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.
Thanks for the responses. I think the war could have been shortened greatly if there were more Grants/Sherman's at the onset. (At least in the Eastern theater). Lee did phenomenally with what he had until Grant was brought over from the west.
I'm guessing they are referring to Grant's actions as a general. When Grand and Sherman took charge they brought with them more of a total war philosophy than had been used by previous Union commanders. It undoubtedly sped up the end of the war but did incur greater costs in terms of the lives of soldiers as well as the lives and property of southerners. I'm not saying I personally disagree agree with Grant's decisions or leadership, but that is my guess as to where the other poster is coming from.
Correct. Sherman's March was nothing but an act of a mindless mass murderer, and yes, Lincoln was a psycho too, and approved of slaughter and destruction.
That's just nonsense. Grant had a problem with alcohol prior to the civil war, during the war there is only one case where he "went off the wagan" that I can recall reading about in the many histories I have read. He was certainly not a sociopath.
His "tactics", particularly at Vicksburg, rivaled anything the confederate generals can do at there best in terms of complex maneuvers and feints, and was possibly one of the most brilliant campaigns of the war. Likewise Sherman's "March to the Sea", often condemned for being brutal in it's destruction, was nevertheless brilliantly executed in it's ability to bring an entire army of 60,000 men cut off from supply lines into the heart of the south.
Otherwise the problem with Union general weren't that they were bad, it's that the South had the best generals (at least in the eastern theater). The reason being the south had the military tradition as part of it's culture. Also the fact that the north had to engage as the attacker in many cases, which gave the advantage to the defender usually on ground of there choosing. And of course the average southern soldier was a hardy bunch much more used to the hardships of campaigning.
Ah well, as long as it was all 'brilliant n stuff' then it's okay to indulge in mindless murder and savagery against civilians and destroy all their property. My bad.
Ah well, as long as it was all 'brilliant n stuff' then it's okay to indulge in mindless murder and savagery against civilians and destroy all their property. My bad.
Was it okay for the Confederates to so so as well? War crimes are always what the other side does, our side engages in regrettable necessities.
I notice that you failed to answer the question. Why would atrocities be condemned when practiced by one side, but not condemned when practiced by the other?
To save some time, let us fast forward to where you have eventually been exposed as some unreconstructed Confederate crusading for The Lost Cause rather than someone with a genuine interest in history. The historian approaches the dynamic with as neutral an attitude as possible. You appear to be light years from that, one of the periodic escapees from the Politics Board who comes here believing that the same shout-em-down rules apply, that a cocky attitude will substitute for a body of knowledge.
Last edited by mensaguy; 09-21-2018 at 11:35 AM..
Reason: Quoted post looked more like an insult to a CD member than a History discussion
Ah well, as long as it was all 'brilliant n stuff' then it's okay to indulge in mindless murder and savagery against civilians and destroy all their property. My bad.
Huh? What are you even talking about? There was no mass murder or massacres during Sherman's march, even Sherman's harshest critics acknowledge that. That's not what it's about. Sherman's march was one of destruction, mostly to the south's infrastructure, it's ability to continue the war - railroad tracks, cotton warehouses, bridges, telegraph wires, factories, mills and cotton gins. Food, cattle, etc. was taken in a large swath to feed this army, which in turn had it's destructive effecct. Civilians in the path went through hardships, but not murder.
Mod cut.
Last edited by PJSaturn; 09-21-2018 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: Personal attack. Next time, infraction.
Many of the Union generals performed poorly compared to Confederate.
Just wondering didn't many of them go to West Point? I guess there is a big difference between leading armies and theoretical stuff taught at college.
My guess is that Union underestimated the Southern forces.
It is far easier to defend then to attack. Look at Lee's ventures north, more so Gettysburg then Antietam, show that.
Look at Lee's ventures north, more so Gettysburg then Antietam, show that.
Lee should have avoided Gettysburg, and since he didn't he should have fed his forces into the area a lot faster; he would have avoided letting them dig in and take the strategic ground.
Even the 'best' Generals make mistakes sometime or all the time, some large some small and not important.
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.
