• 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!

Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general'

slick said:
How can someone be so uninformed to make 2 points in one post & be so unaware of the subject at hand.

{'And please. Napoleon, Grant and Lee commanded grand armies. Forrest commanded a small company."
BTW the light division’s worth of troops under his command apparently you confused with a 'small company}

NB Forrest: Never commanded more than 8000 cavalry, but kept 40,000 Yankees busy chasing him.

'German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel (the Desert Fox), studied Forrest's battle tactics as did the U.S. Army's 'Ole Blood and Guts General George S. Patton, and General 'Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf.

“The Wizard of the Saddle,” Forrest was not only the finest cavalry commander that America ever produced either horse of mechanized, he was a first-rate practitioner of mobile warfare and combined arms. His operations are more reminiscent of a 20th century panzer leader, such as Heinz Guderian or Erwin Rommel, than of any commander of his age. The battle of Tishomingo Creek, which he planned and oversaw, is considered to be near or at the top greatest cavalry battle victories of all recorded history.

If any Civil War general can be compared tactically to the great Napoleon it's NBF.
Top 25 Greatest Tactical Feats in Warfare

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/top-25-greatest-tactical-feats.104969/

for brevity lets go down to the top 14
14)Battle of Trafalgar.....Lord Nelson
13)Battle of Brices Crossroads...... Nathan Bedford Forrest
(12) The Battle of Gqokli Hill......... Shaka
(11) Battle of Cowpens ............ Daniel Morgan
(10) Spring and Autumn Period China.......Duke Wen
(9) The Battle of Gazala......... Rommel
(8)Battle of Chancellorsville........ Robert E Lee
(7) The Battle of Breitenfeldt.........Gustavus Adolphus
(6)The Battle of Leuctra........ Epaminondas
(5) Battle of Pharsalus.............Julius Caesar
(4)The Battle of Gaugamela.......... Alexander
(3) Battle of Leuthen..............Frederick the Great
(2) Battles of Austerlitz........ Napoleon
(1) Cannae...................Hannibal

The cream of the crop all 14 & Forrest doesn't have to take a back seat to any of them
from Hannibal to Lord Nelson!
Click to expand...


Stalingrad knocked the piss out of the German Army and Normandy shat all over the Nazis and their occupation of Europe. Yorktown decided the American War of Independence and Waterloo cooked Napoleon's goose. The 300 Spartans at Thermopylae were the bravest men of history who fought to preserve, protect, defend the civilization of ancient Greece against the barbarian hordes and Xerxes Arrows. The Battle of Britain in 1940 and the Battle of Midway in 1942 turned the balance of the greatest war of history.

Forrest accomplished no feats. Forrest aggrandized himself only. As I'd pointed out in scrolling, Forrest is one of a baker's dozen of cavalry commanders specific to the civil war to provide the basis of mechanized mounted infantry to dismount and fight in the modern era of war. Generation 5 warfare is moving away from Napoleon however which limits Forrest further. That is, the advanced military commanders of the world are discarding the uniquely Napoleon creation of the division and the corps in favor of the more flexible brigade, which is pre-Napoleon and simultaneously, post-Napoleon. Forrest was a nobody except to the Confederate Fanboyz.
 
Last edited:
Sam_Troy said:
Sorry but our magnificent leader won the presidency due to the electoral college process set forth in our beloved United States Constitution.
Click to expand...


Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times.

Neither are we finished.

Capital punishment remains Constitutional throughout as does freedom of speech, press, redress of grievances.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No such mandates exist.

Always happy to be the bearer of great news!
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no law which forces Americans to purge God from public life. Godless 'separation of church and state' ridiculousness is just a democrat democrat misunderstanding of Constitutional restrictions against government enforcement of sectarian and atheistic beliefs on the general public.
 
marke said:
Exactly. There is no law which forces Americans to purge God from public life. Godless 'separation of church and state' ridiculousness is just a democrat democrat misunderstanding of Constitutional restrictions against government enforcement of sectarian and atheistic beliefs on the general public.
Click to expand...

FYI...There are MANY self professed conservatives in this forum who openly identify as atheists and pot enthusiasts.
 
