• 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
For the last time, Lincoln ordered the arsenals and forts in secceeding states abandoned. They were never, "taken", by the Confederates, so therefore no order was issued to, "retake", them prior to the attack on Fort Sumpter.

Wrong. He issued the order to retake them once Fort Sumter was attacked.
 
Ah sorry, it wasn't 1976, my bad. I should of looked it up instead of using my memory. My point still stands though on the accounts.

And my point still stands.

He was talking about the importance of a federal government and how without it the states would be jealous of each other. They needed some sort of conflict middle man to cool conflicts so they didn't arise to be more. You seeing things that aren't there is your problem, not mine.

You interpreting it incorrectly is your problem, not mine. Federalist 6 and 7 discussed exactly what I said. The words I used were words used in both of those papers.
 
Your post is absurd! Lee's basic idea was about strength and hitting his opponent head on????? WTF? For the major part of the war Lee was vastly outnumbered and yet he won battle after battle. Lee was a master strategist. It is quite obvious that you haven't much of a grasp of the subject.

It doesn't matter if he was outnumbered or not or if won battles. My post was about common sense. He lacked it. Unless you can show me otherwise, I will stick to my conclusion made by looking at his battle history and actions taken on the field.
 
Last edited:
lee was first offered command of the union forces before the start of hostilities, but chose to return to his home state, and lead his state's forces..lincoln was very fond of grant, for the simple reason that grant wasnt afraid to fight, as some of the earlier union generals appeared to be.

Grant and Lee had the same nonsense view of battle. All you are saying is that Lincoln supported that style. It doesn't change anything..*shrug
 
There are two sides. You stated one.

The other is that those asenals and installations were illegal occupations, also worthy of being called acts of war.

Since those arsenals and installations were Federally owned on property that was part of the US, your position is irrelevant. Like I said earlier, if I stand on a piece of land and say, "this is now MY country and I own the land, completely", doesn't make it so.
 
Since those arsenals and installations were Federally owned on property that was part of the US, your position is irrelevant. Like I said earlier, if I stand on a piece of land and say, "this is now MY country and I own the land, completely", doesn't make it so.

If you have a pre-existing agreement that you, as a state, retain the right to withdraw from the union, then yes it can 'make it so' given the right fact-dependent situations.
 
Your post is absurd! Lee's basic idea was about strength and hitting his opponent head on????? WTF? For the major part of the war Lee was vastly outnumbered and yet he won battle after battle. Lee was a master strategist. It is quite obvious that you haven't much of a grasp of the subject.

Just to make the point: Lee was a very good tactician. Strategist was average. Planning a campaign is strategy, running a battle is tactics.
 
It doesn't matter if he was outnumbered or not or if won battles. My post was about common sense. He lacked it. Unless you can show me otherwise, I will stick to my conclusion made by looking at his battle history and actions taken on the field.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Lee was a master strategist and not one who looked, like Grant, to win through attrition. Lee was aware that he couldn't win a battle like that. Lee's one, if not biggest mistake, during the entire war was Gettysburg. He was forced into fighting where he fought because Stuart was off raiding and pillaging, rather than being "the eyes of the army". Lee's advance force ran into Buford's cavalry, and didn't realize there was a larger Union force very close by, until it was too late. If Stuart had been around, no way would have the battle been fought where it was, if at all. Remember, also, Longstreet begged Lee to not order Picket's charge, as very defensively minded, Longstreet saw no possibility of success... and he was ultimately right.

You sound more like a proponent of the kind of war Joe Johnston would nave fought. Johnston was a superb general, a master DEFENSIVE tactician. If he were in charge of the Army of North Virginia, the South would have lasted a bit longer, but would have had NO chance of winning. Lee was the South's best chance, as he was the most offensively minded of all of the South's lead generals.
 
If you have a pre-existing agreement that you, as a state, retain the right to withdraw from the union, then yes it can 'make it so' given the right fact-dependent situations.

Since secession was illegal, it can't make it so.
 
I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Lee was a master strategist and not one who looked, like Grant, to win through attrition. Lee was aware that he couldn't win a battle like that. Lee's one, if not biggest mistake, during the entire war was Gettysburg. He was forced into fighting where he fought because Stuart was off raiding and pillaging, rather than being "the eyes of the army". Lee's advance force ran into Buford's cavalry, and didn't realize there was a larger Union force very close by, until it was too late. If Stuart had been around, no way would have the battle been fought where it was, if at all. Remember, also, Longstreet begged Lee to not order Picket's charge, as very defensively minded, Longstreet saw no possibility of success... and he was ultimately right.

