Why is Grant on the $50 bill?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrFun
And yeah Imran -- Lee has been overrated ad nauseam.


He had tunnel vision when it came to envisioning war strategy beyond the borders of his state, Virginia. He also disregarded advice of lower ranking officers such as during the battle of Gettysburg. He was a human being -- not a deity or a god.

Well, he can certainly be questioned on that point. But it was not Lee's job to envision overall war strategy until late in the war when it was too late to do anything but hold on. We can only speculate what plan Lee would have followed had he been able to control all Confederate forces from the begining of the war.

As good as Lee was, there is no evidence that he could have come up with a successful way to twart northern intentions. I believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that a purely defensive strategy the South could have prevailed but that is just speculation. I think it fair to state that few, if any understood the true impact that improvements in rifles and artillery would have. Perhaps this is the great key of the war. At the end Lee had grasped this and managed to work miracles of trench warfare. If perhaps the South had understood this at the begining of the war it would have been different. Of course, defensive warfare was counter to Southern culture so you might point to that as a contributing factor in the outcome as well.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, my understanding of Lee's role in West Virginia appears to have been wrong. He didn't do anything particularly distinguished, but neither was he soundly beaten:

-Arrian

Well, Lee's performance was always linked to the performance of his sub-commanders. He tended to give more responsibility in carrying out operations to subordinates than other field commanders did.

You can argue the pros and cons of that all day. Lee does get credit for recognizing the weaknesses of his officers and for addressing it. Organizing the ANV into wings under Longstreet and Jackson was probably a masterstroke. At its height the ANV was a well coordinated and lethal war machine. The loss of Jackson ended that.

If you rate the generals on their ability to led an attack on the battlefield who would compare to Jackson?

[Imran Siddiqui]

At the end Lee had grasped this and managed to work miracles of trench warfare.

I'd actually have to give credit to this to Longstreet. He was the defensive genius after all, whose defensive strategies were studied for years afterwards in military acadamies all over Europe.

[Capt Dizle]

I can't argue the point about Longstreet. He was on a par with Lee, Jackson, and Stuart. They had different roles to play and they were outstanding as individuals as well as a group, but as Mr. Fun says, they were men not gods.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jackson was a God though .

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Jackson was a God though .

Well, a bit of a religious fanatic maybe.

But, he was OUR religious fanatic!

[Arrian]

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


yes, they are famous-and their armies crushed-their states defeated.

So again, famous but on the loosing side of history-much like the generals of the wehrmacht

What's your point? Obviously, they lost, but they have had just as much an effect on history as the winning generals*, often.

*this is the important part

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Grant was relentless and decisive. I just don't see a lot of evidence of particular skill or brilliance.

Non sequiter.

[Japher]

Generals who become presidents automatically get put on money.. right?

[Kuciwalker]

Eisenhower?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by centrifuge
Keep Grant, but give something to Truman!!!

Truman the War Criminal?