| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Ulysses S. Grant: the greatest of generals |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Ulysses S. Grant: the greatest of generals |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Ulysses S. Grant: the greatest of generals | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| You have chosen to ignore kookee01. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Jun 3rd, 2012 09:45 pm |
|
62nd Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
Savez wrote: "Jubal Early is that you?" Jubal Early was one of the founding fathers of the Lost Cause. The man hated the US and spent the remainder of his life doing his best to damage this nation.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Jun 3rd, 2012 10:02 pm |
|
63rd Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Sieges... well when an army is trapped into a siege it's usually only a matter of time before they surrender or starve. A siege is not for the impatient or faint of heart. Ft Donelson was barely a siege but when the CS forces retreated behind their earthworks to surrender. Vicksburg was a full on siege, but it took a series of manuevers & battles to pin Pemberton in the works. Any honest study of the Vicksburg campaign should impress the reader w/ the problems faced by Grant. He was stymied several times before he hit on his May offensive, the net result of which was bagging 30,000 CS POW's. Most of which failed to return to the fold after their parole. He opted to parole them for a variety of reasons. Feeding & supplying them was the problem of the CS. Re-equipping them was the problem of the CS. The down side to his immedielty paroling them was the CS proved they would not honor the parole system and large numbers of those men were put back into the line w/out ever being properly paroled. Chatanooga was a siege that Grant broke keeping the Army of the Cumberland a viable force and guaranteeing another defeat for Bragg & the CS. Petersburg was the final siege that broke the ANV. Lee allowed himself to be pinned behind the defences of Petersburg eliminating his ability to manuever. Grant was a man that understood that sieges & armies end when the besieged surrender. And Sieges almost always lead to a surrender. When Vicksburg fell I think it was cemented in his mind that to pin an enemy army behind the imagined safety of his works was to seal the doom of that army. He was correct.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 11:55 am |
|
64th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Savez wrote:"Jubal Early is that you?" President Grant did more to destroy the US more than little ole Early. Oh, let me add, who are your sources on General Early? Last edited on Mon Jun 4th, 2012 12:02 pm by Old Blu |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 12:39 pm |
|
65th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? The man was a bitter little man post war. He went after any who chose to follow Lee's last orders. Though he waited until Lee was gone before he went at it in full force. I think he did has done more damage than Grant ever did, after all Early still has disciples today following his orders. You'll find him regularly quoted on Stormfront & pretty much any LoSer website. But as this is a thread about Grant I'll leave it at that.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 03:46 pm |
|
66th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? The man was a bitter little man post war. He went after any who chose to follow Lee's last orders. Though he waited until Lee was gone before he went at it in full force. Without sources, I can just say then, your failure at this request, thanks for your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 03:58 pm |
|
67th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Old Blu wrote: Johan Steele wrote:Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? The man was a bitter little man post war. He went after any who chose to follow Lee's last orders. Though he waited until Lee was gone before he went at it in full force. Well then who would you call the founders of the Lost Cause? I might suggest a couple titles to educate you, the links may or may not still be good. Enjoy the read. Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: a Persistent Legacy By Gallagher The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History by Gallagher & Nolan. http://www.essaysinhistory.com/articles/2011/6 http://tipstorian.blogspot.com/2008/10/lost-cause-mythology-challenging.html
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 04:07 pm |
|
68th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Johan Steele wrote:Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? No, you are correct. As for sources, I think the best place to start is Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan’s “Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History” (2000). Gallagher’s chapter (“Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: a Persistent Legacy”) is a good summary of Jubal Early’s critical role in the creation of the myth. Brooks Simpson’s chapter (“Continuous Hammering and Mere Attrition: Lost Cause Critics and the Military Reputation of Ulysses S. Grant”) is an especially good account of Grant’s rough handling at the hands of the Lost Cause prevaricators, including Early.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 04:11 pm |
|
69th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Oops. You beat me to it.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 06:45 pm |
|
70th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Old Blu wrote:Johan Steele wrote:Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? The man was a bitter little man post war. He went after any who chose to follow Lee's last orders. Though he waited until Lee was gone before he went at it in full force. There is too much yankee biases in what you posted, but thanks anyway! 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 10:28 pm |
