Lee did not lose to Grant, you are the retard. First of all, Grant came in at the end. Second, Grant had much more at his disposal. The South ended up getting strangled by the North, however, individually Grant won nothing in competition with Lee.
This is not talking about winning a “war” it is talking about two individuals. Clearly you are not law bound, come to think of it, all studies reject students with a proclivity to assume facts. Are you a women’s studies major?
Here’s the situation for anyone too ignorant to read a history book. Yes Grant came in late, but far from the end. Grant knew all he had to do was bleed Lee to death, something that Lee was basically incapable of stopping. It’s exactly what Grant did. Grant won. It’s called being a good general. The U.S. and Russians did the same in WWII.
But to assume that it was because of Lee that the south even staved off defeat would be a completely idiotic assumption. Finally, after years of horrific casualties and pleading, Longstreet convinced Lee to take up a hardcore defensive campaign. These campaigns, very specifically at Petersburg, were the dawn of trench warfare. Something Longstreet had been advocating for years.
Lee was not the great general everyone made him out to be. His greatest victories were over incompetent men. His greatest defeats were the result of his own incompetent decisions. Gettysburg was 100% Robert E. Lee’s fault. Who attacks that high ground? The same way that you could ask who in their right mind would have attacked the high ground at Fredricksburg?
Lee was using outdated tactics. Frankly he is damn lucky he was not exposed sooner. Sorry, he was a nice guy, but a loser. Deal with it.
Palpability rested in the decisions of Grant, specifically as mentioned by you the war of attrition launched. A somewhat well-trained monkey could have accomplished that, therefore, Grant was overrated. Sure, Lee defeated some incompetent competition, he did not assign his competition though. Charging Gettysburg was a bad decision, congratulations, your hindsight is perfect. However, at the time it was the proper maneuver. General Pettigrew had informed Lee that it was a few collections of local militia, quasi-military personnel (pussies). With that information, anybody would have advanced, including Grant.
Engaging at all in Gettysburg was a bad decision. Something he was advised of at the time. And also even if you discredit Grant for wearing down the armies in the East, you can’t deny that from Day 2 of Shiloh on he basically won every engagement he commanded in the west. Far from overrated. Actually pretty excellent.
Coming in in 1864, he had the luxury of the South being well worn down. Lee was revered as a General not only because of his successes, say what you will, but because of mitigating several losses as well. Shiloh was early in the conflict, remember. Subsequent to Shiloh, a reasonable person must credit Lee with his performance as a General in Antietam. If you want to talk about the West, you will have your way, the second Battle of Murfreesboro was, prior to popular Northern belief, not a victory for the North and certainly not a loss for the South. Grant and Lee were not there, but it was in the west and it is the only other battle I can think of out there.
Antietam, although a tactical draw, was a strategic loss for Lee. It forced him to call off his first invasion of the North. It was also a mismanaged bloodbath that cost both armies thousands of unnecessary casualties. Lee had nothing to do with Shiloh as it was in the western theater, I was just using it as one of the many examples of Grant’s victories.
Grant also had a pretty humongous victory at Vicksburg prior to moving east and beating Lee’s ass. To completely discredit Grant is ludicrous. Say what you will, but one of these men was a traitor. It wasn’t the one fighting for the United States.
It was hardly a loss, more similar to a no contest. The aggressive North was so vast in comparison, that to consider marching down and bullying the South a “victory” is absurd. Jumping back to the topic, General Lee hazed the North working with a substantial disadvantage.
A no contest? Pretty sure what happened was you fucks tried to leave the Greatest Nation, and we reminded you what happens when you cross the U.S. of A.
Esponda, that is an oversimplification of the conflict. The South wanted freedom (that is what the U.S.A stands for, by the way) and to preserve the rights states are guaranteed (that is in the Bill Of Rights). The South peacefully seceded, when the Yankees refused to listen to J. Davis and evacuate Ft. Sumter, Charleston, South Carolina (our land) we helped to influence them to leave. The South’s participation in the War Of Northern Aggression more accurately represents the values of the United States of America, especially compared to North, who more closely represented the early 1940’s Germany structure.
No, JWB was the analogous Battle of Berlin. It is tough to say, they both were shot in the head, but Hitler was the one to press the trigger in his affair.
I’m from the South as well, but why bother trying to defend it by saying it lost because it had less resources/was smaller? The bigger guy wins. As patriotic citizens of America we should know this better than anyone.
