Posted on 10/12/2018 7:13:42 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
President Trump praised Confederate Geader Robert E. Lee as "a great general" on Friday during a campaign rally in Lebanon, Ohio.
"So Robert E. Lee was a great general. And Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia. He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee," Trump said before launching into a monologue about Lee, Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
"He was going crazy. I don’t know if you know this story. But Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle. And Abraham Lincoln came home, he said, 'I can’t beat Robert E. Lee,'" Trump said.
"And he had all of his generals, they looked great, they were the top of their class at West Point. They were the greatest people. There’s only one problem — they didn’t know how the hell to win. They didn’t know how to fight. They didn’t know how," he continued.
Trump went on to say, multiple times, that Grant had a drinking problem, saying that the former president "knocked the hell out of everyone" as a Union general.
"Man was he a good general. And he’s finally being recognized as a great general," Trump added.
— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 13, 2018 Trump has drawn criticism for his defense of Confederate statues, including those of Robert E. Lee.
He drew widespread condemnation last year following a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., saying that white nationalist protesters were there to oppose the removal of a "very, very important" statue.
"They were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Trump said at the time. “This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
Trump, speaking at another rally in Ohio last year, said that he can be one of the “most presidential” presidents to hold office. "…With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office,” he said to a crowd in Youngstown.
Lee was a great general. You can’t argue with that.
Most especially with one particular Southerner, named Jefferson Davis.
Even in 1864, when defense would seem paramount, Davis selected "RE Lee, Jr." -- John Bell Hood -- as the most aggressive leader he could find to replaced the more cautious Johnson in Georgia.
Davis's vision was for Hood to defeat Thomas at Nashville, then March North to take... (wait for it)... Chicago!
Rockingham: "...while the weight of resources made an eventual Union victory seem inevitable given enough time."
Well... I'd say, before Grant took over in the East there was nothing, zero, "inevitable" about Union victory.
Lincoln's generals had all demonstrated they didn't understand the concept of "winning".
They acted as if they thought fighting Confederates to a stalemate, that was winning enough, then McClellan could be President in 1865 and strike a deal.
I think absent Grant, that's just what would happen.
Rockingham: "The best chances for the Confederacy thus were foreign intervention or the election of a peace candidate like McClellan."
Both of which were more likely had battle results been less favorable to the UNion.
-—Well... I’d say, before Grant took over in the East there was nothing, zero, “inevitable” about Union victory.-—
Right. The whole strategy for a force with inferior numbers in men, material and resources is to fight long enough so that the superior force gets tired of expending blood and treasure, just wants it to end, and is willing to quit or negotiate.
You can argue that something like this worked successfully in both the American Revolution and Viet Nam.
Possibly, depending on your definition of "defense".
Both the Revolutionary War generally and most of its battles were fought defensively on American soil, not offensively in the UK.
Sure, at Yorktown, for the first & only time, Americans put together enough strength & allies to offensively defeat a large British army, but that was finally, after what, seven years on defense?
So George Washington was a true strategic genius.
Lee & Davis, not so much.
Would have been rather hard to fight in the UK since they had no Navy capable of getting them there!!! The war was won when the English pulled a really stupid boner at Yorktown and Washington went on offense.
Both before and during the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was a great military commander. It would be hard to plot how the south would have performed as well as it did during the beginning of the war, nor hung on as long as it did, were it not for Robert E. Lee. Admitting that is no praise of slavery or anything the south was committed to. It is simply rightful praise of Lee as a great military commander.
Vo Nguyen Giap was overrated—the Douglas Haig of Vietnam. Dien Bien Phu was a Pyrrhic victory and the 1968 “Winter-Spring Offensive” was a disaster, as was the 1972 Spring Offensive. Had the political leaders of France and the US been more resolute, he would have gone down in history as a failure.
Sorry, I was feeling a bit under the weather last evening. I promise to do better at representing the Evil North ;'}
I don’t hate the north fool
Seriously, you appeared to be wrapped around the axle last night. I hope you're feeling better this morning. I know well the sting of the accusatory slap. I've been treated to it a time or two. The whole "shoe on the other foot" thing is an interesting exercise.
FWIW: I don't hate the south (like I've been trying to tell ya). I don't hate southerners. I've lived in the south, gone to school in the south, and have family and friends in the south. I will admit that I didn't care for New Orleans much but I loved Huntsville and lamented moving away.
