Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[CSA Today]

That definitely complicates things to be sure, however the founding fathers didn't mention slavery as one of their grievances against the British crown. The African Slave trade was banned 1809 so it was a couple decades later. Sure we could bring up Indian crimes that were perpetrated by both the North and the South, however that is besides the issue. The United States Constitution didn't promote slavery or crimes against Indians. The Constitution allowed slavery which was one of the main reasons the southern colonies supported it. Getting to the point, the leaders of the Confederacy made it be known what their country was founded on and that shows in their Constitution. So yeah, the Confederacy was fighting for a cause that was not as sympathetic as the colonists.

It isn't beside the point if "liberty" for all is the only justification for wars of independence.

 

[shermans_march]

It isn't beside the point if "liberty" for all is the only justification for wars of independence.

People of history can be pretty hypocritical sometimes. We can't deny actions that are a step in the right direction though.

 

[BillO]

There is nothing admirable about a lack of strategic foresight. Bravery doesn't negate stupidity.

If the Confederacy was truly against impossible odds, then surely the leadership of that Confederacy must be called incompetent as well? Good leaders do not lead their people into wars they can't win.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Confederate soldiers were lions led by donkeys into an unwinnable war, or the war was winnable but Confederate armies were just outfought in the end.

For the most part the people led the leaders into the war. At least that was the case for Lee, Davis and Johnston.

 

[BillO]

People of history can be pretty hypocritical sometimes. We can't deny actions that are a step in the right direction though.

We won't really know if the step was in the right direction for oh, say another 3 or 400 years. A large majority of the folks living now think it was in the right direction but history and the Fates will have the final say.

 

[contestedground]

CSA Today apologized for posting this, but ...

Explains why there are many who believe confederate heritage is driven by hatred.

That's why I was just as shocked by the "like."

 

[atlantis]

Did Grant perform well in removing Rosecrans from command or was he just removing a rival. Also he seems to have slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner.

 

[atlantis]

Grant fared well against defense minded commanders but no so much against offensive minded opponents. So I ask you guys/gals how he would have matched up against a tiger like Stonewall Jackson or John Bell Hood.

 

[Irishtom29]

Grant fared well against defense minded commanders but no so much against offensive minded opponents. So I ask you guys/gals how he would have matched up against a tiger like Stonewall Jackson or John Bell Hood.

Jackson was a corps commander, Grant never was. I don't see the match up.

Sherman whipped Hood, Hell, all Sherman needed to whip Hood and the AoT was good subordinates and the AotT and AotC had those in plenty. Hood made Howard look good. Thomas also whipped Hood and Thomas wasn't noted for speed.

 

[Irishtom29]

Did Grant perform well in removing Rosecrans from command or was he just removing a rival. Also he seems to have slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner.

The results justify the removal of Rosecrans.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Grant fared well against defense minded commanders but no so much against offensive minded opponents. So I ask you guys/gals how he would have matched up against a tiger like Stonewall Jackson or John Bell Hood.

It can be argued that he AoP probably, suffered its worst defeats of the entire war, during the Overland Campaign. But, in a few weeks time, Grant had the AoP, knocking at the gate of Richmond and Lee 's ANV, could do nothing to stop him.

 

[Bee]

Did Grant perform well in removing Rosecrans from command or was he just removing a rival. Also he seems to have slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner.

Grant and Rosecrans have been discussed at length here:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/rosecrans-and-grant-omnibus-thread.120042/
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/rosecrans-grant-takes-vicksburg-after-corinth.86510/
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/iuka-a-tale-of-two-views.126946/

 

[NedBaldwin]

Did Grant perform well in removing Rosecrans from command or was he just removing a rival.

Grant was given the choice of keeping Rosecrans as army commander or replacing him with Thomas; Grant performed well in going with Thomas. Rosecrans was no rival.

Also he seems to have slighted Thomas because Thomas was a southerner.

When and how was it based on his southern-ness?

 

[Andersonh1]

The problem was that the American colonies were fighting for liberty,

So were most of the men in the Confederate army. Read what they wrote about why they fought. Stonewall Jackson called the war the second war for Independence.

 

[shermans_march]

So were most of the men in the Confederate army. Read what they wrote about why they fought. Stonewall Jackson called the war the second war for Independence.

They fought for independence in order to keep and spread slavery. Doesn't that sound odd?
You are right, most of the Confederate soldiers fought for home, family, and country but the Confederate leaders and the planter elite fought to keep slavery. A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.

 

[Rebforever]

They fought for independence in order to keep and spread slavery. Doesn't that sound odd?
You are right, most of the Confederate soldiers fought for home, family, and country but the Confederate leaders and the planter elite fought to keep slavery.

[ quote]A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a source for those desertions?

 

[Andersonh1]

They fought for independence in order to keep and spread slavery. Doesn't that sound odd?
You are right, most of the Confederate soldiers fought for home, family, and country but the Confederate leaders and the planter elite fought to keep slavery. A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.

We're mostly in agreement here. I think it might be fair to assert that everyone fighting for the Confederacy fought for independence, but everyone had different reasons for wanting that independence. The slave owners obviously wanted to preserve slavery, and viewed separation from the US as the best way to do that. Everyone else, the non-slave owners, had many and varied reasons for going to war, and as you say, some deserted when they felt that the slave owners were getting preferential treatment. Because that wasn't their cause, and they weren't giving their lives so the rich guys could stay out of the fight and keep their property rights. I'd have resented being put in that position too.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

[ quote]A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.

Do you have a source for those desertions?[/QUOTE]

You supplied one of the sources for those desertions yourself.

Along with the pyromaniac Sherman

 

[leftyhunter]

[ quote]A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.

Do you have a source for those desertions?[/QUOTE]
Are you serious my friend?I have a whole thread with sources that you participated in " How serious was CSA desertion"? Would you like to go over it again? I am happy to bring it back up.
Leftyhunter

 

[shermans_march]

[ quote]A lot of the soldiers were resentful and deserted throughout the conflict because they didn't want to be fighting a rich man's war.

Do you have a source for those desertions?[/QUOTE]

This covers both the Union and Confederate perspective. It doesn't say what I said verbatim, but it can be deduced from the passage.
https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/civil_war_series/3/sec2.htm

 

[shermans_march]

We're mostly in agreement here. I think it might be fair to assert that everyone fighting for the Confederacy fought for independence, but everyone had different reasons for wanting that independence. The slave owners obviously wanted to preserve slavery, and viewed separation from the US as the best way to do that. Everyone else, the non-slave owners, had many and varied reasons for going to war, and as you say, some deserted when they felt that the slave owners were getting preferential treatment. Because that wasn't their cause, and they weren't giving their lives so the rich guys could stay out of the fight and keep their property rights. I'd have resented being put in that position too.

Agreed. Most of the soldiers fought because they felt it was their duty to do so. Glad to hear we have some common ground.