American citizens should know the bigger guy wins? I disagree, here is why. American Revolution, Vietnam, Bay Of Pigs Invasion, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq. The South was not interested in fighting a war, it was forced upon them.
It was forced upon them when they fired the first shots of the war. Sumter was never Carolina territory. It was always Federal land. Even if we admit the secession was possible (it wasn’t), you fired upon a neutral nation’s sovereign territory.
Fort Sumter was built by the Federal government with stone from New England. Short of monetarily compensating the North for the fortifications, SC could not have legitimately claimed the land. Whether or not state’s rights were at issue, the Confederacy picked a fight it couldn’t win.
Fratnomics, this is a less than sufficient explanation of Fort Sumter. Sure, the South fired the first shots, however, they did not start the war. The North was informed what would happen if they sent provisions down there, as promised, there were shots fired. The first act of war, as demonstrated here, was from the greedy hand of the North, specifically Lincoln.
The south initiated hostilities when they demanded and accepted surrenders from multiple Union garrisons in Charleston harbor. The US Army was resupplying its troops against a hostile force besieging US territory. SC artillery fired the first shots at an unarmed supply ship. It’s pretty fucking black and white.
This rhetoric still does not escape the fact, in part because of its inaccuracy. Lincoln knew what sending that vessel down to Charleston would do. Is that biased? Fuck no, it is not. His Virginia Congressman told him not to fucking do it, his General, Winfield Scott persistently told him to not fucking do it. These are people of the North. Lincoln was not to listen to the advice of any of these qualified associates, and continued. Do not bring in that “unarmed supply ship” horseshit, either. It was a fleet with hundreds of men, directed none other by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, that does not exactly radiate a vibe of peace and harmony.
That navy came in after the shots were fired. It was an unarmed civilian steamship. The Confederates sank old ships in the harbor to prevent heavy warships from entering. Once again, this is after federal forts and supplies were seized without compensation. We kicked the shit out of Tripoli pirates for less. Lincoln sent a letter to Pickens specifying food-only cargo. You guys were the agressor in every way possible
Holding grudges. TSM? Get over it. The North won, South lost. But it’s not all bad, the South got to rejoin the US. I’m from the South and I honestly think this argument is retarded. There are more relevant issues… Like the issues within the last 100 years.
But at the same time, standing up for what you believe in to the point of creating your own nation. TFM. Also in the same ballpark, secession is TFTC. Also, to an extent, treason could be considered TFTC, especially against the north. Living a lifestyle that breeds and overlooks paradoxical creation of standards. TFM, and TFTC, respectively, based on perspective.
Even people up North love Robert E Lee
14 years ago at 10:39 amRobert E. Lee beating Ulysses S. Grant’s ass in the illustrious battle of Generals. TFM.
14 years ago at 10:41 amLee lost. To Grant. Remember? You guys are retarded.
14 years ago at 12:19 pmLee did not lose to Grant, you are the retard. First of all, Grant came in at the end. Second, Grant had much more at his disposal. The South ended up getting strangled by the North, however, individually Grant won nothing in competition with Lee.
14 years ago at 12:27 pmI am from the south, but Lee lost boys…
14 years ago at 1:56 pmThat’s funny because last time I checked the South lost the war.
14 years ago at 6:16 pmThis is not talking about winning a “war” it is talking about two individuals. Clearly you are not law bound, come to think of it, all studies reject students with a proclivity to assume facts. Are you a women’s studies major?
14 years ago at 7:28 pmHere’s the situation for anyone too ignorant to read a history book. Yes Grant came in late, but far from the end. Grant knew all he had to do was bleed Lee to death, something that Lee was basically incapable of stopping. It’s exactly what Grant did. Grant won. It’s called being a good general. The U.S. and Russians did the same in WWII.
But to assume that it was because of Lee that the south even staved off defeat would be a completely idiotic assumption. Finally, after years of horrific casualties and pleading, Longstreet convinced Lee to take up a hardcore defensive campaign. These campaigns, very specifically at Petersburg, were the dawn of trench warfare. Something Longstreet had been advocating for years.
Lee was not the great general everyone made him out to be. His greatest victories were over incompetent men. His greatest defeats were the result of his own incompetent decisions. Gettysburg was 100% Robert E. Lee’s fault. Who attacks that high ground? The same way that you could ask who in their right mind would have attacked the high ground at Fredricksburg?
Lee was using outdated tactics. Frankly he is damn lucky he was not exposed sooner. Sorry, he was a nice guy, but a loser. Deal with it.
14 years ago at 1:46 amPalpability rested in the decisions of Grant, specifically as mentioned by you the war of attrition launched. A somewhat well-trained monkey could have accomplished that, therefore, Grant was overrated. Sure, Lee defeated some incompetent competition, he did not assign his competition though. Charging Gettysburg was a bad decision, congratulations, your hindsight is perfect. However, at the time it was the proper maneuver. General Pettigrew had informed Lee that it was a few collections of local militia, quasi-military personnel (pussies). With that information, anybody would have advanced, including Grant.
14 years ago at 8:51 amEngaging at all in Gettysburg was a bad decision. Something he was advised of at the time. And also even if you discredit Grant for wearing down the armies in the East, you can’t deny that from Day 2 of Shiloh on he basically won every engagement he commanded in the west. Far from overrated. Actually pretty excellent.
14 years ago at 12:55 pmComing in in 1864, he had the luxury of the South being well worn down. Lee was revered as a General not only because of his successes, say what you will, but because of mitigating several losses as well. Shiloh was early in the conflict, remember. Subsequent to Shiloh, a reasonable person must credit Lee with his performance as a General in Antietam. If you want to talk about the West, you will have your way, the second Battle of Murfreesboro was, prior to popular Northern belief, not a victory for the North and certainly not a loss for the South. Grant and Lee were not there, but it was in the west and it is the only other battle I can think of out there.
14 years ago at 1:15 pmAntietam, although a tactical draw, was a strategic loss for Lee. It forced him to call off his first invasion of the North. It was also a mismanaged bloodbath that cost both armies thousands of unnecessary casualties. Lee had nothing to do with Shiloh as it was in the western theater, I was just using it as one of the many examples of Grant’s victories.
Grant also had a pretty humongous victory at Vicksburg prior to moving east and beating Lee’s ass. To completely discredit Grant is ludicrous. Say what you will, but one of these men was a traitor. It wasn’t the one fighting for the United States.
14 years ago at 6:42 pmNo wonder Grant was a raging alcoholic and never half the man Lee was.
14 years ago at 10:47 amA compliment and an insult in the same sentence? Whats the point?
14 years ago at 10:57 amBeing an alcoholic isn’t frat at all. Loosing a job because you’re an addict so frat.
14 years ago at 11:29 amGeneric asshole comment about putting loose instead of lose
14 years ago at 11:49 amGrant wasn’t an alcoholic. That is a myth started by his detractors. He drank in his early years, but quit once he was General of the Armies.
14 years ago at 10:34 pmTrying to soften a loss 150+ years later? …Certainly TFTC.
14 years ago at 10:50 amIt was hardly a loss, more similar to a no contest. The aggressive North was so vast in comparison, that to consider marching down and bullying the South a “victory” is absurd. Jumping back to the topic, General Lee hazed the North working with a substantial disadvantage.
14 years ago at 12:19 pmA no contest? Pretty sure what happened was you fucks tried to leave the Greatest Nation, and we reminded you what happens when you cross the U.S. of A.
14 years ago at 12:35 pmEsponda, that is an oversimplification of the conflict. The South wanted freedom (that is what the U.S.A stands for, by the way) and to preserve the rights states are guaranteed (that is in the Bill Of Rights). The South peacefully seceded, when the Yankees refused to listen to J. Davis and evacuate Ft. Sumter, Charleston, South Carolina (our land) we helped to influence them to leave. The South’s participation in the War Of Northern Aggression more accurately represents the values of the United States of America, especially compared to North, who more closely represented the early 1940’s Germany structure.
14 years ago at 12:54 pmYes the northern aggressors can only be compared to that of 1940’s Nazi Germany. Is the south like the jews too?
14 years ago at 1:25 pmIn many aspects including tyrannous rule, the North was similar. The South on the other hand, did not closely resemble the Jews of the Hitler Era.
14 years ago at 1:36 pmOk so if Lincoln is Hitler who is the South’s Anne Frank?
14 years ago at 3:14 pmRefer to previous comment above. Also, there should be a comma after “Ok” and “Hitler”.
14 years ago at 3:23 pmWould it be John Wilkes Booth?
14 years ago at 3:42 pmNo, JWB was the analogous Battle of Berlin. It is tough to say, they both were shot in the head, but Hitler was the one to press the trigger in his affair.