|
71st Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Old Blu wrote: Johan Steele wrote:Old Blu wrote:Johan Steele wrote:Early as a founding father of the Lost Cause, am I wrong? The man was a bitter little man post war. He went after any who chose to follow Lee's last orders. Though he waited until Lee was gone before he went at it in full force. Sorry, I refuse to post links to Stormfront or any LoSer site. You wanted sources you got them. Provide a source that claims Early was not instrumental in the creation of the Lost Cause. I've at least backed my opinion w/ the research done by legitimate historians... none of the likes of DiLorenzo or Rutherford from here thank you very much. I prefer history to fantasy. Until that time get back on subject or start a thread on the brilliance of Early and his Lost Cause. This one's been hijacked enough already.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jun 4th, 2012 10:43 pm |
|
72nd Post |
|
borderuffian Member 
|
Old Blu wrote: Johan Steele wrote: Right... Any article that uses the epithet "Lost Causer" is ready for the trash pile.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 01:59 am |
|
73rd Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
borderuffian wrote: Old Blu wrote:Johan Steele wrote: I simply use Lost Causer the same way you use Yankee.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 02:30 am |
|
74th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Johan Steele wrote:Sorry, I refuse to post links to Stormfront or any LoSer site. You wanted sources you got them. Provide a source that claims Early was not instrumental in the creation of the Lost Cause. I've at least backed my opinion w/ the research done by legitimate historians... none of the likes of DiLorenzo or Rutherford from here thank you very much. I prefer history to fantasy. Sad, isn’t it? I'm guessing they see “Yankee bias” simply because they don’t like what the sources have to say, not because they have a substantive critique. Until that time get back on subject or start a thread on the brilliance of Early and his Lost Cause. This one's been hijacked enough already. Let’s put it back on the rails. After the war Jubal Early and the other Lost Cause crusaders finally did what they weren’t able to do on the battlefield…they beat Ulysses S. Grant.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 04:49 pm |
|
75th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
Wasn't Grant defeated at Belmont?...by Gideon Pillow?  And his first campaign against Vicksburg was a disaster. Right? Last edited on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 04:49 pm by borderuffian |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 05:00 pm |
|
76th Post |
|
borderuffian Member
|
from OP- According to Williams, “Grant was fundamentally superior to Lee because he had a modern mind and Lee did not. Lee was the last of the great old fashioned generals and Grant was the first of the great moderns.” Really? I seem to recall several old-style frontal assaults made by Grant. All of which failed. Chickasaw Bluffs Vicksburg (May 19) Vicksburg (May 22) Crater #1-Vicksburg Cold Harbor Crater #2-Petersburg
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 05:22 pm |
|
77th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
borderuffian wrote: from OP- This opinion is hardly unique to the OP. See Major General J. F. C. Fuller ("Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant", "Grant and Lee") for an elaboration on this theme. Fuller, of course, knew a thing or two about modern war, and, for that matter, the problems with frontal assaults in the modern age (he planned the 1917 tank assault at Cambrai).
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 05:24 pm |
|
78th Post |
|
Mark Member
|
borderuffian, I think he means "modern" in a strategic sense, not the tactical--that is living off the land, moving troops and supply by rail, and understanding the idea of attrition, etc. I don't think that is an especially accurate characterization since none of those things were particularly new (except perhaps the rail but that is a false comparison since the Confederate strategists were well ahead of the Federals on that account). Hope that helps. Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 06:33 pm |
|
79th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
borderuffian wrote: And his first campaign against Vicksburg was a disaster. Right? I would say that highlights one of Grant's principle virtues. He was occasionally checked or stymied, but never let that turn into defeat.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 31st, 2012 10:22 pm |
|
80th Post |
|
Darryl Member
|
Borderruffian, you are putting Grant down for mistakes, okay he did make some. But so did Lee. The thing that separates Grant from the rest is he didn't let defeat stop him, or make him so deflated that he pissed and moaned and sulked in his tent. He went back, rehashed the plans and tried again. Hitting the enemy once, being rebuffed and stopping was not winning the war. ALL commanders and armies get a bloody nose first time out. Rommel echoed Wellington when the British attacked him in North Africa using the same tactics as before. "They came on in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way." Its been done numerous times by generals in history. Even Cleburne messed up his first battle. Hey, stop assess what happened, regroup, rearrange and hit again before the enemy catches his breath! That's what separates Grant from the rest. That plan of operation, keep going adjust but keep that ultimate goal in place. That's what wins campaigns and wars.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:05 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Ulysses S. Grant: the greatest of generals | Top |