Tigerace117 said:
There are no quotation marks involved. Separation of church and state is, as I said, explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

In contradiction to dummycrat misunderstandings of Constitutional law, the Constitution does not say, "Congress shall drive all religion out of politics." The proper understanding of the Constitution is, "Congress shall not be allowed to interfere with religion in politics and in public."
 
marke said:
So? Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

Yes..There are MANY conservatives in this forum who reject your god claim,and therefore don't want religion in their politics or their public/secular institutions. Any more questions?
 
Logician Man said:
Yes..There are MANY conservatives in this forum who reject your god claim,and therefore don't want religion in their politics or their public/secular institutions. Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Just because there are Americans who want God driven out of public life does not mean they get to misinterpret the Constitution any stupid dishonest way they like. Thank God for Trump and his SCOTUS picks who should provide some barriers to democrat rewriting of Constitutional laws in America by judicial decree.
 
marke said:
Just because there are Americans who want God driven out of public life does not mean they get to misinterpret the Constitution any stupid dishonest way they like. Thank God for Trump and his SCOTUS picks who should provide some barriers to democrat rewriting of Constitutional laws in America by judicial decree.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that there is a hard push to pack the court next chance the D's get, because we used to be better.
 
marke said:
Just because there are Americans who want God driven out of public life does not mean they get to misinterpret the Constitution any stupid dishonest way they like. Thank God for Trump and his SCOTUS picks who should provide some barriers to democrat rewriting of Constitutional laws in America by judicial decree.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't religious.He just plays one as a politician to fool his gullible base.Remember,Trump is the guy who wanted to have his very own love child daughter aborted.
 
slick said:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/top-25-greatest-tactical-feats.104969/

for brevity lets go down to the top 14
14)Battle of Trafalgar.....Lord Nelson
13)Battle of Brices Crossroads...... Nathan Bedford Forrest
(12) The Battle of Gqokli Hill......... Shaka
(11) Battle of Cowpens ............ Daniel Morgan
(10) Spring and Autumn Period China.......Duke Wen
(9) The Battle of Gazala......... Rommel
(8)Battle of Chancellorsville........ Robert E Lee
(7) The Battle of Breitenfeldt.........Gustavus Adolphus
(6)The Battle of Leuctra........ Epaminondas
(5) Battle of Pharsalus.............Julius Caesar
(4)The Battle of Gaugamela.......... Alexander
(3) Battle of Leuthen..............Frederick the Great
(2) Battles of Austerlitz........ Napoleon
(1) Cannae...................Hannibal
Click to expand...

That list is massively ****ed. Trafalgar should be way higher, and that the Battle of Tsushima is not on it is a crime. Chancellorsville should in no way be on the list(OMG, he used a flank attack, how brilliant...:roll:), and Breitenfeldt should maybe be at the top. Where is Agincourt?
 
slick said:
Google 'Lee's perfect battle' and you'll understand. Historians from all vantage points have called Chancellorsville 'Lee's perfect battle'
for over a century. Do you live in a cacoon? Brush up on your history read about it, get with the program. It was fought from April 30 to May 6, 1863, in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, near the village of Chancellorsville. ... The campaign pitted Union Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker's Army of the Potomac against an army less than half its size, General Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
Click to expand...

Ummm More even handed Historians would say it wasn't perfect and Lee owes as much to Jackson (who died in that battle- shot by one of his own pickets) and a Union General who admitted he lost his nerve halfway through the battle. So the battle was far from 'perfect'. After all Lee failed to crush the Army of the Potomac- he simply halted an offensive, the war of attrition would still continue and the South would lose.

As far as the size of the opposing armies several sayings ring true- it ain't the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog... Hooker didn't have 1/10th of the fight Jackson did. If you don't wisely commit your numbers in a timely fashion it doesn't matter how big you army is. If McClellan had committed his troops in an aggressive timely fashion, If Burnside hadn't insisted on fighting on a bridge, Sharpsburg would have been a resounding defeat for Lee.

Now looking at Gettysburg, a battle of Lee's own choosing, Lee was very far from perfect. He didn't issue firm orders to start the campaign. Had no firm master strategy, loss control of key subordinates early on, failed to issue firm orders during the battle, and when all else was miscarried by his subordinates launched an attack of desperation that again lacked the proper support or coordination. All of this against a cautious, mediocre General who had a mixed bag of subordinates- lost one of his best within hours of the meeting engagement, and another who pushed his corps into a slaughterhouse in the Peach Field.

Having a poor opposing General like Hooker doesn't make you a great general... :peace
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Keeping in mind that there is a hard push to pack the court next chance the D's get, because we used to be better.
Click to expand...

America is divided sharply between progressive liberals and conservatives. Thank God the conservatives are enjoying a temporary reprieve from the forces of change being advocated by ungodly godless and irreligious leftist liberals who want America remolded into some sort of atheistic communistic one world oligarchy of their own delusional design.
 
Logician Man said:
Trump isn't religious.He just plays one as a politician to fool his gullible base.Remember,Trump is the guy who wanted to have his very own love child daughter aborted.
Click to expand...

Trump is doing Americans and especially conservatives and Christians a great service no matter what his real game plan is.
 
marke said:
Trump is doing Americans and especially conservatives and Christians a great service no matter what his real game plan is.
Click to expand...

If you think dividing the country and condoning violence against journalists is doing ANYONE any good whatsoever,you're a lost cause.
 
Logician Man said:
If you think dividing the country and condoning violence against journalists is doing ANYONE any good whatsoever,you're a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Obama did not divide the country and Trump did not divide the country. These two men simply stood on opposite sides of the divide.
 
marke said:
Obama did not divide the country and Trump did not divide the country. These two men simply stood on opposite sides of the divide.
Click to expand...

Like just stated..lost cause... can't help but notice you failed to address Trump's encouragement/support of Conservative politicians assaulting journalists. Why is that?
 
slick said:
How can someone be so uninformed to make 2 points in one post & be so unaware of the subject at hand.

{'And please. Napoleon, Grant and Lee commanded grand armies. Forrest commanded a small company."
BTW the light division’s worth of troops under his command apparently you confused with a 'small company}

NB Forrest: Never commanded more than 8000 cavalry, but kept 40,000 Yankees busy chasing him.

'German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel (the Desert Fox), studied Forrest's battle tactics as did the U.S. Army's 'Ole Blood and Guts General George S. Patton, and General 'Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf.

“The Wizard of the Saddle,” Forrest was not only the finest cavalry commander that America ever produced either horse of mechanized, he was a first-rate practitioner of mobile warfare and combined arms. His operations are more reminiscent of a 20th century panzer leader, such as Heinz Guderian or Erwin Rommel, than of any commander of his age. The battle of Tishomingo Creek, which he planned and oversaw, is considered to be near or at the top greatest cavalry battle victories of all recorded history.

If any Civil War general can be compared tactically to the great Napoleon it's NBF.
Top 25 Greatest Tactical Feats in Warfare

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/top-25-greatest-tactical-feats.104969/

for brevity lets go down to the top 14
14)Battle of Trafalgar.....Lord Nelson
13)Battle of Brices Crossroads...... Nathan Bedford Forrest
(12) The Battle of Gqokli Hill......... Shaka
(11) Battle of Cowpens ............ Daniel Morgan
(10) Spring and Autumn Period China.......Duke Wen
(9) The Battle of Gazala......... Rommel
(8)Battle of Chancellorsville........ Robert E Lee
(7) The Battle of Breitenfeldt.........Gustavus Adolphus
(6)The Battle of Leuctra........ Epaminondas
(5) Battle of Pharsalus.............Julius Caesar
(4)The Battle of Gaugamela.......... Alexander
(3) Battle of Leuthen..............Frederick the Great
(2) Battles of Austerlitz........ Napoleon
(1) Cannae...................Hannibal

The cream of the crop all 14 & Forrest doesn't have to take a back seat to any of them
from Hannibal to Lord Nelson!
Click to expand...

Grant's Vicksburg campaign was the supreme military masterpiece of the Civil War.

"I found myself on dry ground on the same side of the river as the enemy."
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Exactly. There is no law which forces Americans to purge God from public life. Godless 'separation of church and state' ridiculousness is just a democrat democrat misunderstanding of Constitutional restrictions against government enforcement of sectarian and atheistic beliefs on the general public.
Click to expand...

Excellent! So we agree that the separation of church and state is necessary and vital to American law and life in this country, and it's squarely constitutional. That, and it has nothing to do with atheism.

I LOVE agreeing with people!
 
