The Insane "Social Justice" Thread pt IV

[two70]

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.

No, it is simply honest, which is hard for a lot of people to be concerning Lee, as a person and as a general. Whether Lee was stuck fighting the previous war, guilty of fighting the war as he wanted it to be instead of as it was, or just arrogant, he still fought it stupidly.

His successes were almost entirely defensive and his army was outnumbered and under supplied yet he insisted on haring off on doomed offensives. Stupid.

Instead of preserving his army and shepherding his strength he repeatedly squandered it on frontal assaults on objectives that were either pointless or not nearly worth the cost. Stupid.

He focused almost entirely on the eastern theatre and his offensive delusions to the detriment of critical western positions. Stupid.

He pursued a strategy of actively defeating the North, when his most viable option for victory was a defensive plan that required the North to spend more lives and resources than they could stomach to conquer the South. Stupid.

Lee was guilty of overestimating his own strength and underestimating the strength of the North.

 

[buckwacker]

No, it is simply honest, which is hard for a lot of people to be concerning Lee, as a person and as a general. Whether Lee was stuck fighting the previous war, guilty of fighting the war as he wanted it to be instead of as it was, or just arrogant, he still fought it stupidly.

His successes were almost entirely defensive and his army was outnumbered and under supplied yet he insisted on haring off on doomed offensives. Stupid.

Instead of preserving his army and shepherding his strength he repeatedly squandered it on frontal assaults on objectives that were either pointless or not nearly worth the cost. Stupid.

He focused almost entirely on the eastern theatre and his offensive delusions to the detriment of critical western positions. Stupid.

He pursued a strategy of actively defeating the North, when his most viable option for victory was a defensive plan that required the North to spend more lives and resources than they could stomach to conquer the South. Stupid.

Lee was guilty of overestimating his own strength and underestimating the strength of the North.

Did you learn this through your long career commanding armies in battles too countless to remember?

It's really about how you present your opinion. Your word choices drip of disdain and arrogance. You can disagree that Lee was a great general, but you'd be in a minority of those who know much about the history. If he'd won, would your opinion be different?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

It's about time to tell people offended by the flag, or red/white/blue, to leave.

 

[buckwacker]

It's about time to tell people offended by the flag, or red/white/blue, to leave.

Double, no triple, like.

 

[two70]

Did you learn this through your long career commanding armies in battles too countless to remember?

It's really about how you present your opinion. Your word choices drip of disdain and arrogance. You can disagree that Lee was a great general, but you'd be in a minority of those who know much about the history. If he'd won, would your opinion be different?

Lol, no I learned this through thinking and not just blindly repeating the take of historians, virtually none of whom commanded armies either. Reality is reality, regardless of perception.

No disdain or arrogance, just honesty. I do think it is rather interesting that you chose to attack me rather than my position though.

Look, I get it, Lee is a much beloved figure by many, rightly so in many cases, but his conducting much of the Civil War, especially in the later years, shouldn't get a blind pass due to that adoration. He was brilliant in the Mexican campaign, far less so in the Civil War. He had a lot of virtues (apparently chief among them the ability to inspire great loyalty in his followers) and some faults just like most people. Either way, he certainly isn't above criticism.

As for the touted historians, much of the work on Lee has been heavily influenced by the active efforts of those that idolized him to both elevate him and to discredit his detractors. The frequent ineptitude of most his opponents certainly didn't hurt his mythos any either.

Of course my opinion would likely be different if he'd won. Had he won against those odds, he would likely have earned all of the praise he ended up receiving anyway. He still wouldn't have been beyond criticism though. Mistakes are still mistakes, though they are far easier to overlook when one wins.

 

[buckwacker]

Lol, no I learned this through thinking and not just blindly repeating the take of historians, virtually none of whom commanded armies either. Reality is reality, regardless of perception.

No disdain or arrogance, just honesty. I do think it is rather interesting that you chose to attack me rather than my position though.

Look, I get it, Lee is a much beloved figure by many, rightly so in many cases, but his conducting much of the Civil War, especially in the later years, shouldn't get a blind pass due to that adoration. He was brilliant in the Mexican campaign, far less so in the Civil War. He had a lot of virtues (apparently chief among them the ability to inspire great loyalty in his followers) and some faults just like most people. Either way, he certainly isn't above criticism.

As for the touted historians, much of the work on Lee has been heavily influenced by the active efforts of those that idolized him to both elevate him and to discredit his detractors. The frequent ineptitude of most his opponents certainly didn't hurt his mythos any either.