You sound more like a proponent of the kind of war Joe Johnston would nave fought. Johnston was a superb general, a master DEFENSIVE tactician. If he were in charge of the Army of North Virginia, the South would have lasted a bit longer, but would have had NO chance of winning. Lee was the South's best chance, as he was the most offensively minded of all of the South's lead generals.

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.
 
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.

Attrition is certainly a strategy, but it doesn't really take a whole lot of creativity or planning. Grant said it clearly, "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." This is how he operated. His errors in the Wilderness Campaign extended the war a year. Sure, attrition is a strategy, but very limited in scope.

I don't agree that Lee was an average strategist. His moves towards Antitiem and Gettsburg might be questionable, but they had larger, more far reaching purposes.
 
Attrition is certainly a strategy, but it doesn't really take a whole lot of creativity or planning. Grant said it clearly, "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." This is how he operated. His errors in the Wilderness Campaign extended the war a year. Sure, attrition is a strategy, but very limited in scope.

I don't agree that Lee was an average strategist. His moves towards Antitiem and Gettsburg might be questionable, but they had larger, more far reaching purposes.

Attrition seems like a simple thing, but it is the solution no one wants to use. In the end, the proof is in the pudding, in that Lee could not counter Grant strategically. Lee reminds me very much of Rommel, who was another excellent tactician who won battle after battle, but could not put it together to win the big campaigns.
 
Attrition seems like a simple thing, but it is the solution no one wants to use. In the end, the proof is in the pudding, in that Lee could not counter Grant strategically. Lee reminds me very much of Rommel, who was another excellent tactician who won battle after battle, but could not put it together to win the big campaigns.

You're talking about something that could not be strategized away. Lee simply didn't have the man power. This is not a knock on his strategic ability, but more on the availablity of resources. His strategy was superb enough to hang in there and often defeat forces quite a bit larger than his. But against a general who was using attrition? He had zero chance regardless of how good a strategist he was.
 
You're talking about something that could not be strategized away. Lee simply didn't have the man power. This is not a knock on his strategic ability, but more on the availablity of resources. His strategy was superb enough to hang in there and often defeat forces quite a bit larger than his. But against a general who was using attrition? He had zero chance regardless of how good a strategist he was.

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 way, I am not trying to make light of Lee's accomplishments. He was a great general.
 
You're talking about something that could not be strategized away. Lee simply didn't have the man power. This is not a knock on his strategic ability, but more on the availablity of resources. His strategy was superb enough to hang in there and often defeat forces quite a bit larger than his. But against a general who was using attrition? He had zero chance regardless of how good a strategist he was.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

Going against bigger armies like he did was not smart, it would be one thing if he had to fight, but Lee most of the time didn't have do so.

Btw, on your earlier post, it didn't matter what Stuart was doing. The proper move would of been to send out a scout party before going to Gettysburg and moving away from the soft target(the railroad suppling resources to the north)
 
Last edited:
There were several reasons for the war that are almost never talked about because few people remember them from school, and I don't think they teach anything passed the Abolition Movement any more treying to make it the only cause there was.
Some of the others were the following.

Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

States versus federal rights.

The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents

The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Before the war when Lincoln was elected in 1860 South Carolina issued a "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." Believing Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was president, these states seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Over 600,000 American died in this senseless War many were just kids as is always the case when older people go out of their minds with stupid idiolohy and greed.
civilwar.jpg
 
I would of fought for state rights, but I would of never allowed Lee to lead that didn't understand you don't fight to fight, but to win. He was a cocky little man that didn't understand anything about war.

Though lets all remember the south didn't start aggression.

First of all, Lee was a great general (though not world-class), yet he was still great. If you become a better strategist that he is, and still call him a cocky little man who didn't understand anything about war, then I would respect your statement.
Also, the south did start the aggression, with the shelling of Fort Sumter
North. Generally because it was the winning side, and because it was against slavery
 
Last edited:
If I was just a better general than lee, then maybe I could speak..sigh...

Oh and nice stances

pro: government

anti: tax

Facepalm
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.

I'd of liked to see the result of him not being constantly undermined by his superiors.
 
I'd of liked to see the result of him not being constantly undermined by his superiors.

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.
 
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.

He's always been my personal fave.
I tend to like under dog's.

His story aligns with a typical literary tragic hero.
If you happen to favor the South of course.
 
Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.

I can't choose sides on issues like this - the past is the past, it was what it was.
 
Back
Top Bottom