• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Civil War

Who was right: North or South?

  • North

    Votes: 34 77.3%
  • South

    Votes: 6 13.6%
  • Neither

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44
If I was just a better general than lee, then maybe I could speak..sigh...

Oh and nice stances

pro: government

anti: tax

Facepalm

Just one question: Do you play war simulation games? COD, Starcraft, etc....?
Do you even know how Lee fought?
Oh, and by the way, when I meant pro government and anti-tax, I meant regulations upon companies such as emissions, borrowing, and everything but taxes. The world doesn't have to be black and white you know. In fact, you're the only person who complained of it
 
I can't choose sides on issues like this - the past is the past, it was what it was.

It lives on. You should know that. You live in the South.
 
It lives on. You should know that. You live in the South.

Not really - at least not where I live. There's not much of it that's given any attention. I think in other areas that might be true - say - where a major battle or event took place.
 
Not really - at least not where I live. There's not much of it that's given any attention. I think in other areas that might be true - say - where a major battle or event took place.

I don't want to see Southern pride die. My son, who is a Southerner, doesn't like it when I say that. I can't help it, though.
LONG LIVE THE SOUTH.
 
I don't want to see Southern pride die. My son, who is a Southerner, doesn't like it when I say that. I can't help it, though.
LONG LIVE THE SOUTH.

Maybe it's my lack of a ring of friends here or my location but I just don't see that from anyone - I've heard it, I know it's there - I just dont' feel it nor am emersed in it at all.
 
Maybe it's my lack of a ring of friends here or my location but I just don't see that from anyone - I've heard it, I know it's there - I just dont' feel it nor am emersed in it at all.

That's sad. All America is going the way of PC-Globalization. "We are the world. We are the world. WE ARE ONE." Poop.
 
That's sad. All America is going the way of PC-Globalization. "We are the world. We are the world. WE ARE ONE." Poop.

I don't think it's ever been as widespread or prevalent as people think - I've never met anyone who has a 'my Grand-pappy was in the Civil war' type story to tell. That, to me anyway ,seems more likely to be found in Georgia, Mississippi and other southern areas . . . Arkansas just didn't get much of that in this central area- of course - I'm sure you'd find it all along the Mississippi region - there was the Battle of Helena. And further south of where I am - south and west - which was the Red River Campaign.

But where I am (40 miles north of Little Rock) - I haven't seen a single bit of it.
 
I'm not sure that is accurate and I doubt it, but it would make sense. Maybe from a non-official standpoint.

To my knowledge the only notable entity that officially recognized the south as a seperate country was the Catholic Church, not that it matters.

Confederate agents were given sanctuary and allowed to run black ops against the U.S. out of Canada.

The most notable entity to recognize the Confederate States of America, was England, who shipped thousands of tons of war materials to the South, through Canada and Mexico. The Confederates imported P58 Enfield rifled muskets by the hundreds of thousands; plus thousands of cannon, sets horse equipments and infantry accoutrements, blankets, uniforms. Just about every piece of military equipment that existed in the period was imported from England at one point, or another during the war.
 
The thing is, earlier, he could have managed to win. Once Grant took over and had a free enough hand to do what had to be done, no, Lee had no chance. However, prior to this, Lee could have had his campaigning been more successful.

By the summer of '63, Lee had lost the better part of his most talented generals: Jackson, Armistead, Garnet, Gregg; then Stuart in May of '64; not to mention the loss of hundreds of very talented regimental and brigade officers. At some point during Gettysburg, Lee suffered a stroke, or a heart attack. The talent he had left: Longstreet, Pickett, Ewell, D.H Hill, A.P. Hill et. al. were burnt out and were more interested in finding a way to end the war as painlessly as possible. All these things combined, were the reason that Grant's strategy was successful.

At the end of the day, the talent that existed in the officer corps of all three military departments of the Confederacy, worked against them: the best leaders lead from the front. This leadership style cost the lives of many expert tactical leaders.
 
Confederate agents were given sanctuary and allowed to run black ops against the U.S. out of Canada.

The most notable entity to recognize the Confederate States of America, was England, who shipped thousands of tons of war materials to the South, through Canada and Mexico. The Confederates imported P58 Enfield rifled muskets by the hundreds of thousands; plus thousands of cannon, sets horse equipments and infantry accoutrements, blankets, uniforms. Just about every piece of military equipment that existed in the period was imported from England at one point, or another during the war.

