Posted on 06/03/2019 5:19:21 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Union General George Meade launches 3 corps of his Army of the Potomac against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia’s works near Cold Harbor. Meade’s assault is a failure. Over 7000 Union casualties and not one foot of ground gained. Lieutenant General Grant, in ordering Meade to make the attack, called it the worst mistake he ever made.
You mad?
No.
No. You stutter?
It was their porch. Built on land deeded to them free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. Didn't you ever read what they had to say about it?
Yes, the North was robbing the South very badly by making them pay 75% of all the taxes even though they were only 1/4th of the taxpayers.
So you keep saying. You are indeed the prince of voodoo economics.
Maybe, but a great general does not throw almost 50% of his attacking force away and not gain one inch of ground. A great general does not make the same mistake twice. A great general does not plan than fail in two campaigns.
What tactics might that be?
On the offense, Lee was usually able to take the initiative and keep it. He was also not afraid to split his army, even with the enemy forces in sight, in order to swing around and hit them in the flank. Military doctrine taught that you never divide your forces in the face of a superior force or when you don’t know the strength of the enemy; therefore Union commanders didn’t consider he would do it. It worked magnificently at Chancellorsville, allowing Lee to defeat an army twice his size.
On the defense he was a master of interior lines. This allowed him to match Grant at any given point even though Grant had far more troops. Lee would deploy his army with interior lines in mind. Think of it as a strung bow. If you forces are inside the arc, the distance between one tip to the other is less than it is for forces on the outside of the arc who must go around while your forces cut across.
Also, Lee was one of the finest engineers the US Army of the time had produced, and he was able to build defenses that multiplied the combat effectiveness of his troops. Once Lee and Grant locked horns, the outnumbered Confederate Army threw up defensive works every time they moved to a new location. A Union officer remarked, “Give the Rebs an hour and they’ll throw up defensive works that will be hard to take. Give them a day and they’ll throw up works that will be very costly to take. Give them a week and they’ll throw up works that it’s impossible to take.”
On both offense and defense, Lee reacted quickly to a change in the situation. Union general McClellan was a great organizer but he lost confidence once the shooting started and was very slow to react when an opportunity presented itself.
Overall I’d say one of his greatest strengths was his ability to neutralize the advantages of a larger enemy force through initiative, maneuver, and boldness.
B. R. Beardon
And how did all those British land deeds work out in 1776?
Same standard for 1776 as 1860. Whatever the founders did justifies whatever the Confederates did.
So you keep saying. You are indeed the prince of voodoo economics.
No, it's real economics, but since it requires a simple understanding of this concept called "trade", it might be over your head.
In a nutshell, a nation exports product, and in exchange gets back an equal value of another nation's product.
Therefore, which ever portion of the country exports 73% of the total export value is responsible for producing that same 73% of import value.
Thus, the South was paying 73% of all the taxes.
Really they were paying more, because the laws were written in such a way to deliberately benefit the Northern port cities and manufacturers.
How many high school or college football teams are named after the Persians? :)
None of which are new or innovative tactics. Simply practical application of existing tactics.
Military doctrine also taught never attack up hill against a superior enemy waiting to receive the attack.
Spartans had a better propaganda operation than the other thousand or so Greeks at Thermopylae.
The battle of Chancellorsville is studied in military academies ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Appears the Zealots killed 6,000 Romans in one battle in 66 AD.
That appears to be what pissed off the Romans.
You mean starting a rebellion?
No, it's real economics, but since it requires a simple understanding of this concept called "trade", it might be over your head.
Your interpretation of it is beyond any rational person's reasoning.
What new and innovative tactics were employed at Chancellorsville?
Generals with overwhelming assets usually win. Great generals win with the odds against them, but can eventually be defeated by a superior force.
This does not reduce their greatness.
Look up the Seige of Jadotville. They lost, but they put up one h3ll of a defense.
Read about the battle of Chancellorsville. It was amazing. Every infantry tactic deception, using cover, dividing forces, flanking movements and bold risk taking all in one battle.
So did the Northern states. Their propaganda operations are still going today.
that is a recent development. from the late 1860s to the 1960s, most civil war history was written by Southern authors. Their works are collectively referred to as the “Lost Cause”.
As has been explained to you numerous times, when the Founders did it, it was "rebellion." When the confederates did it, it was the free exercise of a right to Independence which the Founders had won.
Calling it a "rebellion" is a lie. It wasn't a "rebellion" because it was their right to separate per the founders Declaration.
Your interpretation of it is beyond any rational person's reasoning.
You fully understand it. You are just angry that you absolutely cannot refute it, and it proves that the war was a fight over control of that money source.
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.