Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
free dixie,sw
Say, Watie...noticed you've had some posts pulled on the other thread. Ice starting to crack?
Your not even smart enough to know how dump some of your post are. They are laughable.
Or your propensity to ignore reality.
A man who is too dumb to spell "dumb" correctly has little room to gloat. And it's "you're," not "your."
use spell checker some time , and learn to talk southern
So in other words you are saying that Lee wasn't willing to do whatever it took to win? Which must be the reason why he was the one surrendering to Grant at Appomattox.
So in other words you are saying that Lee wasn't willing to do whatever it took to win? Which must be the reason why he was the one surrendering to Grant at Appomattox.
You know, I didn't even mention that you dropped the plural on "post." That's three spelling or grammar errors in a mere 17 words. I could start picking your latest post apart too, if I cared to. Capitalization, punctuation and spelling all seem to elude you. So if by "learn to talk southern" you mean "sound like an uneducated hick," I'll pass.
I am quite knowledgable. I have studied Grants tactics. His one advantage was to throw as many bodies in as possible to achieve victory. (Cold Harbor, for example, which he STILL lost)
I thought you were leaving.
Who is ignorant here is a matter of opinion. Keep on spouting, Yank. I will be right here.
That is correct. Lee cared for his men. If the number of men in each army had been comparable, Lee WOULD have won.
No, his advantage was not limping back across the Rapahannnock to lick his wounds after losing a tactical battle but not the strategic advantage. Within days of Cold Harbor, for instance, Grant had moved on Petersburg, forcing Lee into a siege and setting the stage for the war's final moves (at least in Virginia).
Grant maintained flanking movements, and Lee did not have enough men to cover his movements.
Which is far different from just using superior numbers to bludgeon Lee, casualties be damned.
Numbers were hs reason for success. And time and time again, Grant threw in huge numbers of men. Lee was forced to pull his troops from one area, to cover those attacks. And Grant didn't give a d*mn how many men he lost to accomplish hs goal. Look at the attack at the Crater for example.
No, Lee would have lost. You said it yourself, you didn't think that he would have done what it took to win.
And for the record, when you look at casualties as a percentage of the forces under his command Lee's butcher bill throughout the war was consistently higher than Grant's.
Wrong.
He is our favorite whirling dervish of insanity.
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.