The Insane "Social Justice" Thread pt IV

[grillak]

https://terryspcfreetopics.quora.co...28&share=211f0281&srid=iReG3&target_type=post


this is why it is soooo wrong for ignorant/unlearned people to set policy.

i'm a person that loves history lessons. i always knew that the civil war was not the cut and dried "let's free the n*****s" that is being sold as history.

i never knew this about gen r. e. lee.

this is why we shouldn't hide american history to satisfy the confused...i mean...woke idiots.

 

[JettaKnight]

While Lee ended up on the wrong side of history, no one can say he wasn't a great and chivalrous general and honorable American.

 

[grillak]

While Lee ended up on the wrong side of history, no one can say he wasn't a great and chivalrous general and honorable American.

i'm finding out.

 

[JettaKnight]

i'm finding out.

I have much admiration for Lee, P. G. T. Beauregard, and even Jackson. Bedford Forrest? he can be leading cavalry charges in hell.



If Lee ended up fighting for the USA instead of the CSA the war would have been WAY shorter. Lincoln was continually vexxed with his incompetent generals. Lee was one of the most competent generals ever to come out of West Point.


Have you watched Ken Burn's Civil War?

 

[grillak]

I have much admiration for Lee, P. G. T. Beauregard, and even Jackson. Bedford Forrest? he can be leading cavalry charges in hell.



If Lee ended up fighting for the USA instead of the CSA the war would have been WAY shorter. Lincoln was continually vexxed with his incompetent generals. Lee was one of the most competent generals ever to come out of West Point.


Have you watched Ken Burn's Civil War?

i'm making plans to. i've glanced at it a few times, just never taken the time to get into it

 

[printcraft]

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-dis...your-house-to-teach-your-kids-about-communism

 

[oze]

i'm making plans to. i've glanced at it a few times, just never taken the time to get into it

I was taught that Lee was a genius, while Grant was just a drunken butcher. As is often the case when a lie or exaggeration is repeated enough it becomes accepted as fact; I needed to do some digging to get to the truth. Here is a short article that's a good start:

The Butcher’s Bill: Was Grant or Lee Responsible for More Deaths in the Civil War?

Ulysses S. Grant is often referred to as a ‘butcher,’ but does Robert E. Lee actually deserve that title?

www.historynet.com

Among other things, it compares the casualties incurred by Grant's armies with those of Lee's, especially with the mission each was given. Grant and the Union had to win; the Confederacy had to be conquered. All Lee had to do was play for a tie: fight defensive battles and hold out until Europe recognize the Confederacy and the aid began to flow in. But, unlike Grant, who won in all 3 theaters of the war, Lee was a single campaign general, and extremely Virginia-centric in his thinking. His foray into the North and foolish frontal assaults against the Union forces at Gettysburg (Longstreet was furious at Lee for this decision) cost his army unsustainable casualties, and effectively ended any chance of the South winning the war.

As a result of his unnecessary aggressiveness, Lee's *single army* suffered 209,000 casualties in a single campaign. This is 55,000 more than Grant's four armies in three theaters, all while fighting in a necessarily offensive mode.

I agree that Grant was the greatest general of the American Civil War, although William Tecumseh Sherman is my personal favorite.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[KLB]

I was taught that Lee was a genius, while Grant was just a drunken butcher. As is often the case when a lie or exaggeration is repeated enough it becomes accepted as fact; I needed to do some digging to get to the truth. Here is a short article that's a good start:

The Butcher’s Bill: Was Grant or Lee Responsible for More Deaths in the Civil War?

Ulysses S. Grant is often referred to as a ‘butcher,’ but does Robert E. Lee actually deserve that title?

www.historynet.com

Among other things, it compares the casualties incurred by Grant's armies with those of Lee's, especially with the mission each was given. Grant and the Union had to win; the Confederacy had to be conquered. All Lee had to do was play for a tie: fight defensive battles and hold out until Europe recognize the Confederacy and the aid began to flow in. But, unlike Grant, who won in all 3 theaters of the war, Lee was a single campaign general, and extremely Virginia-centric in his thinking. His foray into the North and foolish frontal assaults against the Union forces at Gettysburg (Longstreet was furious at Lee for this decision) cost his army unsustainable casualties, and effectively ended any chance of the South winning the war.

As a result of his unnecessary aggressiveness, Lee's *single army* suffered 209,000 casualties in a single campaign. This is 55,000 more than Grant's four armies in three theaters, all while fighting in a necessarily offensive mode.

I agree that Grant was the greatest general of the American Civil War, although William Tecumseh Sherman is my personal favorite.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

He didn't lose 209K in a single campaign. It was in a single theater. Comparing that to Grant fighting in multiple theaters is silly. The largest armies and battles were in the East.

Lee also generally fought much larger enemies.

 

[oze]

He didn't lose 209K in a single campaign. It was in a single theater. Comparing that to Grant fighting in multiple theaters is silly. The largest armies and battles were in the East.

Lee also generally fought much larger enemies.

Sorry, theater. My mistake. Still, Lee screwed the pooch when he decided to go on the offensive and invade the North. Silly? Silly is calling Grant a butcher, when Lee lost more men than Grant did. Lee was always willing to trade men for victory, even when doing so was foolish and counterproductive (see frontal assaults at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg). Lincoln kept trotting out generals who were patently unwilling to lose their men in battle. Until Grant.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[buckwacker]

Sorry, theater. My mistake. Still, Lee screwed the pooch when he decided to go on the offensive and invade the North. Silly? Silly is calling Grant a butcher, when Lee lost more men than Grant did. Lee was always willing to trade men for victory, even when doing so was foolish and counterproductive (see frontal assaults at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg). Lincoln kept trotting out generals who were patently unwilling to lose their men in battle. Until Grant.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

This is kinda the basic definition of war.

 

[KLB]

Sorry, theater. My mistake. Still, Lee screwed the pooch when he decided to go on the offensive and invade the North. Silly? Silly is calling Grant a butcher, when Lee lost more men than Grant did. Lee was always willing to trade men for victory, even when doing so was foolish and counterproductive (see frontal assaults at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg). Lincoln kept trotting out generals who were patently unwilling to lose their men in battle. Until Grant.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Lee commanded more men and fought more enemies, so he would suffer more casualties.

In the campaign they fought against each other, Grant had more men and lost more men. The thing that made Grant different was his acceptance that he could afford the losses more than Lee could. He therefor attacked and pushed relentlessly. Past Union Generals in the East would take large numbers of casualties and they would withdraw. Instead Grant would attack and then shift around Lee. Relentlessly attacking fortified positions is what got Grant his nickname.

HIs day three assault at Gettysburg was probably his worst decision of the war. If the Confederates has pushed on day 1, they might have been able to win the battle. By day 3, the North was too dug in. He should have withdrawn. One of the great whatif's of the war is what if Jackson had still been alive at Gettysburg. He was a more aggressive commander than any of the three Corp Commanders that were there.

 

[oze]

This is kinda the basic definition of war.

Exactly. Unlike virtually every Union general before him, Grant understood this:
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on". For this, he was branded a butcher, while Lee was lionized as a genius.

 

[DadSmith]

 

[grillak]

this is why we need to accept and teach the history of this country. it is very deep and nuanced.

to water it down to "white man bad, black man victim" is a slap in the face to all the people who lived & died to make this country what it is today.

even with the disagreements between ingo members, i am learning y more about the civil war than i could have imagined.

thank you for the history lessons. keep them coming!

 

[Magyars]

 

[two70]

He didn't lose 209K in a single campaign. It was in a single theater. Comparing that to Grant fighting in multiple theaters is silly. The largest armies and battles were in the East.

Lee also generally fought much larger enemies.

Sure, and he did so stupidly.

 

[rob63]

Lee was a great general, there are numerous examples of it. However, he never won a single battle that wasn't fought in the state of Virginia.

That isn't a slap in the face. It is recognition that so long as he was playing on home turf he was able to overcome the odds that were stacked against him.

Grant on the other hand, won everywhere he went, but usually had the odds in his favor. The different situations they faced make comparisons difficult.

Grant's Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece, as is Lee's Chancellorsville battle. They are both examples of a commander being able to divine the weaknesses of his opponent and divise a strategy to exploit them.

The tremendous casualties of the final campaign of the war are the simple result of two equals being up against each other, neither of them made fatal errors that could be exploited by the other.

 

[KLB]

Sure, and he did so stupidly.

That is patently false. If he had done so "stupidly", he would have been crushed very early on. The war lasted as long as it did in no small part because of Lee.

I'm really not sure why people seem to take this whole Lee/Grant debate personally. Both were great Generals in their own way. Knowing your strengths and using them to your advantage, while knowing your enemies weaknesses and using those to your advantage are what make a great General.

 

[KLB]

Exactly. Unlike virtually every Union general before him, Grant understood this:
"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on". For this, he was branded a butcher, while Lee was lionized as a genius.

People should realize this was done by those in the North at the time, not by historians later. They had problems with the media then too.

It isn't like it did any damage to his reputation. He was elected President not too long after.

 

[Leadeye]

It's really difficult to examine decisions, and evaluate people in history through the modern lens. To understand them you have to realize that they were people of their times, not 2021.

Relative to the civil war, this was a war of logistics. The longer it went on the lower the Confederacy's chance of victory, and this shaped some of the decisions.

It really was the worst failure of leadership on both sides of the debate in our history. Everybody who died was an American.