• 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
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

He wasn't necessarily screwed over by Hood, though Hood himself was an aweful general to have in charge of the Army of Tennesse.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you have the whole southern OoB memorized?

:2razz:
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Suart hadn't screwed the pooch, when he was supposed to be screening the ANV's movement into Pennsylvania, Gettysburg may have had a much different outcome.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, my point is, had the officer corps that was present in the ANV in 1863, still been present in 1864 Grant would have been out maneuvered and by the time he did engage the ANV--on ground of Lee's choosing--his soldiers would have been so sapped of their morale and energy, that he would have met with one disaster afrter another.
 
Redress said:
Do you have the whole southern OoB memorized?

:2razz:
Click to expand...

I, actually have two books... Generals in Blue and Generals in Gray. Bought them in 1980 at the Gettysburg Historical site. They give the biographies of every general that fought in the Civil War. I LOVE reading those books, and, like apdst, know most if not all of the general's that he mentioned. It's fascinating to read how the personalities of the men in charge had such an impact on brigades, divisions, corps, and armies. I would suggest that this was a fairly unique aspect of the American Civil War, since the Civil War was a "bridge war"... a war that bridged the gap between old and modern warfare.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
He wasn't necessarily screwed over by Hood, though Hood himself was an aweful general to have in charge of the Army of Tennesse.
Click to expand...

I guess in all fairness, Hood wasn't the same man he was prior to Gettysburg. If John Bell Hood that attacked The Devils Den had commanded the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, then the battle of Franklin probably would have never taken place.
 
apdst said:
If Suart hadn't screwed the pooch, when he was supposed to be screening the ANV's movement into Pennsylvania, Gettysburg may have had a much different outcome.
Click to expand...

I did a lengthy paper on Gettysburg in college. I agree 100%. Lee had practically no information about Union troop movements because of Stuart's raids. Lee would never have fought that battle when/where it happened. Though the terrain was good for strategy, Lee could not choose his positions before engaging, something that marked a lot of his prior successes.
 
apdst said:
I guess in all fairness, Hood wasn't the same man he was prior to Gettysburg. If John Bell Hood that attacked The Devils Den had commanded the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, then the battle of Franklin probably would have never taken place.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Yes, Hood changed after Gettysburg... similar to Ewell after Groveton, but Hood was always a gambler and preferred a head on approach to tactics. Good for a brigade commander, Disasterous for an army commander.
 
apdst said:
If Suart hadn't screwed the pooch, when he was supposed to be screening the ANV's movement into Pennsylvania, Gettysburg may have had a much different outcome.
Click to expand...

This is 100 % true.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I did a lengthy paper on Gettysburg in college. I agree 100%. Lee had practically no information about Union troop movements because of Stuart's raids. Lee would never have fought that battle when/where it happened. Though the terrain was good for strategy, Lee could not choose his positions before engaging, something that marked a lot of his prior successes.
Click to expand...

Also, Stuart's failure aside, there were failures by Lee's commanders on the field to take the initiative at key moments as the battle began to develop. Ewell not taking Cemetary Hill is a prime example.

As I've mentioned before and as James McPherson wrote, "Had Jackson still lived, he undoubtedly would have found it practicable. But Ewell was not Jackson."
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I did a lengthy paper on Gettysburg in college. I agree 100%. Lee had practically no information about Union troop movements because of Stuart's raids. Lee would never have fought that battle when/where it happened. Though the terrain was good for strategy, Lee could not choose his positions before engaging, something that marked a lot of his prior successes.
Click to expand...

Grr...the terrain was good for tactics...

Strategy = campaign

Tactics = battle
 
apdst said:
No, just most. Ready to talk about Dick Taylor and Jo Shelby? ;)
Click to expand...

Not yet actually. Finishing my WW1 book, then a Waterloo book, then going to start on the Civil War, probably going with 1 or 2 books on each battle, chronologically. I get frustrated with books on a whole war, since they skimp on the details I am most interested on, the tactics of each battle.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Two of the best in "Kirbysmithdom".
Click to expand...

Dick Taylor was probably the most travelled general of the war...on either side.

I have a watch from the period that has, "Richard Taylor", inscribed inside the cover. I've always wondered. Ya know?
 
apdst said:
Also, Stuart's failure aside, there were failures by Lee's commanders on the field to take the initiative at key moments as the battle began to develop. Ewell not taking Cemetary Hill is a prime example.

As I've mentioned before and as James McPherson wrote, "Had Jackson still lived, he undoubtedly would have found it practicable. But Ewell was not Jackson."
Click to expand...

Yup. If Jackson had been alive, Lee would have had the high ground at Cementary Hill. No question.
 
Redress said:
Not yet actually. Finishing my WW1 book, then a Waterloo book, then going to start on the Civil War, probably going with 1 or 2 books on each battle, chronologically. I get frustrated with books on a whole war, since they skimp on the details I am most interested on, the tactics of each battle.
Click to expand...

I found it easier to keep up with the chronology if I start with an overview, then take on individual campaigns and battles. That's just me.
 
Redress said:
Grr...the terrain was good for tactics...

Strategy = campaign

Tactics = battle
Click to expand...

No, Redress. Strategy can be both of an overall campaign sense or a battle sense. Remember... battles are not fought as one singular event. With armies the size of these, a strategy must be prepared to fight a battle, too.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't know about that. Yes, Hood changed after Gettysburg... similar to Ewell after Groveton, but Hood was always a gambler and preferred a head on approach to tactics. Good for a brigade commander, Disasterous for an army commander.
Click to expand...

At the same time, I think he would have handled Franklin differently, if fought the battle at all.

A friend of mine likes to say that Hood pushed Sherman to the sea. :rofl
 
apdst said:
Dick Taylor was probably the most travelled general of the war...on either side.

I have a watch from the period that has, "Richard Taylor", inscribed inside the cover. I've always wondered. Ya know?
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. I wonder if there is a way to have that verified.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, Redress. Strategy can be both of an overall campaign sense or a battle sense. Remember... battles are not fought as one singular event. With armies the size of these, a strategy must be prepared to fight a battle, too.
Click to expand...

Strategy is used to fight a collection of battle...a campaign. Tactics are used to fight battle one at a time. Redress nailed it.
 
apdst said:
At the same time, I think he would have handled Franklin differently, if fought the battle at all.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I still think IF he fought it, he still would have fought it with the reckless abandon he fought most of his engagements.

A friend of mine likes to say that Hood pushed Sherman to the sea. :rofl
Click to expand...

:lol: Good one.
 
apdst said:
I found it easier to keep up with the chronology if I start with an overview, then take on individual campaigns and battles. That's just me.
Click to expand...

The chronology I know, and if I need more, can get online. It's the tactics that I am most interested in.
 
apdst said:
Strategy is used to fight a collection of battle...a campaign. Tactics are used to fight battle one at a time. Redress nailed it.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Strategy is planning. Tactics is strategy in motion. This can appy to any portion of a battle or campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom