The Greatest General of The Civil War....

[Hooker]

Of course let us look at the generals
Y'all seem to like Sherman let's see what kind of general he was he ordered his troops to attack and kill civilians rape and pillage then destroy their homes and farms.
And then during the "Indian Wars" his troops were ordered not to take heed of whether the Indian was male , female , old or a child.
General Sheridan cut from the same cloth and guilty of the same war crimes. He then he orchestrated the so called reconstruction of Texas and Louisiana where he all but completely suspended the Constitution.
You keep calling us the loosing side maybe y'all might take another look that same oppressive government is still here growing like a cancer.
Only now it's not satisfied just oppressing the South.
 

Pat

[billy_56081]

Of course let us look at the generals
Y'all seem to like Sherman let's see what kind of general he was he ordered his troops to attack and kill civilians rape and pillage then destroy their homes and farms.
And then during the "Indian Wars" his troops were ordered not to take heed of whether the Indian was male , female , old or a child.
General Sheridan cut from the same cloth and guilty of the same war crimes. He then he orchestrated the so called reconstruction of Texas and Louisiana where he all but completely suspended the Constitution.
You keep calling us the loosing side maybe y'all might take another look that same oppressive government is still here growing like a cancer.
Only now it's not satisfied just oppressing the South.
 

Pat

That is what made Sherman a great general. Again we are not talking about who was right or wrong, just who was best. I would wage war EXACTLY like him. The southern generals should has done as he did. And we aint talking about our over repressive government we are talking winners and losers.

[Hooker]

Well sir if the the gauge of being best is how much of a butcher one can be, I'll leave y'all to this discussion.

Pat 

[billy_56081]

Well Pat this aint football, war is blood and butchery. I have seen the elephant, have you?

[sidewinder319]

Subdjoe, thx for your very fine post on the Civil War.  Wars are always more complex  than what happens on the battle field.

[Dee]

But the South fired first. If they thought they had the right to leave then they should have said Bye, stopped sending $ north to DC  and sent it to Richmond with out firing a shot.  I can see your point of view and you can claim the South was a victom, but is the guy that starts the fight the victom, especally if he gets his tail whooped?

Um....the did.  The seven states of the deep south left.  And stopped sending money to Washington City.  That is why Lincoln ordered Anderson to stand fast, and why he was sending troops and supplies to Ft. Sumter, he needed the revenue from the south.  That fort in SC controlled the harbor.  It was also a good stepping off point for an invasion. 

If you have someone standing on your front porch loading up a shotgun and you are pretty sure he plans to use it on you,  what would you do?  Do you have to wait to be shot before you shoot?

There you go joe. You finally said it! This is the reason the south fired the first shot. Excellent analogy"

[williamlayton]

I tend to agree with Dee.
I don't tend to agree that it was more than an act of self-defense, though it can be argued that way, I view it was a rebellion that must be answered.
First shots are not the answers we are looking for.
The answers are in the times of expansion we are looking at.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

I tend to agree with Dee.
I don't tend to agree that it was more than an act of self-defense, though it can be argued that way, I view it was a rebellion that must be answered.
First shots are not the answers we are looking for.
The answers are in the times of expansion we are looking at.
Blessings

You consistently take the position that political bonds may never be broken and rebellion is never justified.  Was our first War of Rebellion justified? 

[williamlayton]

I don't think you will ever find I said such. In fact I have often said the opposite.
Rebellion is always an option.
It may be stupid but it is always an option.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

I don't think you will ever find I said such. In fact I have often said the opposite.
Rebellion is always an option.
It may be stupid but it is always an option.
Blessings

Nice twist.  I said justified, as that seems to consistently your position here, there is no justification for severing political bonds. 