14 years ago at 4:15 pmI’m from the South as well, but why bother trying to defend it by saying it lost because it had less resources/was smaller? The bigger guy wins. As patriotic citizens of America we should know this better than anyone.
14 years ago at 4:37 pmAmerican citizens should know the bigger guy wins? I disagree, here is why. American Revolution, Vietnam, Bay Of Pigs Invasion, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq. The South was not interested in fighting a war, it was forced upon them.
14 years ago at 4:41 pmIt was forced upon them when they fired the first shots of the war. Sumter was never Carolina territory. It was always Federal land. Even if we admit the secession was possible (it wasn’t), you fired upon a neutral nation’s sovereign territory.
Fort Sumter was built by the Federal government with stone from New England. Short of monetarily compensating the North for the fortifications, SC could not have legitimately claimed the land. Whether or not state’s rights were at issue, the Confederacy picked a fight it couldn’t win.
14 years ago at 5:42 pmArguing over the internet about history. FaF
14 years ago at 6:17 pmIt’s only an argument if you lose
14 years ago at 6:46 pmFratnomics, this is a less than sufficient explanation of Fort Sumter. Sure, the South fired the first shots, however, they did not start the war. The North was informed what would happen if they sent provisions down there, as promised, there were shots fired. The first act of war, as demonstrated here, was from the greedy hand of the North, specifically Lincoln.
14 years ago at 8:55 amThe south initiated hostilities when they demanded and accepted surrenders from multiple Union garrisons in Charleston harbor. The US Army was resupplying its troops against a hostile force besieging US territory. SC artillery fired the first shots at an unarmed supply ship. It’s pretty fucking black and white.
14 years ago at 11:58 amThis rhetoric still does not escape the fact, in part because of its inaccuracy. Lincoln knew what sending that vessel down to Charleston would do. Is that biased? Fuck no, it is not. His Virginia Congressman told him not to fucking do it, his General, Winfield Scott persistently told him to not fucking do it. These are people of the North. Lincoln was not to listen to the advice of any of these qualified associates, and continued. Do not bring in that “unarmed supply ship” horseshit, either. It was a fleet with hundreds of men, directed none other by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, that does not exactly radiate a vibe of peace and harmony.
14 years ago at 1:23 pmThat navy came in after the shots were fired. It was an unarmed civilian steamship. The Confederates sank old ships in the harbor to prevent heavy warships from entering. Once again, this is after federal forts and supplies were seized without compensation. We kicked the shit out of Tripoli pirates for less. Lincoln sent a letter to Pickens specifying food-only cargo. You guys were the agressor in every way possible
14 years ago at 2:11 pmHolding grudges. TSM? Get over it. The North won, South lost. But it’s not all bad, the South got to rejoin the US. I’m from the South and I honestly think this argument is retarded. There are more relevant issues… Like the issues within the last 100 years.
14 years ago at 4:55 pmLincoln appointing incompetent fools before settling on a raging alcoholic. TFTC
14 years ago at 11:56 amLincoln was a fucking geed.
14 years ago at 12:02 pmLincoln complete the second degree of Freemasonry, but dropped before completing the 3rd. So yes, he was a fucking GDI.
14 years ago at 12:12 pmInsulting a president of the greatest country in the world is a TFM. You guys are right. So frat
14 years ago at 2:30 pmThe president from 1861 to around 1865 was Jefferson Davis.
14 years ago at 2:37 pm^ See what you did there.
14 years ago at 8:48 pm^^TButthurtMove
14 years ago at 11:16 amcompleted*
14 years ago at 12:13 pmlap
14 years ago at 12:49 pmthanks for noticing, darlin’
14 years ago at 12:51 pmThe South. TFM.
14 years ago at 1:47 pmJust shows Robert E. Lee was more superior.
14 years ago at 2:19 pmGreat grammar there son. If you were a pledge I would haze the shit out of you for sounding like a dumbass
14 years ago at 2:53 pmYou missed some punctuation, 1734. Go haze yourself.
14 years ago at 3:00 pmTreason. FaF
14 years ago at 5:11 pmBut at the same time, standing up for what you believe in to the point of creating your own nation. TFM. Also in the same ballpark, secession is TFTC. Also, to an extent, treason could be considered TFTC, especially against the north. Living a lifestyle that breeds and overlooks paradoxical creation of standards. TFM, and TFTC, respectively, based on perspective.
14 years ago at 11:25 pmSherman hazing the South. TFM
14 years ago at 5:35 pm