We even got pretty close to intervening militarily on the confederate side but there was a huge movement against it as the public was more sympathetic (rightly or wrongly) to the union side. Possibly the first anti war movement in history.
 
We even got pretty close to intervening militarily on the confederate side but there was a huge movement against it as the public was more sympathetic (rightly or wrongly) to the union side. Possibly the first anti war movement in history.

The only thing that slavery affected--directly--during the war, was England's entry, on the side of the Confederacy.
 
By the summer of '63, Lee had lost the better part of his most talented generals: Jackson, Armistead, Garnet, Gregg; then Stuart in May of '64; not to mention the loss of hundreds of very talented regimental and brigade officers. At some point during Gettysburg, Lee suffered a stroke, or a heart attack. The talent he had left: Longstreet, Pickett, Ewell, D.H Hill, A.P. Hill et. al. were burnt out and were more interested in finding a way to end the war as painlessly as possible. All these things combined, were the reason that Grant's strategy was successful.

At the end of the day, the talent that existed in the officer corps of all three military departments of the Confederacy, worked against them: the best leaders lead from the front. This leadership style cost the lives of many expert tactical leaders.

There is alot of truth to this, however it doesn't really talk to my point.
 
There is alot of truth to this, however it doesn't really talk to my point.

To follow up a little bit. I just do not see how the South could have prevailed from the get-go. Once blood is spilt in any quantity, who really cares why the first shot was fired. I am sure something constituted the first shot between the Hatfields and McCoys too, but who cared after that.

Even now, how much credit does a world leader get for turning the other cheek ? It would so often be the wise thing to do, but politically can be as suicide. Look at Vietnam, and how we missed so many opportunities to GTFO, when we never should have GTFI to begin with.

Perhaps, with Lee's first invasion of the North, had it not been for 3 lost cigars, maybe he creates enough havoc to where an accomodation prevails. As it was, instead we get the political environemt for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln gets his second term, and the killing continues.
 
Attrition is a sound strategy for those with the most men, especially in that era. It was the one strategy that Lee had no way to counter. Like it or not, Grant was the better strategist, since he devised a simple strategy that Lee could not counter. Lee could have put together a strategy earlier in the way that led to a South win, but never did.

Again, Lee was an excellent tactician, but an average strategist.

I think this was the post you wanted a response to. IMMHO, Lee did a marvelous job with what he had, up until Gettysburg, where he failed miserably in every way. A couple others here derided Longstreet, but Longstreet was brilliant. He begged Lee not to make a stand at Gettysburg. To move closer towards Baltimore and choose more favorable ground. He then was adamantly against Picketts Charge. Not that the South could have prevailed, but Gettysburg was all wrong, and Longstreet said so from the beginning.

In strategy and tactics, Lee blew it there. In hindsight, he said so.
 
Forrest would have done terribly managing a large army. It would have been too unweildy for him. The size of the force that he had and the freedom he had to use it was perfect for his skillset. Under those conditions, he had no superior.

Exactly, Forrest loved being in the field. He loved it precisely because he was able to do what he did best. He was masterful in many ways, damn near magical in some ways, however he would have hated commanding a large army and he wouldn't have been good at it. Had he commanded the Army of Northern Virginia Forrest would never have had the respect of his staff or his field officers.
 
Forrest would have done terribly managing a large army. It would have been too unweildy for him. The size of the force that he had and the freedom he had to use it was perfect for his skillset. Under those conditions, he had no superior.

Impressive post, indeed.
 
When he wasn't, which occurred later in the war, this was when he was at his best. A mid-sized command of cavalry, with total freedom to do as he felt necessary.

Actually, it was later in the war where he was screwed over the most, after Hood took command of the Army of Tennessee.

It was in '62 and '63, when he had his own command, that he was able to show his natural military brilliance. Speicfically at battles like Parker's and Brice's Crossroads. Rommel studied Forrest's tactics at Parker's Crossroads, exstensively.
 
There is alot of truth to this, however it doesn't really talk to my point.

Your point is somewhat erroneous, because had 1) the leadership that existed in the Army of Northern Virginia still been alive in mid '64 and into '65 and 2) Lee had been in the same state of mind that he was in before Gettysburg and 3) the moral of the gerneral officers that were left was still intact, Lee would have never went head to head with Grant and therefore Grant's strategy would have been a complete failure. Had Grant taken command of the Army of The Potomac at anytime prior to the spring of '63, he would have marched his Army to death, trying to even catch a glimpse of the ANV, much less get into a headlong fight with it.
 
