Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On this date in 1865

Posted on 04/09/2017 8:20:32 AM PDT by Bull Snipe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: BenLurkin
Greatest American general in history.

What about Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur?

61 posted on 04/09/2017 11:40:00 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
No surrender!


62 posted on 04/09/2017 11:42:53 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Deportation mayhem is just birthing pains for a new America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedWulf

Well put and right on, IMO..


63 posted on 04/09/2017 11:49:43 AM PDT by laplata ( Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

You are right on. Good points.


64 posted on 04/09/2017 11:55:47 AM PDT by laplata ( Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
similar fate must have played on Sherman's mind when the Confederates took a stand near Atlanta.

True, there comes a point when you have to meet the enemy head on. By that point in the Atlanta campaign Sherman had enough strength that he could use part of his force to fix the enemy and use the rest to probe for weak points. Also, at that point the confederates had gone thrugh several changes in command and John Bell Hood was in charge. John Bell Hood was no Robert E. Lee - or Joe Johnston for that fact.

65 posted on 04/09/2017 11:55:51 AM PDT by InABunkerUnderSF (Proudly deplorable since 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Lee had almost no cavalry with him on the first day of Gettysburg. Ewell’s Corp had a battalion of cavalry assigned to it, but his forces were up around Carlisle and York PA. Each Corp command had a company or two of cavalry assigned as headquarters company. Stuart had detailed a couple of regiments of cavalry to escort the 25 mile long wagon train accompanying the Army. He had also assigned 3 regiments to guard the passes over the Blue Ridge. These three regiments were recalled but did not join the army until the 2nd day. Essentially Lee on the first day at Gettysburg was blind.


66 posted on 04/09/2017 11:57:13 AM PDT by Bull Snipe (ueewl ocwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

You are correct. Guderian was the father of the Blitzkrieg.


67 posted on 04/09/2017 11:59:32 AM PDT by laplata ( Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Except at Chickamauga, it was the Bragg’s Army doing the attacking. Rosecrans screwed up and pulled an entire division out of line. The open space in Rosecrans’s line was right in front of Longstreet’ Corp. He attacked and Rosecrans’s Army folded


68 posted on 04/09/2017 12:01:55 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (ueewl ocwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF
InABunkerUnderSF speaking of Grant: "He did what he had to do to win but he had his share of blunders - Chickasaw Bayou during the Vicksburg campaign, Spotsyvania, Cold Harbor.
I don't consider him in any way brilliant."

Chickasaw Bayou: Sherman serving under Grant fought & lost the battle of Chickasaw Bayou in late December 1862.
Grant himself was also forced to withdraw because Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest attacked & destroyed Grant's supply base.
Grant's overall Vicksburg campaign is seen as a brilliant victory, though not without many obstacles, of which Chickasaw Bayou was one.

Spotsylvania: May 8-20, 1864 inconclusive tactically, causing Grant to move again past Lee's southern flank.
Grant on offense outnumbered Lee about two to one, but Grant's casualties outnumbered Lee's by just 50%.
Grant could afford his losses, Lee could not.

Cold Harbor: early June, 1864, counted as a Confederate victory, but Lee's last.
Even though Grant's casualties exceeded Lee's by more than two to one, Grant could afford his losses, Lee could not.
Further, Grant's losses in his main attack on June 3 were less than Lee's had been at Antietam, Chancellorsville and Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.
Point is: Civil War offense was very expensive in lives, Grant's no more so than Lee's when Lee was on offense.
More important, unlike Lee at Antietam or Gettysburg, after Cold Harbor Grant remained on offense, continuing to grind down Lee's forces.

Spottsylvania and Cold Harbor are just two of 14 major battles in the overall Overland Campaign of May-June 1864, which is considered a Union strategic victory and ended Lee's ability to fight from anything other than entrenched positions.

69 posted on 04/09/2017 12:06:20 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PLMerite

One of the Confederate officers is signing his acceptance of the surrender terms offer him.


70 posted on 04/09/2017 12:08:31 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (ueewl ocwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Even Grant himself said he couldn’t defeat him outright; rather, Grant won simply because the North had too many men and won through attrition.

When did Grant say that?

71 posted on 04/09/2017 12:21:26 PM PDT by DoodleDawg (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Right. Rommel perfected it and made money writing books about it.

Rommel wrote one book and it was on infantry tactics.

72 posted on 04/09/2017 12:23:29 PM PDT by DoodleDawg (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF
It's arguable that Sherman was both smarter and more effective than Grant. Sherman learned over the course of the war. Grant really didn't. If you compare how Sherman developed as a general, after his failure to entrench at Shiloh, the futile assaults at Chickasaw Bayou and Missionary Ridge, he seems to have reassessed his tactics. During the Atlanta campaign and the march to the sea he used maneuver as a means of taking objectives as opposed to frontal assaults on entrenched positions defended by skilled veterans armed with rifled muskets. Grant on the other hand just kept throwing bodies at fortified positions.

