Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never knew that about the South. Well, I can say I'm glad the South went about the war the way that it did. The South wanted slavery so badly it was willing to secede, and fight a war for it. The South losing is for the best in my eyes. Period.
Yep...a lot of people forget that the South could've EASILY won the war based simply on the fact that the Union had to go on offense to win, and had far more territory to protect. The south had to do neither. Just by fighting to a tie, they win.
So when that dude from Texas calls me ignorant, he clearly hasn't done his homework. He's only sticking up for Lee because he's a Southerner. But Lee was a disaster....overrated far beyond his ACTUAL abilities.
FYI, Nigeria has the tenth largest oil reserves in the world. Libya is number nine.
There is possibly a lot of oil in Africa that hasn't been found yet.
That's true. Members of OPEC or the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries is probably more accurate description than saying the Middle East v Africa in that regard.
Hundreds of African refugees and migrants passing through Libya are being bought and sold in modern-day slave markets before being held for ransom or used as forced labour or for sexual exploitation, survivors have told the UN's migration agency.*
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) said on Tuesday that it had interviewed West African migrants who recounted being traded in garages and car parks in the southern city of Sabha, one of Libya's main people-smuggling centres.
People are bought for between $200 and $500 and are held on average for two to three months, Othman Belbeisi, head of the IOM's Libya mission, said in Geneva.
"Migrants are being sold in the market as a commodity," he said. "Selling human beings is becoming a trend among smugglers as the smuggling networks in Libya are becoming stronger and stronger."
That's disgusting and wouldn't have happened under Ghadaffi. Matter of fact, early on after his fall, black Africans were being imprisoned and tortured specifically because of Ghadaffi's "One Africa" philosophy, and they were seen as his collaborators. The sad reality is in that part of the world your two choices are either a secular dictator or a religious theocracy. Libya is worse off now than they were under him.
Grant vs Lee ain't much of a hotly debated topic IMO. And if it is, it shouldn't be. Grant was superior to Lee in every facet of soldiering and generalship. That's not even competitive as a comparison.
Grant was highly successful in three major theaters of war in the Civil War. Lee wasn't successful in even one theater...the Mid Atlantic, which was his ONLY theater. And once Grant moved into Lee's theater, it was a wrap. He destroyed Lee and did so quickly.
And in the Civil War's most brilliant campaign..,the Siege of Vicksburg, Grant routed the Confederacy with the skill that Lee didn't have and couldn't muster.
Lee was a disaster. You're letting the southerner in you get the best of your judgement.
Look at Grant's ratio of enemy killed vs his own casualties!! It's so lopsided that it's laughable.
Grant is the greatest general in American history. Like, it's not even close.
BTW ...the South had more advantages than the Union because the Union couldn't win by playing defense. The South could've won the war by simply fighting the Union to a draw and staying on defense. The South NEVER had to go on offense.
More proof that Lee was a disaster.
It was about supplies, ammunition, and the railroads that moved them and the troops which made the difference.
It was about supplies, ammunition, and the railroads that moved them and the troops which made the difference.
The south had all of that in abundance. Plus they had European allies.
Hell, Sherman cut through Tennessee, Georgia, and into the Carolinas on foot with no Union supply lines from home and had to feed his army by foraging.
And they whipped ass on everything breathing in their path.
Grant vs Lee ain't much of a hotly debated topic IMO. And if it is, it shouldn't be. Grant was superior to Lee in every facet of soldiering and generalship. That's not even competitive as a comparison.
Grant was highly successful in three major theaters of war in the Civil War. Lee wasn't successful in even one theater...the Mid Atlantic, which was his ONLY theater. And once Grant moved into Lee's theater, it was a wrap. He destroyed Lee and did so quickly.
And in the Civil War's most brilliant campaign..,the Siege of Vicksburg, Grant routed the Confederacy with the skill that Lee didn't have and couldn't muster.
Lee was a disaster. You're letting the southerner in you get the best of your judgement.
Look at Grant's ratio of enemy killed vs his own casualties!! It's so lopsided that it's laughable.
Grant is the greatest general in American history. Like, it's not even close.
BTW ...the South had more advantages than the Union because the Union couldn't win by playing defense. The South could've won the war by simply fighting the Union to a draw and staying on defense. The South NEVER had to go on offense.
More proof that Lee was a disaster.
Well, just about every military scholar will disagree with you, but we know how you feel everything you believe is indisputable fact. Lol
Well, just about every military scholar will disagree with you, but we know how you feel everything you believe is indisputable fact. Lol
How many moons orbit the planet where you reside?
Military scholars would disagree on which points exactly? Everything I said was an indisputable fact. So much so that you didn't bother even trying to refute it. And that's after calling me ignorant.
My heart isn't in it because I ain't from the North or South. You're from the South, so you can't see straight. You wanna believe so badly that Lee was somehow Grant's equal. He wasn't.
Fact is, until 1870, the jury was out on Lee and even his former underlings had opinions of him that represented a mix bag. More than a few generals had little use for him. Especially those generals and flag officers that didn't fight in the Army of Northern Virginia.
The mythology of Robert E Lee didn't start until after his death when southerners decided to try and rewrite history to read that their cause had no basis in slavery when in fact, slavery was the ONLY basis for their cause. Confederate General Cleburne called their bluff on it and the truth came out. Before Lee's death, he was just another failed Confederate commander.
You can call me ignorant all you want, but you can't refute a damn thing I've posted on the topic.
Grant vs Lee ain't much of a hotly debated topic IMO. And if it is, it shouldn't be. Grant was superior to Lee in every facet of soldiering and generalship. That's not even competitive as a comparison.
Grant was highly successful in three major theaters of war in the Civil War. Lee wasn't successful in even one theater...the Mid Atlantic, which was his ONLY theater. And once Grant moved into Lee's theater, it was a wrap. He destroyed Lee and did so quickly.
And in the Civil War's most brilliant campaign..,the Siege of Vicksburg, Grant routed the Confederacy with the skill that Lee didn't have and couldn't muster.
Lee was a disaster. You're letting the southerner in you get the best of your judgement.
Look at Grant's ratio of enemy killed vs his own casualties!! It's so lopsided that it's laughable.
Grant is the greatest general in American history. Like, it's not even close.
BTW ...the South had more advantages than the Union because the Union couldn't win by playing defense. The South could've won the war by simply fighting the Union to a draw and staying on defense. The South NEVER had to go on offense.
More proof that Lee was a disaster.
As for Lee, you have to look at his overall career, not just the civil war. He won most of his battles up to and including most of his civil war battles. Don't take anything away from him just because he fought for the south, the north would have loved to have him and he was offered command with the north, but decided to fight for his home state.
"Once he took command of the main field army in 1862 he soon emerged as a shrewd tactician and battlefield commander, winning most of his battles, all against far superior Union armies".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