By the summer of '63, Lee had lost the better part of his most talented generals: Jackson, Armistead, Garnet, Gregg; then Stuart in May of '64; not to mention the loss of hundreds of very talented regimental and brigade officers. At some point during Gettysburg, Lee suffered a stroke, or a heart attack. The talent he had left: Longstreet, Pickett, Ewell, D.H Hill, A.P. Hill et. al. were burnt out and were more interested in finding a way to end the war as painlessly as possible. All these things combined, were the reason that Grant's strategy was successful.

At the end of the day, the talent that existed in the officer corps of all three military departments of the Confederacy, worked against them: the best leaders lead from the front. This leadership style cost the lives of many expert tactical leaders.

This is actually pretty accurate. The bravery of the Confederate generals worked against them. Btw... you forgot Clerburne, another one of the South's very talented, offensively minded, "lead from the front" kind of generals. If you look at it, the North lost far fewer good strategists/tacticians. McPherson and to some degree Sedgwick are the only two that come to mind right off the top of my head.
 
To follow up a little bit. I just do not see how the South could have prevailed from the get-go. Once blood is spilt in any quantity, who really cares why the first shot was fired. I am sure something constituted the first shot between the Hatfields and McCoys too, but who cared after that.

Even now, how much credit does a world leader get for turning the other cheek ? It would so often be the wise thing to do, but politically can be as suicide. Look at Vietnam, and how we missed so many opportunities to GTFO, when we never should have GTFI to begin with.

Perhaps, with Lee's first invasion of the North, had it not been for 3 lost cigars, maybe he creates enough havoc to where an accomodation prevails. As it was, instead we get the political environemt for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln gets his second term, and the killing continues.

A good example is the Gettysburg campaign. The idea was sound, but he got caught up at Gettysburg and forced to leave. If he could have maintained in the north for longer, continuing to sap Northern morale, those in the North pushing for peace may have gotten their way.
 
As always, NBF was an excellent battle commander, would of loved to see him in a Generalship position.
I think he would of decimated the opposition.

Check out Brice's Crossroads and you can see Forrest at his finest.
 
Your point is somewhat erroneous, because had 1) the leadership that existed in the Army of Northern Virginia still been alive in mid '64 and into '65 and 2) Lee had been in the same state of mind that he was in before Gettysburg and 3) the moral of the gerneral officers that were left was still intact, Lee would have never went head to head with Grant and therefore Grant's strategy would have been a complete failure. Had Grant taken command of the Army of The Potomac at anytime prior to the spring of '63, he would have marched his Army to death, trying to even catch a glimpse of the ANV, much less get into a headlong fight with it.

Oh, you are talking later. Ok, no. While it would have made things much tougher in your scenario, at some point the South would have had to engage the Northern army. Letting them run free was simply not an option.
 
Perhaps, with Lee's first invasion of the North, had it not been for 3 lost cigars, maybe he creates enough havoc to where an accomodation prevails. As it was, instead we get the political environemt for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln gets his second term, and the killing continues.

Gotta wonder how the Maryland Campaign would have played out if Special Order 191 hadn't been discovered. Though Lee readjusted, it was certainly too late.
 
Exactly, Forrest loved being in the field. He loved it precisely because he was able to do what he did best. He was masterful in many ways, damn near magical in some ways, however he would have hated commanding a large army and he wouldn't have been good at it. Had he commanded the Army of Northern Virginia Forrest would never have had the respect of his staff or his field officers.

Forrest would have failed at any non-field position. Managment wasn't his forte. ACTION was.
 
This is actually pretty accurate. The bravery of the Confederate generals worked against them. Btw... you forgot Clerburne, another one of the South's very talented, offensively minded, "lead from the front" kind of generals. If you look at it, the North lost far fewer good strategists/tacticians. McPherson and to some degree Sedgwick are the only two that come to mind right off the top of my head.

I've been waiting for the chance to talk about Pat Cleburne, but we hadn't even gotten to the Army of Tennessee, yet. ;)

Since you brought it up, the Army of Tennessee lost all it's best and brightest generals at Franklin: Cleburne, Carter, Strahl, Gist, Adams and Grandbury. With several more wounded and captured and therefore out of action.
 
Back
Top Bottom