Sherman had more room for maneuver in the west.

There weren't as many troops against him and there was plenty of room to get around them.

Grant would have a hard time applying the tactics in the ferociously contested eastern theater that he and Sherman had practiced in the west.

It was similar to what happened in WWI. The Western Front was too crowded and too well fortified for the free wheeling movement that were possible on the Russian Front.

73 posted on 04/09/2017 12:39:58 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: laplata

Guderian developed his ideas by studying the work of the British officer Colonel, later major general, John Fuller. Guderian paid out of his pocket the have Fuller’s book Provisional Instructions for Tank and Armoured Car Training translated into German. If anyone, it was Fuller who invented tank warfare as we know it today.


74 posted on 04/09/2017 1:09:11 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Thank you!


75 posted on 04/09/2017 1:19:55 PM PDT by laplata ( Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: StoneWall Brigade

Thanks for Ping


76 posted on 04/09/2017 1:57:27 PM PDT by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Another Union general, William Tecumseh Sherman, it is reported, considered him “the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side.” He was unquestionably one of the Civil War’s most brilliant tacticians.
************************************************************

Well, I agree that my opinion doesn’t mean anything but I think the above opinion does.

I’ve read many other similar comments in the history books.

Your right about him not commanding a full Army. Your definitely wrong on “commanding infantry formations”. He often dismounted and fought on foot. The largest body he commanded, I admit I do not know.


77 posted on 04/09/2017 4:50:06 PM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cen-Tejas

cavalry on foot with carbines does not equal infantry with rifled muskets. Dismounted cavalry form skirmish lines, they do not stand in line of battle, the effective range of their fire is about 150-200 yards. Every 5th man has to fall out of formation to hold the horses. An infantry formation has a effective range of over 300 yards. Dismounted cavalry cannot stand against an infantry line of battle for any length of time. About 3500 mounted men is the largest formation Forrest commanded during the war. A Brilliant tactician does not equal the “greatest general of the war”
What that means you handle your forces efficiently against the objective you are operating against. And there is no doubt that Bedford Forest could do that.


78 posted on 04/09/2017 5:10:13 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (ueewl ocwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF
Grant was the general who in Lincoln's words, could "face the arithmetic." He did what he had to do to win but he had his share of blunders - Chickasaw Bayou during the Vicksburg campaign, Spotsyvania, Cold Harbor. I don't consider him in any way brilliant.

All great generals make mistakes. It takes a great man to make great mistakes.

His mistake at Spotsylvania is he got there an hour or two too late. I always wonder how Lee knew that would be his destination.

All of his real mistakes at Vicksburg happened before he crossed the Mississippi, a move he made when all right thinking advice was contrary.

It's arguable that Sherman was both smarter and more effective than Grant. Sherman learned over the course of the war. Grant really didn't. If you compare how Sherman developed as a general, after his failure to entrench at Shiloh, the futile assaults at Chickasaw Bayou and Missionary Ridge, he seems to have reassessed his tactics. During the Atlanta campaign and the march to the sea he used maneuver as a means of taking objectives as opposed to frontal assaults on entrenched positions defended by skilled veterans armed with rifled muskets. Grant on the other hand just kept throwing bodies at fortified positions.

Sherman developed into a great general. He started the war with a terrible inferiority complex. His development was with the help and support of his mentor...Grant.

Sherman accomplished more with less loss of life, on both sides, than any other general among the good guys. Nevertheless, he made a terrible blunder at Kennesaw Mountain.

He also had a personality that would not allow the same or better outcome if he traded places with Grant. He would have failed miserably if he had been forced to take on the politicians and other generals who desperately wanted him to fail as was Grant's lot. Grant knew he had Lincoln's support and moved forward with that knowledge. With regard to the other guys on his side, he was a leader who won by leading.

Grant faced the arithmetic because he fought a different kind of war after he assumed overall command. By definition, Lee settled into unchangeable defense after Cold Harbor. Grant was left with siege warfare, a war he could not lose short of being undermined by his own people which was always a danger. Still he had to get across the James to make that work, and he made a brilliant calculation to get there.

Grant proved he could change tactics when needed, something he did at Vicksburg and in 3/10's of a second at Missionary Ridge.

He moved ahead when all of his previous generals would have retreated.

He also understood and assimilated Lincoln's desire for a peaceful peace in victory which so many in the North could not understand or agree to. As a result he earned the undying respect of the losers.

Historians have said it was the Grant-Sherman partnership that saved the country. There is something to that in a subordinate reality. It was the Lincoln-Grant partnership that really did the job. If there was another Northern general who could have accomplished what Grant did, I haven't yet read about him.

79 posted on 04/09/2017 5:38:53 PM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stevem

Good read


80 posted on 04/09/2017 5:40:45 PM PDT by Bull Snipe (ueewl ocwe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson