Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
Sorry, but I know plenty of people knowledgable of tactics, that will disagree. Grant was no great tactician, and his strength was in NUMBERS. Lee ran circles around the Federals on more than one occasion. Lee & Jackson together were unstoppable.
Numbers never win by themselves and can even interfere with winning unless they are properly handled.
Lee and Jackson were facing mediocrities until the Union found competent generals. That is not to say they weren't great generals for they were but facing McClellan? Come on. Did numbers help him? Lol and his forces always were larger than Lee's.
That is reassurring,
Actually, McClellan was an excellent General for training troops. He had a serious flaw. He loved his troops to the point that he couldn't stand to sacrifice them at all. He was the opposite of Grant. From a modern war standpoint, Grant was an excellent General. He would sacrifice his men no matter how many got killed, to achieve his victory. it obviously worked. Lee was willing to sacrifice men, but only to a point.
You know, I don't mind debating with you. I just wish you would realize that to call Southerners "traitors" and other nasty words is degrading and insulting. My ancestors that fought for the South were men of honor. Only one owned slaves, which he freed. My family has been volunteering in every conflict since the WBTS, and some have even died. I myself, am a veteran. It is OK to disagree about slavery, or even about Generals, or the conduct of the war. But keep in mind that Southerners are touchy about the word "traitor". Even Grant, or (in my opinon, the greatest Union General) Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, did not consider the Confederates traitors.
Not true, apparently. Gordon Rhea, author of four books on the Spring of 1864 campaign, has studied the battle at Cold Harbor in great detail. His detailed study of the Union casualty lists has reduced the Union casualty count to between 3500 and 4000 dead for the morning charges, and a total of 6,000 casualties for the day. Compare that to Lee's almost 10,000 casualties at Antietam, roughly the same number from Pickett's Charge, 5300 at Malvern's Hill, and it's clear that the butcher in this picture was ol' Marse Robert.
Not at all. My assertion, based on accounts I've read, is that Lincoln didn't own the property at all. It's you who claim Lincoln made a killing while failing to provide a single shred of evidence that he made dollar one off the decision. Inuendo, unsubstantiated claims, and out and out lies are all you every come up with.
Well, by your reckoning, since 58,000 men were lost at Antietam, then the Union lost 48,000?
Better check your figures. I am afraid Lee wouldn't be the butcher in that case.
And...Grant wasn't the General at Antietam (Sharpsburg), so a comparison is not correct. By that score, i could throw in fredricksburg....
Where did that number come from? The usual number cited is 12,000 Union and 10,000 Confederate. Of that, 2100 Union and 1550 Confederate dead.
You must have been a tabulator for the million man march. Every account that I've seen puts the total casualties from Antietam closer to 22,000 than 58,000. But then the creativity of the southron myth machine never ceases to amaze me.
By that score, i could throw in fredricksburg....
By all means. All that would do would cause one to question Lee's decision making even more. After all, he slaughters a good part of his army by sending it up Malvern Hill against an entrenched enemy backed up by artillery. Then he watches Burnside do the same at Fredricksburg against his own entrenched men. One might think that after not one, but two occasions of seeing what happen to infantry attacking up hill against an entreched defender that Lee might think twice about doing that again. But instead he pulls a Pickett's Charge. Again, I'll ask who the butcher was here?
If i remember, it was considered the bloodiest one day in American history. I could be getting mixed up with gettysburg. Cut the cr*p about the "Myth Machine". Nobody has perfect memory. I will check my figures.
Read my post earlier. Lee didn't realize (at Gettysburg) that the center had been reinforced. He was following standard procedure at that time. (When the enemy has strength on both flanks, you attack the center)
Victory is the overall requirement of a general. Every decision one makes is going to cost some their lives. Had Grant not pursued victory at all costs the ultimate costs would have been higher.
How often have we heard the claim that dropping the bomb on Japan was inhuman and ruthless? In fact, doing so SAVED perhaps millions of lives. Grants refusal to be denied victory also saved thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives.
He locked onto Lee like a python and squeezed him into surrender. That is good generalship.
It was the defensive advantage which cost Grant so many lives. Just as it did Pickett at Gettysburg.
McClelland's failure was due to timidity and hesitation not excessive humanity. Plus, he probably wasn't really that in favor of fighting the war in the first place being a Democrat.
Those Southerners who did not attempt to destroy the Union were not traitors. Those Northerners who did were also traitors. People's inability to escape the chains of social systems and family ties does not mean they were evil and the only real evil ones in this were those who deliberately set about to destroy the Union. Traitor is a technical term not a moral one really but I admit I like to get a rise out of people using it. I apologize if it is personal.
Honor can be misplaced. My ancestors were all (of whom I am aware) from the South, Alabama, Mississippi and shared the view of the war which you have. But that really has nothing to do with objective reality. It simply was not a Noble cause but a misplaced allegiance.
My firm belief is that many good people were dragged into this hell because they could not distinguish their real interest or understand the real situation. It was never in the interest of the vast majority of whites in fighting for a cause which was crushing the life out of them in every higher sense. It was the system which would not educate the common man. It was the system which drove Southerners out of the South in droves to populate the West because of lack of opportunities for the working man. Opportunities removed or destroyed by slavery itself.
My disdain for those who led them into this destructive path from which there was simply no escape knows no bounds. For the common man (which is all my ancestors were) I have great pity. For those who turned their backs on the wisdom and humanity of Jefferson, Washington and Madison and led the region into desolation I can say little good.
Dumb as well as bloodthirsty?
You know, NS....I have always had great respect for you, even though we disagree. Why is it you insist on acting like a jack*ss, when I am trying to have a cordial debate?
You have always seemed to hate Lee. Lee was many things, but bloodthirsty wasn't one of them, and you degrade yourself when you stoop to a low-tactic of insulting the memory of the greatest General in US History. (and by the way, not just my opinion, but WEST POINTS!) Lee never willingly sent men into overwhelming odds, unless there was a reasonable chance of success. He simply made an error at Gettysburg. One that could have been brought on by Advanced Heart Disease, which could have been giving him mini-strokes. (one modern theory).
Head for the hills, the Yankees are coming, the Yankees are coming!
Because your debate is hardly cordial, it's a character assassination. Why is it OK for you to call Grant a butcher and bloodthirsty and imply that he was incompetent and it isn't OK to cast aspersions on the sainted Bobby Lee? The long and the short of it is that in Grant and Lee you had two truly great generals willing to take any risk and commit their men to any action in order to win. In terms of genius and raw talent there isn't a lot of difference between the two. Yet you insist on disparaging Grant without good cause, merely to increase the Marse Robert Myth. And you get all huffy when I refuse to sit back and allow you free reign to do that.
The one inescapable fact that you cannot deny, cannot explain away is that Grant never lost to a lesser general. Lee lost to two, McClellan and Meade.
It is you who apparently does not understand. It was not until ratification of the treaty by a unanimous Continental Congress, that the treaty was in effect.
And just out of curiosity what was it exactly that made Chamberlain the greatest Union general? He never commanded corps or army sized units, never beat a southern army in the field. His actions at Gettysburg, while courageous, were really no different than the actions of hundreds of other Union regimental commanders in dozens of other battles. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Chamberlain's actions and don't mean to diminish them in any way. But to call him the greatest Union general is kind of overblown.
"To be a good soldier, you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love." -- Robert Lee.
If you honestly think that put in the same position Lee would not have resorted to the same tactics as Grant in order to win then you are belittling the man far more than you accuse me of doing.
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.