Originally Posted by
Gunny
Regardless how the revisionist left or right wish to play the game, EVERYBODY was a racist; whether or not they believed slavery was okay. While most won't admit it, most people are STILL racist one way or another. That is all-inclusive, BTW because all these blacks or Arabs or Mexicans screaming "racist" are the biggest racists that exist.
None of which has a SINGLE THING to do with Robert E. Lee's ability to command an army. In military circles he is STILL regarded as one of the most brilliant tacticians along with the likes of Caesar, Attila the Hun -- who both, BTW, owned slaves. Shwarzkopf used a classic Lee maneuver in the First Gulf War.
By contrast, US Grant was a one trick pony. He pinned Lee into defending the Confederate Capitol and threw bodies at him in a war of attrition. One of the things the South didn't have was as many bodies as the North. It's the EXACT same way we won WW II. We had more manpower and materiel and won a war of attrition.
I give Grant credit solely for being able to do math and count who had the most bodies and figuring out Lee would run out of bodies first. Basically, he was butcher who threw his men into a buzzsaw.
People who underestimate someone's ability in one area because they disagree with the person in another area are usually setting themselves up to take a loss.
Grant gets credit for defeating Lee. That is an error-- what defeated the magnificent and fantastic general Robert E. Lee was two things primarily. First was the opposing army had greater depth in supplies as in munitions, logistical support, communication, deliver system, already established military organization, and massively greater industrial might.
Second and maybe even more important--attrition- not just in numbers of fighting men available but more importantly in number of high rank officers he could depend on to get the job done.
Replacing division commanders and his generals became impossible to do with the caliber of those he previously had early on(lesser qualified were promoted up due to seniority,etc.)-- and lets not forget the death of Stonewall Jackson.
Had Robert E. Lee started out with the advantages the North had- the civil war would have been won by the South within the first year.
And even then with his lacking such it came close to being won early on by the armies of the South.
When Lee surrendered to Grant and Grant's generals, he had been fighting with far fewer soldiers, soldiers that often had no shoes, no blankets , even some that had no functioning arms, they were worn thin and often went days without meals, wore falling apart rags in even severest of winter cold--'Even after all that they still fought better than those they had to fight. No general had better fighters and no general ever did more with less, than did Robert E. Lee.
Attrition and a lack of healthy and adequately equipped soldiers with adequate arms/supplies defeated Lee-- not Ulysses S. Grant, IMHO.-Tyr
Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 10-14-2018 at 11:55 AM.
18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Reply With Quote
