Remembering Two Great Americans

EverVigilant.net ^ | 01/19/2006 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Clemenza]

BTW: I can STILL kick your confederate a-s, even though I've been dead for a century and a half!

[exdem2000]

The name and Author

LEE


by R.H. Dykers

[TexConfederate1861]

Not personally......:)

Who fired first isn't the issue. It is more like who provoked who first.

[SC33]

I saw it, but I'm not sure what I was supposed to be looking for...

[TexConfederate1861]

Actually, I used to think the same thing. I did a Thesis for my Masters at UT Austin on that very subject. Most Germans were pacifist, and quite a few actually served in the Confederate Army.

[PzLdr]

[1] He won.[2] Nothing Napoleon and most armies hadn't done already [3] First general in America to understand modern warfare in the industrial age [4] I seem to recall Early and Stuart robbing banks, or extorting money under threat of arson earlier in the war. Morgan did commit bank robbery[5] Since we've been graced with yet another ode to N.B Forrest, I'd argue lack of standing on the thread to complain about Sherman.

[Moose4]

Eh...victorious, yes. Not great in quite the same way that Lee was, but great in his own way. Grant knew exactly how to use the North's superiority in men and materiel, and was willing to absorb the casualties necessary to grind down the South in a war of attrition that it couldn't win. He wasn't the tactical master that some of the Southern generals were, but he didn't have to be. He fought his war, his way, and was the right man for the job at the time.

One has to wonder what Marse Robert could've done with the industrial superiority of the North. Sort of like those old what-ifs about "what if Rommel would've had all the men and materiel that Montgomery did at El Alamein?"

}:-)4

[muir_redwoods]

or a Joshua L. Chamberlain

[TexConfederate1861]

As bad as it looked, Pickett's Charge was a sound military decision, based on the info Lee had. He had been repulsed on both flanks, and thought the enemy was weak at the center. If he had been correct, he would have split the Federal line. However, his info was faulty.

[PzLdr]

A GREAT battlefield commander. An underappreciated [in his time and since] general. A great patriot.

[TexConfederate1861]

Ha! Not him (or you either, for that matter.) :)

[PzLdr]

The ONLY Confederate state that furnished NO troops to the Union was South Carolina.

[robowombat]

Actually when Grant was tactically in charge of Union forces his casualties (except at Shiloh) were not disproportionate. When he came east he was in the role of the Union generalissimo and not in tactical command of any specific army. He kept his HQ with the main field army the Army of the Potomac. He could trust Sherman to run operations in the west without looking over his shoulder.
Grant was never willing to fight Meade over day to day decisions in the Army of the Potomac. Knowing what a porcupine Meade was it would have been a useless battle and Meade would have resigned before letting grant vet his op orders. So Grant compromised and endured the horrible level of staff work that was par in the Army of the Potomac as long as Meade followed orders and moved his army where Grant wanted it to go. The it was up to Meade's staff to fight the battle as they choose. This to often meant getting the extraordinarily brave men of that army massacred. Some times it was just the narrowness of the battlefield such as at Spotslylvania that meant no matter what there would be a lot of dead men at the end of the fight. However, as at Petersburg in the opening week of the siege sometimes it was just horrendous staff work and really dumb decision making. The one battle that can be held against Grant (IMHO) is Cold Harbor. He did badger Meade to bore in an attack the Confederates and Meade thought the field looked like a slaughter waiting to happen and was right.

Now what is this business about spitting on Grant? He really is the iconic figure for the US Army.

[Clemenza]

I know that Nimitz's ancestors served in the Confederacy. The Hill Country in general, however, was either neutral or pro-Union, as was the case for most of the German immigrant communities at the time. Its no wonder that the historically German neighborhood in Chicago is referred to as Lincoln Square, due to the many German immigrants to the neighborhood who fought with the Union.

I know many pro-Union Germans were involved in skirmished with pro-confederate forces in Missouri.

The "ethnic" element to the Civil War is a fascinating area of exploration. The South had more Hispanics serving than the Union did (mostly Tejano volunteers), with Irish immigrants serving on both sides, despite the fact that many were anti-Lincoln due to the draft.

[SC33]

Let's not kid ourselves though. There were a great many southern sympathizers in the North. Both sides fought valiantly, doing what they thought was best.

[PzLdr]

moces=moves

[stand watie]

Washington should have a national holiday all to himself.

"DIShonest abe", otoh, should have his name taken off President's Day.

imVho, lincoln deserves a national holiday about as much as wee willie klintoon does.

free dixie,sw

[TexConfederate1861]

By my research, I found it to be neutral. Two of my ancestors were also from that area. The only county in that area to vote against secession was Comal County (New Braunfels) A lot of really good ex-Prussians fought for Robert E. Lee.

[robowombat]

This will set off an uproar. I guarantee.

[linda_22003]

That's just another one you lost. :)