• 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!

Civil War Poll

Is this poll painful to you?

  • Yes, it is painful.

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • No, it is not painful.

    Votes: 5 71.4%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
ElCid

ElCid

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
233
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Be honest, no matter how painful.
 
I will be. As soon as there's a poll to tell me what we're voting on.
 
ElCid said:
Be honest, no matter how painful.
Click to expand...

Do you need a mod or experienced forum member to walk you through making a poll question?
 
You can add a poll under Thread Tools.
 
even though it's painful, I vote for "Twice, with an egg"
 
The Central Will Rise Again!!!!
 
I voted yes cuz wars are always painful... Dont understand this tho....
 
I don't get it...
 
I feel like I'm being waterboarded.
 
YS, she is referring to that tussle a few years back where we beat the north for 3 years out of 4.
 


painful? maybe

good tune-Yeah
 
cpwill said:
YS, she is referring to that tussle a few years back where we beat the north for 3 years out of 4.
Click to expand...


It dont matter who was leading after 3 quarters, only the one leading at the end of the game is the weiner
 
cpwill said:
YS, she is referring to that tussle a few years back where we beat the north for 3 years out of 4.
Click to expand...

Strategy > tactics. Just something to remember.
 
oh cmon. what was Grant's great strategy - the ability to perform basic math?
 
cpwill said:
oh cmon. what was Grant's great strategy - the ability to perform basic math?
Click to expand...

And the ability to unwaveringly apply that basic math and continue to apply it till he won. What Lee learned, to his dismay, is winning battles is meaningless unless you win the war. Saying the south won 3/4 of the battles is a meaningless statistic if at the end of the war, it's the South unable to continue.

In WW2, Germany had the better soldiers, with better training, and better equipment(usually), and better leadership, and won battle after battle. Germany lost due to strategic mistakes that led to them being overextended. Edit: and yes, I know that is grossly oversimplified, but I am in a hurry.
 
Redress said:
And the ability to unwaveringly apply that basic math and continue to apply it till he won.
Click to expand...

yup. there is a good reason his own men called him a bloody butcher. it was them he was butchering.

What Lee learned, to his dismay, is winning battles is meaningless unless you win the war.
Click to expand...

true. Grant figured out that he could continue to lose 2-3 soldiers for every Confederate loss and still come out on top. I'm not really sure I would call that any kind of strategic brilliance.
 
Redress said:
Number 2 on the list is way too simplistic, and most I actually did know correctly, but the stuff on the confederate flag was all new to me.
Click to expand...

I think number two is actually the best point on the list, the demographics and industrial imbalance really show the South was just about beat from the start. You'll notice its total number of Soldiers is about 20% of its total free population, while the North only seemed to have mobilized about 10% of its population. Not to mention arms production etc that was listed.

cpwill said:
true. Grant figured out that he could continue to lose 2-3 soldiers for every Confederate loss and still come out on top. I'm not really sure I would call that any kind of strategic brilliance.
Click to expand...

His real brilliance wasn't in the tactics, in was in the realization that the true power of the Confederacy was in the Army of Northern Virginia. For several years Northern Generals had based their strategies on targeting cities, especially Richmond, but many others like New Orleans and the Mississippi River campaign didn't have much strategic effect. While New Orleans was a major port, the Northern Navy blocked it all off anyway, and while the Mississippi was a major logistical supply line, it was also so far away from the center of Confederate power that its loss had no real effect in the East.

He also realized, unlike previous Generals, that the war would not be won in a single battle. And he knew without the Army of Northern Virginia there would be nothing to stop the North from getting into Virginia, where yes the center power of the Confederacy lay in cities like Richmond, but those cities could not be taken and the people would not stop fighting while there was still an ANV.

But yes his tactics on the battlefield? Not exactly impressive.
 
Actually it is. The single quickest, strongest, best path to victory for the North was to stop dicking around and go to an all out war of attrition, and say what you want about Grant(such as he was a terrible tactician, not entirely false), but strategically he was exceptional, and he showed the will to continue with his strategy, which was not easy. The south had what was probably the best tactical leader of the era in Lee, and previous to Grant, the North mostly fought Lee in ways that accentuated Lee's strength. Grant, for all the **** he is given, was the one general who managed to take Lee's strength away from him.
 
Wiseone said:
I think number two is actually the best point on the list, the demographics and industrial imbalance really show the South was just about beat from the start. You'll notice its total number of Soldiers is about 20% of its total free population, while the North only seemed to have mobilized about 10% of its population. Not to mention arms production etc that was listed.
Click to expand...

This still left paths to victory for the south. Most simply, they could continue to demoralize the North until the will to fight was gone. The largest army does not always win, nor does the bigger country, and there are reasons for that. This does not mean that the facts listed in point 2 where not incredibly key, but to say the south had no chance is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom