScorp
Grant was not creative like Lee, but he did not have to be because he had the resources, and he knew he had the resources. Grant's talent was that he would not withdraw from the field even after a "defeat". He just kept moving, putting pressure on his opposition to keep up. So a tactical defeat becomes a strategic victory. Lee was a great tactical general, but Grant was the better strategic general. He saw the whole board.
Strategy trumps tactics.
Strategy trumps tactics.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 6:57 am to Cuz413
Great point. So tired of that self righteous argument.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:00 am to RollTide1987
The biggest irony of the Civil War is that ultimately the Southern position that the federal government was becoming tyrannical and far more powerful than the Constitution ever intended ultimately has been proven to be e not only true, but far worse than they could have ever imagined.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:02 am to magildachunks
quote:
The Confederacy and it's war wasn't as popular as Lost Causers love to preach it was.
You can thank the Lost Cause Propaganda narrative for all this fake news about the confederacy. If the confederacy somehow won, it would’ve went in to chaos within 10 years.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:10 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Grant was not creative like Lee, but he did not have to be because he had the resources, and he knew he had the resources. Grant's talent was that he would not withdraw from the field even after a "defeat". He just kept moving, putting pressure on his opposition to keep up. So a tactical defeat becomes a strategic victory. Lee was a great tactical general, but Grant was the better strategic general. He saw the whole board. Strategy trumps tactics.
And Lee had the easiest job in the world by just defending from the most defendable positions on earth. I can make excuses too.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:13 am to RollTide1987
Both sides loved America, they just disagreed on what the structure of America should be. Today, you have an entire political party that hates America and is financed by the globalists who aim at her destruction.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:24 am to StansberryRules
quote:
Woulda been a very ugly period but likely worked out much better in the long run.
Do tell
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:26 am to RollTide1987
I sometimes wonder if the generals saw the war as just a real time game unofficially sponsored by West Point as a military fraternity.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 7:52 am to Galloglaich
It's not excuses it's objective fact. Lee was reactive in all that he did save Antietam and Gettysburg and both of those strategic ventures did not turn out so well for him. Lee was at his best in reactive situations....Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg and the Peninsula, and let's be honest, against timid generals in the likes of McClellan.
Against generals he understood, Lee could take them. Against a guy like Grant, he did not understand him . Both Grant and Lee understood the overall map of a battle. Both took risks that convention would say you should not take, but Grant was tougher. When he ordered his troops to keep marching towards Richmond after getting "beat" that was a move that took a lot of intestinal fortitude, others would withdraw, others had withdrawn in the past, even knowing their numerical and material superiority.
Grant hung up Lee because he did not act like his predecessors in the position.
Against generals he understood, Lee could take them. Against a guy like Grant, he did not understand him . Both Grant and Lee understood the overall map of a battle. Both took risks that convention would say you should not take, but Grant was tougher. When he ordered his troops to keep marching towards Richmond after getting "beat" that was a move that took a lot of intestinal fortitude, others would withdraw, others had withdrawn in the past, even knowing their numerical and material superiority.
Grant hung up Lee because he did not act like his predecessors in the position.
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:04 am to Charter Embers
quote:
No one has ever benefited more from losing a war than the South
Hmm...Well, once you get past the "atomic bomb thing" Japan seems to have fared pretty well.....
Posted on 4/10/26 at 8:06 am to cfish140
quote:
Shelby Foote
He lived in an old antebellum home on Lake Washington in the Ms Delta called Mount Holly. The original owners were friends with many top generals on both sides of the civil war. Supposedly it’s why it was one of the few plantation homes not burned by Union troops. Unfortunately it was left to rot unoccupied since about 2000 and burned down one night about 8 years or so ago
Today :(
The interior was gorgeous. I can’t believe nobody ever bought it and fixed it up before it became dilapidated. Walls were 2 feet thick brick, place was built like a fortress.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News