Lee was a great General...Trump's comments though are just pandering to southern racists. I doubt the guy has ever opened a history much less is a history buff.
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm More even handed Historians would say it wasn't perfect and Lee owes as much to Jackson (who died in that battle- shot by one of his own pickets) and a Union General who admitted he lost his nerve halfway through the battle. So the battle was far from 'perfect'. After all Lee failed to crush the Army of the Potomac- he simply halted an offensive, the war of attrition would still continue and the South would lose.

As far as the size of the opposing armies several sayings ring true- it ain't the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog... Hooker didn't have 1/10th of the fight Jackson did. If you don't wisely commit your numbers in a timely fashion it doesn't matter how big you army is. If McClellan had committed his troops in an aggressive timely fashion, If Burnside hadn't insisted on fighting on a bridge, Sharpsburg would have been a resounding defeat for Lee.

Now looking at Gettysburg, a battle of Lee's own choosing, Lee was very far from perfect. He didn't issue firm orders to start the campaign. Had no firm master strategy, loss control of key subordinates early on, failed to issue firm orders during the battle, and when all else was miscarried by his subordinates launched an attack of desperation that again lacked the proper support or coordination. All of this against a cautious, mediocre General who had a mixed bag of subordinates- lost one of his best within hours of the meeting engagement, and another who pushed his corps into a slaughterhouse in the Peach Field.

Having a poor opposing General like Hooker doesn't make you a great general... :peace
Click to expand...

A sensible contradiction I partially agree with. As I stated before Lee formulated the plan but Jackson implemented it.
Therefore no Jackson no 'Lee's perfect battle' & at Gettysburg no Jackson no victory! I often wonder if Lee would
have forfeited his 'perfect battle' & done some Monday Morning Quarterbacking to have Jackson marching north with him to Pennsylvania.
Ewell the major Jackson replacement has been fingered for some of the blame at Gettysburg & properly so.
 
marke said:
Obama did not divide the country and Trump did not divide the country. These two men simply stood on opposite sides of the divide.
Click to expand...

I see President Trump more as a liberal leaning moderate. And Obozo as an aspiring Molotov.
 
Jack Hays said:
None of it would have been thought to be worth war without slavery.
Click to expand...

But once again, that's a determination we make today, based on our priorities. I concur with the earlier poster that there are some statements by Southerners to the effect that they viewed slavery as their God-given right, BUT we don't know how much of their supposed religious sentiments were being driven by the economic advantage that slavery gave to a very small number of Southerners. I don't want to make the Marxist mistake of judging everything in economic terms, but slavery, unlike some other concerns related to religion, is pretty heavily slanted toward economic matters.

And if it's true that economics is the real root of the South's attachment to slavery, then we as moderns can't be sure that a slave-less South wouldn't have fought over other pecuniary matters.

This thought-experiment doesn't negate the evils of slavery in any way. But it does knock the slats out from under the people who want to see the North as "the good guys," when a lot of them were also out for economic advantage.
 
Ouroboros said:
But once again, that's a determination we make today, based on our priorities. I concur with the earlier poster that there are some statements by Southerners to the effect that they viewed slavery as their God-given right, BUT we don't know how much of their supposed religious sentiments were being driven by the economic advantage that slavery gave to a very small number of Southerners. I don't want to make the Marxist mistake of judging everything in economic terms, but slavery, unlike some other concerns related to religion, is pretty heavily slanted toward economic matters.

And if it's true that economics is the real root of the South's attachment to slavery, then we as moderns can't be sure that a slave-less South wouldn't have fought over other pecuniary matters.

This thought-experiment doesn't negate the evils of slavery in any way. But it does knock the slats out from under the people who want to see the North as "the good guys," when a lot of them were also out for economic advantage.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. It was slavery alone which brought on the war.

"Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safety outside the Union of those who have shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and reduce you to worse than the Colonial dependence of your fathers."
 
marke said:
In contradiction to dummycrat misunderstandings of Constitutional law, the Constitution does not say, "Congress shall drive all religion out of politics." The proper understanding of the Constitution is, "Congress shall not be allowed to interfere with religion in politics and in public."
Click to expand...

Contrary to to what fanatical republicans who are narcissistic enough to think God needs them to defend him think, separation of Church and State means exactly that. Not just keeping the state of the church, but keeping the church out of the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom