The Greatest General of The Civil War....

[streak]

The original post has veered off track!
The operative word in the original post being " Greatest", I would have to pick Gen. Robert E. Lee as the "greatest general" in the civil war. This being strictly from the point of view as looking at him as a " General" not whether he was north or south.

[williamlayton]

No question Lee was a great General. Was he a great general considering the changes in warfare?
I think Jackson was as good and perhaps better at adapting to newer tactics.
Calvary changed during this period and became a force that was not as well utilized as it could have been.
Saying that, while jackson was utilizing it better--could he have used it even better as an offensive power than he did?
Blessings   

[mcwoodduck]

From what I understand Cavalry was used in 3 ways.
1) rapid infantry - Modern day Mech Inf.  Move them quickly and fight dismounted to either hold ground or turn the enemy.
2) Disruption - Fast dashes to disrupt supply lines and to take out cannon
3) scouts- Locate the enemy and report back positions and strengths. Making and breaking contact.
The other side of the cavalry was the troopers were limited to 145 pound.   With all the gear and munitions it was to protect the horse.
This is also discounting raiders like Bloody Bill and his gorilla fighters but they too just acted to disrupt supplies.

[streak]

Wm,
Good points! Although I guess we will probably never nail down who was actually the greatest general.
Just for grins, let us take a hypathectically scenario, what do you think the outcome of the war might have been if Lee had a standing army essentially the same size as the Union forces and had the industries to support him in his war effort?

[williamlayton]

Wow. Now that is a good question.
Most probably the Union would have capitulated. I say that under duress.
Like as in WWII, Lincoln could see a much larger picture than the man on the street. He understood the nation needing to secure its borders--from sea to shineing sea. The world, because of transportation, even as crude and young as it was, was shrinking.
He understood the need to grow and growth was a demand of the people--not the government. Folks were moving west.
It is easy to say live and let live--which is what the general population wanted. Just as today, that can only be allowed to a border/line in the sand.
It was going to come down to a winner.
If the North had capitulated and given up--would there now be 48 sovereign nations--somewhat like the European union--where every nation wants sovereignty but peace.
Europe is who I look to for the answers to this delima. They have warred with each other since Rome was a child. I don't see the Confederacy doing much better.
I think, eventually, that Georgia--or anybody--was going to come to blows with Texas over something.
I choose Texas because it was really the weakest link in the Confederacy's goals in the West. It was a state that was REALLY divided on secession--only allowed because of east Texas population and not a real popular state wide opinion.
I really think---who can prove me wrong--it is just opinion.
That should the North capitulated, as most of Northerners wished, the South would have become a pawn of Europe. The whole of the nation would have need to return too a Confederacy of independent nations and chaos would have reigned supreme.
Who knows--it didn't happen that way and WWI and WWII went the way they did.
My thoughts are quickly typed and probably discombobulated as i have not proofed it.
We will let it stand as it is and try to make some understanding of it as we discuss it.
Blessings

[us920669]

Lee with everything he wanted would have been unstoppable, but the only chance the south really ever had would have been to get into Washington early, while the people were still overwhelmingly pro-south, arrest Lincoln, fly their flag, etc.

Bickering among the southerners would have broken out more along regional lines than state by state.  Plantation owners of the Atlantic seaboard and east Texas had ideas about things that were not popular with uplanders and city people.  This was evident even during what we call the War of 1812, really just a sideshow of the Napoleonic wars.  New Englanders were almost pro-British, but the farther south you went, the more attractive was the idea of exploiting British weakness to secure Mexico and Cuba.

If Richmond had succeeded in setting up a new nation, I still think regional concerns would have prevailed.  After a cooling-off period, Mississippi Valley people would have realized their bread was buttered in the upper plains and Ohio and Virginians would have craved trade with Maryland and Pennsylvania. The deep south might have been a problem.  They may well have decided that European connections would help them establish new plantations in Mexico and Cuba.  This may have led to a second Civil War, which South Carolina would have lost spectacularly. 

[williamlayton]

Without starting a flame.
Why do you say that New England was more Pro British than S. Carolina?
Speculation is pretty easy for us sitting on the sidelines 160 years later-- ---can't have our hand called.
I just find it difficult to believe that  a confederation would work in a republic.
Blessings

[us920669]

That's just what I learned somewhere.  There was the Hartford Convention, where the New Englanders actually discussed succession.  By contrast, I thought the plantation owners were hot for expansion, much easier without British meddling.

[streak]

You guys have come up with some great profound thoughts and facts on this subject!
In college, I chose history as a minor and subjects like this always perk my interest.
Now if we look at the scenario where the north capitulates, do you think the confederacy remains intact or do great minds prevail and the constitution remains the law of the land and the confederacy once in power brings all states back into the fold and essentially dissolves the confederacy? States Rights probably would now carry alot more clout, and slavery would still be in vogue for awhile but probably would wain with time and industralization.

 

[williamlayton]

Let's talk about States Rights for just a minute, try to get a proper concept of the term.
The States Right that the South considered was a confederacy--each state being sovereign nation unto itsownself and and not under subjugation to another if it so desired. we see that in S Carolina refusing to collect tariffs.
States rights as considered by a Republic--One nation-undevided--is different.
States take care of local issues---education, rules and laws which do not violate national laws, IE the making of treaties with foreign nations, declaring war against another, deciding what laws they liked and what they did not.
The Federal Gov.was/is responsible for national issues--interstates, water ways, defense, inter and infra structure.
I am not denying the growth and overstepping of boundries--we are talking design.
If it is a Republic we are all in this together--too the end. So much for secession.
Blessings

[streak]

Right Wm, but unfortunately the U. S government seems to not understand your description of States Rights! As examples look at Arizona and Texas in their quest to secure their borders as the U. S gov`t refuses to do their job and secure these borders. Are these states to stand idly bye and let illegal immigrants cross their borders with impunity? As you mentioned if we are a republic then we are to stand together to the end. So that if that being the case something has gotten a " little catawampus" with the gov`t telling these states that they cannot protect their own borders because they are over stepping the federal governments jurisdiction.

[williamlayton]

The way we used to protect our border was by applying our laws to the lawless wherever they chose to sleep.
Was bloody, but the message got around. Now ir didn't stop it but everybody knew the consequences.
Blessings

[streak]

10-4 on that Wm!
Do not know if you have read any of the books by "Skeeter Skelton", but during the time he was at the Border Patrol these illegals were pursued and most of the time caught regardless of the side of the border that they had chosen as their roosting location!
He was not shy about bringing his revolver into play to quite a situation down!
Bet Govenor Perry would appreciate a couple of agents like " Skeeter" especially with the connections that "Skeeter" had on both sides of the border!

Anyway if you read and have`nt read any books by "Skeeter" might take a look at them, good reads.

[williamlayton]

Before we get tossed for being off target here--let me say a final thought.
All those boys had their connections and not much care about which side of the border they worked.
I have had the opportunity, a great number of years ago now, to read the reports of Rangers in the old Border Ranger outfit. Great reading and it didn't take much to read between the lines.
Blessings