- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Location
- Now Florida but always a Kentuckian
I voted for Lee. He has always been my favorite and always thought he was the best. He sure was loved by his men. That speaks volumes.
Jubal Early, Wade Hampton, and John Gordon spring immediately to mind.
Well I've got to take that back... looks like some compassionate good soul out there has cast a vote for Ole Jube... not sure that I understand why...? I think he's probably the last one of that bunch that I'd vote for (since Bragg's not on the board), but hey, more power to him...!Poor Old Jubilee and Old Snapping Turtle sitting there with zero votes... ah well, it's a tough crowd, and even tougher competition.
Where is Fighting Joe Hooker? He has the best name.
Meade is like Rodney Dangerfield. He gets no respect. It always makes me laugh when people talk about the reasons why Lee lost at Gettysburg. Like Meade was just sitting twiddling his thumbs or wringing his hands because Bobby Lee was on the other side of the field. The man deserves more credit, and besides he wrote great letters to his wife!Poor Old Jubilee and Old Snapping Turtle sitting there with zero votes... ah well, it's a tough crowd, and even tougher competition.
Beyond the obvious, that Grant won, Grant also developed his subordinates. He grew the men who would play key roles in defeating the confederacy. Which of Lee's subordinates was able to excel in larger roles?
I voted for Lee, because he was really never defeated tactically in the field. We know about G'burg and his escape. Grant did a great job, but based upon the math. That's what got him to Appomattox Courthouse. He didn't once outsmart the Army of Northern Virginia, it was just the numbers.
I've asked before and have got no answer to the question. What other general at any time in any war in American history has suffered the losses Grant did, "winning," relative to his adversary? Ain't none.
Not Washington, Pershing, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Westmoreland, Schwarzkopf, you name it. Grant won, at a cost no other leader in American history in his position has ever paid, relative to his adversary, Robert Lee.
If you want to criticize Grant for suffering heavy casualties, should you not also apply the same standard to Robert E. Lee?
I would like to know what other general in American history suffered casualties relative to his adversary as did Grant against Lee. I don't want to hear about "percentages," but numbers lost.
That's great if one is talking about Vietnam, but in the Civil War success was a different matrix.So you think that nothing matters but "body counts?"
Against Grant, Lee lost his entire army including all the reinforcements that had been sucked in (Beuaregard's command; Breckenridge's command; etc).I would like to know what other general in American history suffered casualties relative to his adversary as did Grant against Lee. I don't want to hear about "percentages," but numbers lost.
I would like to know what other general in American history suffered casualties relative to his adversary as did Grant against Lee. I don't want to hear about "percentages," but numbers lost.
Yes, it sure worked out for Early and Hood's Independent commands, huh?Stonewall Jackson
John B. Gordon
William Mahone
Jubal Early
Wade Hampton
Robert Rodes
John Bell Hood
etc., etc.
...
Yes, it sure worked out for Early and Hood's Independent commands, huh?
Jubal Early, Wade Hampton, and John Gordon spring immediately to mind.