Posted on 10/16/2018 7:26:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Grant was not a drunk. The origins of this pernicious falsehood lies with jealous rivals and bitter Southrons who couldn’t accept that Grant whipped Lee and the rest of Johnny Reb’s ass and crushed the foolish rebellion.
Cold Harbor was a harbinger of WWI’s trench warfare.
The General Lee was a great Car.
It could fly through the air and come down without a scratch while outrunning every Police Interceptor sent after it.
It had the best Horn too, even better then the one on a Roadrunner.
Great general doesn’t mean great cause, or even a great person. The WWII Japanese had some great generals fighting for a rotten cause.
“Robert E Lee was part of a faction that was willing to rip this nation apart to protect its own interests at the expense of other people & the Constitution. https://t.co/1OV96ytz79
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) October 13, 2018”
Yeah, that’s right. That faction was called democrats.
Yup. What he lacked in tactical brilliance he more than made up for in brutal practicality. His Vicksburg campaign bordered on brilliant.
Total nonsense. Utterly moronic historic ignorance
Grant was far better commander then Lee.
His Vicksburg campaign is still being studied at West Point. He is also the only Union General to force the surrender of 3 Confederate armies.
The US Civil war was the prototype for Modern War. What seemed so shocking to his Democrats poltical foes (Both Confederate and in the North) was Grant was the 1st General on either side who understood that the only path to victory was the utter defeat of the South’s will to wage war. The only way to end the war was beating the South until it was on its knees.
So since they could not argue the facts, they engaged in Democrat Politics 101, the smear job. Grant historical legacy "as a drunk", only now being corrected by modern historians, was largely a fabrication of Lincoln’s, Democrat political foes, and sore losers Southern Generals.
Lee was promoted past his competency level. He would of been much better staying as an Army General and someone like Albert Sidney or Joe Johnson being the over all commander.
Lee never grasped the war was national in scale. He focused on Virginia only and, arguably, cost the South the war by refusing to look at the strategic picture on the other fronts.
In addition, Grant understood the strategic priorities of the North in a way Lee never did for the South. Lee’s biggest failing, like the French in WW1, believed offensive warfare was the key. He never understood that given the South deficits in material and manpower, he need to win by outlasting the north. Fredricksburg, and possible 2nd Manassas were Lee’s only true victory. In the rest of his battler he continually lost a greater portion of his force then the North. The result is all of his victories were Phyrric. They won a short term respite in exchange for irreplaceable casualties
Washington was by far a greater General then Lee. Washington, facing much the same sort of odds as Lee with a much weaker supply base grasped the need to simply outlast the British. If Lee had been half the General Washington was, the South might have won the war.
yes but how many slaves did Grant own?
And yet the left thinks the Kenyan cocksucker was an American.
Grant was ferocious and he ruthlessly used every advantage to crush his enemy. His campaign against Vicksburg is still studied today.
He was, however, a crappy politician. He was too trusting.
That’s good. Me, too.
Lee was a great general when he worked out his plans until Longstreet vetted them. When he hatched something and ran with it despite holes percieved by Longstreet, not so much.
As long as he worked within the framework of being the leader of a competent staff, he was good. But he was not a good solo planner.
Y’know, given the level of alcohol consumption in that era, Grant might have only been a little above normal.
HE WAS THE DEMOCRAT GENERAL
The generation of Southern Ohioans who grew up after the terrible war, had profound admiration for both men. And were aware,also, of the noble risk that General Grant--himself a great admirer of Lee--took, in his threat against anyone who would try to prosecute Lee.
I think that Lee was pretty generally idolized by West Point graduates in the 19th Century.
It is all part of how truly our President understands "winning" in multiple senses. (Now is truly the time to help him demonstrate that trait!!) A vote for Trump supporters, today, is the best way, I know to honor the memory of both Generals!!
William Flax
yes but how many slaves did Grant own?
><
At least one.
Lee’s greatest enemy was attrition.
And unlike Lee, Grant learned from his error. His slipped away from supposed genius Lee and crossed the James river in one of the most brilliant feat in the Civil War.
Grants biggest problem in the East was being hobbled with divisional and brigade commanders who were completely defensive minded out of fear of Lee. Petersburg VA should of taken long before Lee ever got his troops moving if Grant's tactical commander on the scene Quincy A. Gillmore' had had even a modicum of skill.
Grant was a drunk.
Grant freed his slaves he got from his Father in Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.