V-man
Posts: 151
Joined: 12/10/2001 From: Indiana Status: offline
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]Since your from Indiana Ill forgive your sins. Lee was a god on the battlefield find me one Federal general that was worth a ****....oh wait..... History books might say Grant but he had no tactical genius he simply had the balls to slaughter his men to get the job done. Federal camp aide: Sir the enemy is encamped upon that hill shall we try to turn that flank? Grant: Naw that will take too long and we have enough men. Just assault it enough and they will give. If you need me Ill be drunk in my tent. LOL dont flame me for this its just I carry a healthy does of the southern pride and the book knowledge to back it up. [/B][/QUOTE] OK - then Explain to me Pickett's Charge. Better yet, explain to me the 5th & 6th of July, 1863, when Lee, with his back to a RIVER, offerd battle against a vastly superior foe, instead of withdrawing back across that river to safety. Grant not a manuver-er? Hmmm... He seems to have turned Lee's flank, repeatedly, during teh battle for Richmond in 64. Wan't Sherman's march to the sea nothign but a series of flanking manuvers? The first books written after the war were written by Confederate officers that went intot he war convinced that God would not let them lose. They got a GRAPHIC demonstration on how wrong they were. They had to explain it. Those books did so, in such a manner that these men, many of whom *would* duel to the death over an insult (somethign we wouldn't do today), were able to save face. They found a reason - it wasn't the hopelessness of hteir cause, God didn't abandon them, it's more a matter of Satan-made-manifest in a fighting general like Grant. Key-Rist! Lee could NOT even form a working, useful staff. his was nothing mroe than a place to sen favorite sons of the South to keep them from getting killed. Lee had one enduring, vastly professional trait. He cared for the lives of his men, he cared for his men deeply and didn't mind showing that concern. Grant was a more distant commander, but he cared not one bit less. The difference is that grant was painted a butcher (just like G.S.Patton, Jr. - and just as wrong). Feel free to cite one of the books you say are available. I'll cite one here and now - "Uncertain Glory: Lee's Generalship Revisited" Sorry if I seem to be flaming you, but I'm a military history/US History student and I dislike revisionism without cause. Some revisionism is good, when new facts are uncovered. But teh facts of Lee's conduct on the battlefield show, despite the many legions that want Lee to be a great general, that he was promoted past his ability.
_____________________________
"You see, in this world there's 2 kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
|