If I might quote the right honorable 18th President of the United States.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I was born in Tennessee, actually. Kuci was born in Alabama but doesn't like to admit it.

Hey, I'll trade with him. Lot's of gals think it's apparently hip and cool to be Canadian.

But don't think for a second that I believe Lee was on the right side of the conflict. I don't.

You are aware the man was recruited by Lincoln himself to lead the Union armies? I see nothing to indicate that should the Commonwealth of Virginia voted to stay in the union that he would not have accepted the commission. Instead, Virginia chose to join the confederacy and Lee decided after some consideration to defend his state against the union.

If it were so simple for him as being about slavery and in support of slavery, then the vote of Virginia would have played no impact in his final decision. The gist I get from it is that he served as a reluctant option, but once he had committed a course did the best he could do with what he had.

You'd probably argue that he should have served Good over Lawful. That generally tends to be a pretty set persuasion peculiar to each person, whether to serve Law or Good.

[Dinner]

I did a search for the words, "Union", "successful", "invasion", "Texas". 0 results found.

Why worthless Texans must have surrendered for no reason at all... Or else it was because the vastly superior Federal Armies beat the mother****ing **** out of them, as any non-retarded person already knows.

[Dinner]

....what?

Is anyone else thoroughly baffled by this post?

Learn history, boy.

[Dinner]

So nothing of importance?

Well, there was a big problem with an Apache Indian war declared on all white men which required us to massacre the Confederates before going about massacring the red skins. I mean you can only kill so many people at one time despite your best efforts.

[Kidlicious]

Rty

No, the rebs lost less than the yanks, if I recall correctly. Supposedly they were generally better soldiers.

The south fought pretty well all things considered. If only they'd fought for something that wasn't so ****ing horrendous.

They lost less men because they were defending. Is there any subject that you are actually knowledgable in?

[kentonio]

Rty

They lost less men because they were defending. Is there any subject that you are actually knowledgable in?

Be fair, traitorous racist scum though they were, the confederate generals were a hell of a lot better than the union ones until very late on, and the troops became very hardened. I think HC hits it on the head really, its just a shame they were fighting for something so horrendous.

[Kidlicious]

Be fair, traitorous racist scum though they were, the confederate generals were a hell of a lot better than the union ones until very late on, and the troops became very hardened. I think HC hits it on the head really, its just a shame they were fighting for something so horrendous.

Are you unaware that you tend to lose less men when you are defending a hill or something?

[Elok]

Grant had doggedness. I mean the man would lose 100,000 men in a day then launch another attack the next morning just because he knew Lee couldn't replace his loses while the north had hundreds of units which had never seen combat even in 1865. Like the allied WW1 generals he was determined to bleed the enemy dry but defensive arms hadn't become so good as in WW1 so he was able to do it. Something like 50%-60% of the military white male aged people in the south were killed but Grant knew if he just killed enough there would be no one left.

"You see, I knew all killbots have a preset kill limit. So I simply sent wave after wave of men to their deaths until they reached that limit and shut down."

-Zapp Brannigan, paraphrased from memory.

[Main_Brain]

The Trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

[kentonio]

Are you unaware that you tend to lose less men when you are defending a hill or something?

The union generals apparently were on far too many occasions. Seriously, I have nothing but contempt for the confederacy but for most of the war their generals were considerably better than their union counterparts.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yeah, so basically Grant's strategy was "we have reserves". An effective strategy, obviously, but had Lee and Grant flipped places Lee would have been the victor.

Grant sure lost a hell of a lot of men fighting with 2-1 numbers and much better logistics.

Extremely doubtful there would have been any better outcome if the roles were reversed (ie. that Lee could have done much better than Grant), considering Lee's abysmal performance in offensive fighting. (See Antietam and Gettysburg). By the advent of the civil war weaponry had gained enough killing power that fighting from prepared positions always gave a huge advantage to the defender.

The offensive forces attempted whereever possible to perform larger strategic turning movement to dislodge defenders from prepared positions and by and large both generals were extremely well versed and utilized these movements to great effect. Grants Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece of turning movements. SImilarly his protege Sherman in the march to Atlanta employed htese strategic turning movements to great effect manuevering the defenders to the offenses benefit. In point of fact the entire Grant v. Lee campaign hinged upon an almost continuous turning movement and response. Ultimately, it was Grant that forced Lee to abandon Richmond and settle in for the long haul at Petersburg.

By the by those who say Grant was a butcher and simply relied on numerical superiority are clearly mistaken. While it is fair to say he was determined, after the battle of Cold Harbor (IIRC) he resolved never again to be so foolish as to fall into the trap of head long frontal assualts to carry a well defended position ( a lesson that both Generals were required to learn the hard way, see Picketts Charge). If he was ever to have lost 100,000 men (as assininely claimed) in a single day of fighting his army would have lost all cohesion and ceased to actually be an army. Point of fact the single boodiest day of the Civil War was during Antietem with 23,000 casualties combined for both sides (roughly evenly split). And afterwards both armies were spent until replenishment and resupply. An interesting side note Grant saw his folly that day at Cold Harbor and fully expected he had used up all his political capital as the newsrags of the day were calling for his head. Lincoln came to his defense and said Grant was his man. He however knew full well he could not afford to be so brash going forward.

Lastly I am not convinced that Lee understood the offensive implications of seige/trench warfare. It is probably fair to say the concept was well within his grasp but the idea of patiently setting in for the siege while extending your lines until you have cut every enemy source of supply, (thus starving and allowing your enemy to self decimate from hunger and disease) may not have appealed to the man's sensibilities (honor) or the need for a big win.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No, the rebs lost less than the yanks, if I recall correctly. Supposedly they were generally better soldiers.

This could have been a true statement at the outset of the war in that the south had a larger contingent of professional officers to train soldiers. Southerners by and large were not city slickers and thus could hunt and ride horses unlike a larger contingent of northerners. However, by the time the Grant arrived on the scene in the Viriginia campaign those differences were erased (Thank you McClellan at least you were useful for something) and the claim could be made that the same skill sets and unit discipline existed on both sides at the man level. The much claimed superiority of the rebel soldier and his vaunted unnerving rebel yell were largely artifacts of previous reputation. Point of the matter the Union soldiers were equally skilled and disciplined but had the added benefit of being better equipped and supplied. At this point in the war, Advantage Union Soldier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

^

What he said.

Very well written

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.c..._grant_won.htm

A telling statistic on the career butchers that were Lee and Grant.

Finally, the respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant’s soldiers incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on their foes. In all their battles, Lee’s troops incurred about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on their opponents. Thus, both generals armies imposed about 40,000 more casualties than they incurred. However, Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why worthless Texans must have surrendered for no reason at all... Or else it was because the vastly superior Federal Armies beat the mother****ing **** out of them, as any non-retarded person already knows.

Doesn't change the fact that Texas was never invaded, and surrendered in good order at the end of the war. Unlike Lee.

The union could have tried, but it would have cost them considerable casulties.