[williamlayton]

What does justification have to do with rebellion?
Any excuse in a snowstorm is OK---you just have to live with the results.
I try to be as objective as possible. I don't have an ax to grind with either side. It is what it is.
The reasons are the reasons of history not right or wrong. it was a complex issue on both sides. I must admit that they were less complicated on the part of the South.
The South just wanted to become independent nations bound by treaty to go on with a lifestyle that they promoted.
Now, my opinion, just as in every war the rich on both sides convience others that they are doing their patriotic duties. They really are just fighting a war for a certain faction.
I can clearly see, without defending or accusing, the reasons for the war on both sides.
They are simply facts without any feelings---as Joe would say--just the facts ma'am.
The South would bringup a lot of feelings.That is OK. It would just be better to say we tried and lost--because those are just the facts.
Blessings

[us920669]

Lincoln's problem was that his justification was that it was one country, the people of the south in the thrall of insurrectionists.  Unfortunately, these insurrectionists were the lawfully constituted governments of the various states.  As to generals, Jackson nails field commander, Lee was best at front command and they say Cleburne had promise. I'm not sure the north had a general of any merit, just a vast machine.  The most effective northern commander was Admiral Farragut, who took New Orleans.  This was important geographically, but also because the nitwits in Richmond had hoarded the cotton crop there, trying to drive up the price so England would come begging.  So the north burned the entire Confederate treasury and England planted cotton in Egypt.  Try to find an old out of print book called Statesmen of the Lost Cause - no battles and leaders, but the straight poop on the south's fundamental weakness. 

[subdjoe]

What does justification have to do with rebellion?
Any excuse in a snowstorm is OK---you just have to live with the results.
I try to be as objective as possible. I don't have an ax to grind with either side. It is what it is.
The reasons are the reasons of history not right or wrong. it was a complex issue on both sides. I must admit that they were less complicated on the part of the South.
The South just wanted to become independent nations bound by treaty to go on with a lifestyle that they promoted.
Now, my opinion, just as in every war the rich on both sides convience others that they are doing their patriotic duties. They really are just fighting a war for a certain faction.
I can clearly see, without defending or accusing, the reasons for the war on both sides.
They are simply facts without any feelings---as Joe would say--just the facts ma'am.
The South would bringup a lot of feelings.That is OK. It would just be better to say we tried and lost--because those are just the facts.
Blessings

OK, thank you - there is no justification for any rebellion in your eyes.  So then you feel that the United States should still belong to the United Kingdom.

Would you agree that pulling out of a freely entered association, whose by-laws do not say that you can't pull out, is rebellion?  That is a simple yes or no question, no twists, no evasions, no "Well the older by-laws didn't allow it" since those older by-laws were no longer in effect.  Just Yes or No.

[Brewster]

You sound like a lawyer, Joe.  Too bad the hotheads fired on Sumter without even trying to deal with the issue in the Supreme Court.  After Sumter, the die was cast.

[subdjoe]

You sound like a lawyer, Joe.  Too bad the hotheads fired on Sumter without even trying to deal with the issue in the Supreme Court.  After Sumter, the die was cast.

The die was cast before Sumter, when Lincoln refused to pull federal troops from SC soil.  It was cast again when he set in motion attempts to reprovision and reinforce those troops.  See my thug loading a shotgun on your porch example above.

Why should they have gone through the Court?  Did they have to go through SCOUTS to join? Has any state had to go to SCOUTS to join?   Why inject the judicial branch into what is clearly an issue for the legislative? 

Once again - show where in the law of the time there was anything that prohibited any state from voting itself out of the union.  I keep asking and no one can provide any citation that says a state, or several states, may not withdraw from the Union. 

[williamlayton]

Joe
You are reading it like you want to.
There is no need to have any reason to rebel.
Folks in a lot of countries do it all the time for the power and glory. I don't have a concern about rebellion. Go ahead and do it--just accept the responsibility for the outcome if you fail.
There was not a real good reason for this war--but folks disagreed and decided to fight. Just like the South, the North decided to oppose the secession. If you feel it was OK to seceed and the North feels like it is not---hang the legalities and get it on. They both agreed to that and the South lost.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

You sound like a lawyer, Joe. 