I don't compare southerners to Nazis. Heck, I've never even compared confederates to Nazis. You won't find me very complimentary of the confederacy because I hold that it was a foolish and horrible assault against America and Americans. That doesn't mean I do not respect the soldiers who fought - north or south. What it does mean is that I hold the confederate leadership in contempt.
I think "great" defines REL, although I also think that "bold" describes him better. He was great because he was bold and took chances. Personally, the (Lieutenant) General that I greatly admire was Nathan Bedford Forrest. What makes him admirable isn't just that he was a great tactician and warrior, but that he was a self-made man who enlisted as a private and proved his worth.
Have a good day compadre.
Thus confirming my point: our guys were on the strategic defensive.
Tactically they were also usually on defense.
Consider their victory at Saratoga against "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne -- Burgoyne was on offense attempting to split the "colonies" in two.
Our guys just hoped to whittle him down & delay him as much as possible until enough forces might gather to make a battle of it -- totally defensive tactics.
ontap: "The war was won when the English pulled a really stupid boner at Yorktown and Washington went on offense."
Truly & thankfully, it wasn't much of an offense -- with Brits surrounded & dug in, Washington engineered a siege which quickly convinced Cornwallis resistance was futile.
As battles go, casualties were relatively light -- 2% for Americans & French, 6% for the Brits.
Compare that to any major Civil War battle.
I think we can say a siege is the least offensive of offensive tactics.
Doubtful. On the first day of Gettysburg, Ewell requested permission from Lee to attack the Union forces on Culp’s hill. Lee responded telling Ewell to attack Culp’s Hill “if practicable, but do not bring about a general engagement.” On the second and third days at Gettysburg, Ewell’s orders were to attack Union forces on Culp’s hill, but he was never ordered to seize the hill. General A.P. Hill’s orders were similar for the 2nd and 3rd day. Attack the Union forces on Culp’s Hill but no clear order to carry the hill.
Lee evidently did not see Culp’s Hill as key to the battle that developed.
Had Jackson had the same orders as Ewell, he would have most probably attacked Culp’s Hill on the first day. Whether he would have captured the hill, with a brigade or so as Lee’s orders implied, is pure speculation.
“Sorry, wardaddy, but there are no “south haters” here, only you North haters.”
I don’t think even you can swallow that one.
I’ve never said the North was evil but you’re on the wrong side here
You can add the fall of Vicksburg to those two. A trifecta of crippling losses inside a month that sealed the fate of the Confederacy.
Point is that I don’t “hate” anyone in this country. That is only the LEFT that does that.
We disagree perhaps on policy, but it is really only the left that ‘hates’...
There always seems to be a presumption that victory or defeat for the South hinged on what General Lee did with the ANV against whom ever commanded the AOP. You are correct, the Confederacy’s days were numbered. Any hope of intervention by the British and French had died with the Emancipation Proclamation. Most of Tennessee was in Union hands. New Orleans was in Union hands, most of coastal Virginia,North and South Carolina were in Union hands. The entire Mississippi River was in Union hands along with any land on either side of that river that could be reach by the Union Navy. The blockade of Southern ports was growing tighter every day. The Confederacy was already loosing the war by mid 1863. Efforts by General Lee was not going to change the strategic fact that the war was being lost. Some one once said, General Lee’s defense of Northern Virginia was similar to a person saving the front porch while the rest of the house burned to the ground. That, IMO, is an accurate appraisal of the situation.
Lee was offered Command of the United States Army. He was ineligible to head the Grand Army of the Republic.
Notice how they simply come over en masses and take over a thread
TRUMP LAUDS ROBERT E LEE
According to the half dozen south bashers here now holding each other’s Johnson
Is Trump a Lost Causer?
Or worse a Nazi sympathizer
In the past nearly all these folks have gone down that road
Defend Lee
Lost Causer or Nazi
This is thread worthy
Too bad I’m in Baton Rouge
Geaux
“General Ewell was carrying out Lee’s orders.”
Well...no.
On the 1st day Lee’s orders to Ewell were “take the heights, if practicable” and Ewell chose not to fight for them, giving the Union army the high ground for the rest of the battle. It’s a serious mistake that artillery professor Jackson would never have allowed when he commanded that very same Second Corp.
While I’m glad the north won the civil war, that does not take away from the fact that Robert E. Lee was a brilliant general.
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.