By the way, thank you.  Since we are talking about legal matters here, talking like a lawyer is a good thing. 

[mcwoodduck]

You sound like a lawyer, Joe.  Too bad the hotheads fired on Sumter without even trying to deal with the issue in the Supreme Court.  After Sumter, the die was cast.

The die was cast before Sumter, when Lincoln refused to pull federal troops from SC soil.  It was cast again when he set in motion attempts to reprovision and reinforce those troops.  See my thug loading a shotgun on your porch example above.

Why should they have gone through the Court?  Did they have to go through SCOUTS to join? Has any state had to go to SCOUTS to join?   Why inject the judicial branch into what is clearly an issue for the legislative? 

Once again - show where in the law of the time there was anything that prohibited any state from voting itself out of the union.  I keep asking and no one can provide any citation that says a state, or several states, may not withdraw from the Union.

Subjoe.
Somehow you have the opionion that the South was wronged and no matter what is said, you still think the South was justified in their actions.
3 minutes before Lincoln was ellected we were one big nation that had differences but for the most part got along.  Once Lincoln and the Republican were ellected the South not liking that desided they would not play and in true Democrat fassion griped and desided to leave.  I am not sure if they had the right to leave or if they did.  After all it was the states that agreeed to the Constitution and my thinking is that the contract was not for ever. 
Now as far as your annalogy of the guy on your porch with a shotgun.  Well, if you stole a gun from me, and we both think the gun are ours and I send the police to stop you from stealing more and you shoot the police.  Are you in the right?
Again you keep claiming thatthe South was the Victom, that the evil North attacked the innocent South.
This posting was about the who we thought was the best generals on both sides.  I made the comment that if the South had attempted to invade the North, and gone on the offensive they may have won their independance.  Some how that ruffeled your feathers.  And now you are comparing the Founding of the country with the Civil war.  If you look at Washington he went on the offensive.  Taking areas from British control, denieing the king those resources.
There are a number of differences.  The fist is Under the KING were were all subjects, with the rights given to us by the KING and had no recourse, The Declaration of Independance was a peice of paper until the king saw it as a threat, once he did and wanted to crush any question to his athority.  With the Civil war the question of leaving had not been brought up before.  Some say that only Texas has the right to leave, that the original 13 colonies that radified the constution was an all or nothing agreement.  As far as Lousiana and the states that were carved out of the Lousiana purchase, that land was owned by the Federal Government.  now you can make a divorce argument about deviding up the assests at the disolution of the union.   But those are legal questions to be answered in the courts.
I am not going to get into how the North acted in invading the South, or how the South acted toward it's self.  The question was about generals and that leads to stratigy.  Not about what lead to the war who shot first or why but about the stratagy and tactics to win or loose the war.  I think Grant understood that this was a war of attrition and to end it he needed to ruin the supply lines and the centers of production. Same stratigy we used in WWII with the Germans.  Not saying it is right or wrong just effective in ending a war.  Had the South employed the same actions early in the war, and not late when looking for shoes it may have lead to the North's capitulation and the South being a seperate country that would have changed world history as we know it.

[SHOOTALL]

Who do you regard as the greatest General of the Civil War?  My vote would be for either Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest.   U.S. Grant would be the North's best, but he hardly holds a candle to either of the two I mentioned. Thoughts??

John S. Mosby would be my pick. Lee stated he wished he had a 100 like him. He took the fight to the North. He took supplies arms and ammo from the North to support his effort only taking uniforms from Richmond. He slipped over 2000 cows from Texas to richmond when the North had Richmond surrounded . Union soilders could hear the cows pass by but didn't find them. Grant set the tradition that America would follow , throw more at the enemy no matter the cost. Sherman today would be a war criminal. Lee was worn out by Gettysburg and his leadership showed it . Forrest would be my second choice with Stone wall Jackson next.
Someone mentioned Chamberlin No matter what side you are from he was one of the greatest leaders of men in battle America ever produced. I will cut the politics of the North as long as I live . There were good men on both sides.

[SouthernByGrace]

You sound like a lawyer, Joe.  Too bad the hotheads fired on Sumter without even trying to deal with the issue in the Supreme Court.  After Sumter, the die was cast.

Brewster, they had no need to take Anything to the U.S. Supreme Court. They had LEGALLY seceded from the U.S. In other words, they were no longer a part of the U.S. The Supreme Court was not an option.

SBG
DEO VINDICE

[subdjoe]

  The question was about generals and that leads to stratigy.  Not about what lead to the war who shot first or why but about the stratagy and tactics to win or loose the war.

And then the question was asked why the southern generals fought, when looking at the logistics it was easy to see that the N could stomp the S in jig time.

[SHOOTALL]

  The question was about generals and that leads to stratigy.  Not about what lead to the war who shot first or why but about the stratagy and tactics to win or loose the war.

And then the question was asked why the southern generals fought, when looking at the logistics it was easy to see that the N could stomp the S in jig time.

There was much opposition to the war from the North . It took half a war to find a good Northern General .

[jackruff]

Someone mentioned Patrick Cleburne, and he might be a good choice.  Someone else suggested Hood.  I don't think I'd include him, based on the decisions he made in his ill-advised campaign to re-take Nashville, which by 1864 was said to be the most heavily fortified city in North America.  Study the Battle of Franklin.

[subdjoe]

  The question was about generals and that leads to stratigy.  Not about what lead to the war who shot first or why but about the stratagy and tactics to win or loose the war.

And then the question was asked why the southern generals fought, when looking at the logistics it was easy to see that the N could stomp the S in jig time.

There was much opposition to the war from the North . It took half a war to find a good Northern General .

Which doesn't take away from the fact that looking only at things like manpower, transportation, production capability, food supplies, and other logistics, it should have been a walkover for the federals.

[us920669]

The ball could have taken a lot of hops.  If the first monitor had broken down, causing the north to abandon the idea; if Lee had disengaged from Gettysburg and exploited the New York draft riots; if the column headed for California had been adequately supported; or if they had just sold the cotton right off the bat and used the gold to buy European support.  If if if.  Of course, if the south had won independence, what would she have done with it?  Take plantation agriculture into the 20th Century?  What a disaster that would have been.

[williamlayton]

Hood would not be a good choice---and I am a Texas boy. He had a lot of flaws as a leader.
Stonewall and Lee were absolute genius as a team and defense. We are want to know how they would have done on offense.
Some may point to Gettysburg as a sign of Lee being less competent on offense. I disagree on a number of levels. It had been a long war. The North had finally shed itownself of incompetents. Lee was a whipped man--tired and desperate. I don't think these are fair comparisons.
Would an earlier attack have produced a win for the South.
This is Monday morning quartebacking--but that is OK.
The South would have won early and maybe taken DC. I say maybe with a somewhat studied approach. DC was a defended as Richmond. Would not it have taken a 4 to 1 ratio to attack? Those were the figures taught at the Military Acadamies of the day.
The South, I don't think, could have sustained the punishment and had the resources to force a capitulation.
One forgets that the South was not the only one with pride and desire.
Blessings 

[Hooker]

The ball could have taken a lot of hops.  If the first monitor had broken down, causing the north to abandon the idea; if Lee had disengaged from Gettysburg and exploited the New York draft riots; if the column headed for California had been adequately supported; or if they had just sold the cotton right off the bat and used the gold to buy European support.  If if if.  Of course, if the south had won independence, what would she have done with it?  Take plantation agriculture into the 20th Century?  What a disaster that would have been.

Are you suggesting that with out the intellect of the North the South would have never made it? The same North that had been hood winked into fighting a war to hold to together the Union. A war that laid the foundation for the destruction of the union as a whole and killed the true American spirit. Are you saying that without the great mental capacity of thieving yankee carpet baggers and an oppressive government, that the South would have only amounted to a bunch of dirt scratching hicks?
You sound like a yankee and a liberal. The first is forgivable because you were born and raised to it and you can always switch over to the right side. The second is of your own choosing to be not only ignorant but a carrier of the disease.


Pat 

[williamlayton]

If he is not saying it---I might.
The South was just a guilty being drawn into a war that did not benefit any but the rich.
Blessings

[Hooker]

If you will study the political history leading up to the war you will find that the South was being purposely targeted by the government and unfairly taxed in direct violation of the Constitution.
When you find yourself under a tyrannical government the true American thing to do is to cast off that government and separate your union with it and it's allies.
The South was not drawn into the war. The war was brought to their door step by occupying foreign troops whom had been asked to leave and granted safe passage to do so but refused to leave. By blockades of southern harbors by an invading aggressive foreign navy.
In no way did the South want a war. As a fledgling country the last thing they needed was a war. What stretch of the imagination would make anyone think that the South rich or poor had anything to gain from going to war. I swear y'all act like the South was made up of children and uneducated toothless inbreds. Far from it they were people who understood that even though all things were stacked against them and that they stood very little chance of winning that fighting for their liberty was worth any cost.

Now getting to the subject of Greatest Generals.
 I have to go with Longstreet although his endeavors after the war cast a jaundice eye on him with many southerners his contribution during the war put him high in the running. As a tactician I think that was not utilized enough. Had Lee listened more to the man he called his Old Warhorse I think  we may have seen a slightly different outcome to many battles if not the war. Longstreet often voiced his opposition to tactics and maneuvers  that in the end proved him right, but like any good soldier took his command  and carried out his orders. He caused a bit of a stir with what was said to have been quite a vocal opposition to an ill fated thing that was to become known as Pickets Charge. Although under utilized for his tactical skills he was quite possibly the best Corp Commander in the entire war.
http://generallongstreet.com/

Pat

[us920669]

Mr. Hooker, I was born and raised in Virginia and have never been a liberal, although I believe the collection of nitwits and socialists who are today called liberal do not deserve the title.  It is my understanding that the old south was the center of learning and culture during the antebellum period, although these blessings were restricted to the privileged elite.  I am also aware that the north viewed the defeated south as a colony, to be exploited for resources and cheap labor.  The north's shamefully rapacious treatment of the south, including the burning of great cities, is ample proof of their intention to deliberately retard the social and economic development of the area for the sake of their own vile avarice.

I have great respect for General Longstreet, but I believe he was too cautious for the task at hand.  Lee was certainly aware that the south could not win a war of attrition, and he was fortunate to have as corps commanders a man of "Old Blue Light's" audacity and aggressiveness as well as one of Longstreet's prudence and far-sightedness.  I acknowledge that having been educated in Virginia, I may have been immersed too deeply in the hagiography of the Lee-Jackson mystic.

Regarding the economic dimension of the war, I am convinced that the leadership of a victorious CSA would have remained committed to the pursuit of vast profits derived from the cultivation by slaves of cash crops on large tracts of land.  There was much talk of the south's "institutions", and the writings of many southern gentlemen reveal an abiding disdain for industrialization.  King Cotton had already ruined the soil of the Atlantic seaboard, and the question of how long the Mississippi Valley could have endured is surely open to debate.  In time, a middle class of merchants and businessmen would have no doubt forced necessary reforms, but it is doubtful if the north would have made available the machine tools and other technologies necessary for modernization.  The war was surely a catastrophe for the nation and especially for the south, but in light of the pending bankruptcy of the entire Western world, it is time for Americans to pull together, to try to understand our history without looking for points of contention.