Of course my opinion would likely be different if he'd won. Had he won against those odds, he would likely have earned all of the praise he ended up receiving anyway. He still wouldn't have been beyond criticism though. Mistakes are still mistakes, though they are far easier to overlook when one wins.

Here's the thing. Lee fought from the outset at a distinct disadvantage. The South had fewer men, were not as well epuipped, and lacked the industrial base of the North to correct those disparities. He fought the only fight he could since he wanted to avoid a drawn out, even bloodier guerilla type contest. As stated up thread, his strategy was to give the North enough of a fight to attract the support of Europe but ran out of options before that happened. It was his only shot and he took it.

 

[two70]

Here's the thing. Lee fought from the outset at a distinct disadvantage. The South had fewer men, were not as well epuipped, and lacked the industrial base of the North to correct those disparities. He fought the only fight he could since he wanted to avoid a drawn out, even bloodier guerilla type contest. As stated up thread, his strategy was to give the North enough of a fight to attract the support of Europe but ran out of options before that happened. It was his only shot and he took it.

Sure he fought at a disadvantage, then he disadvantaged himself further by avoiding the one option that gave himself a real chance of victory. A long, drawn out war that depleted the will of the North was his best hope and he failed to take it. His goal was to maintain and defend the confederate states, not to win the war outright or to lose with style. That the south had fewer men and were poorer equipped is argument against Lee's choice to wage an aggressive, offensive war. Squandering limited resources on foolhardy attacks was never going to be a winning strategy.

 

[Leadeye]

I've often wondered about Jeff Davis's hope of European intervention from countries that had outlawed slavery. While American cotton was an important export, I don't think it would ever have brought France or England into the war. I think they really got all that could be expected with the amount of logistical support they received from Europe.

Again looking at logistics, the civil war lasted about as long as it took the north to project military power into the critical areas of the confederacy. All this time with the blockade in place making supporting the troops increasingly difficult. No one listened to Winfield Scott, who pretty much summed up the conflict before it got started. One of the failures of leadership on both sides that cost the country's citizens dearly.

 

[buckwacker]

Sure he fought at a disadvantage, then he disadvantaged himself further by avoiding the one option that gave himself a real chance of victory. A long, drawn out war that depleted the will of the North was his best hope and he failed to take it. His goal was to maintain and defend the confederate states, not to win the war outright or to lose with style. That the south had fewer men and were poorer equipped is argument against Lee's choice to wage an aggressive, offensive war. Squandering limited resources on foolhardy attacks was never going to be a winning strategy.

The fight was always going to and did eventually move into the south. To wage the war you claim would have been effective would have subjected those in the south to constant fighting, where they lived. How long would you be willing to endure a running gun battle in your neighborhood? He devised a military strategy that had the best chance of success because he understood that even a grinding endless guerilla type fight was unwinable. With constant fighting taking place only in the south, who's will do you think would last longer?

 

[two70]

The fight was always going to and did eventually move into the south. To wage the war you claim would have been effective would have subjected those in the south to constant fighting, where they lived. How long would you be willing to endure a running gun battle in your neighborhood? He devised a military strategy that had the best chance of success because he understood that even a grinding endless guerilla type fight was unwinable. With constant fighting taking place only in the south, who's will do you think would last longer?

If the goal was to win, then fighting in a manner that protected the south's weaknesses and reduced the north's advantages was what was necessary. If the goal wasn't to win, then why even fight? Lee didn't devise the only strategy that he thought would win, he rejected a strategy that could have potentially given him the opportunity to win and then proceeded to fight the only way he knew how despite being in a poor position to fight that way. Attacking a numerically superior, better supplied opponent in strong defensive ground of their choosing was not a viable strategy, it was desperation and it was madness.

I think the south would have held up to the constant fighting in their own territory far better than the north would have endured the massive casualties they would have endured, especially since the north waivered as it was. History, even American history, has numerous examples of weaker groups, fighting solely on their own ground, eventually outlasting a superior opponent. Lee ignored relatively recent to him examples of the style of warfare needed to give them a chance of winning, one of which from his own father.

 

[buckwacker]

If the goal was to win, then fighting in a manner that protected the south's weaknesses and reduced the north's advantages was what was necessary. If the goal wasn't to win, then why even fight? Lee didn't devise the only strategy that he thought would win, he rejected a strategy that could have potentially given him the opportunity to win and then proceeded to fight the only way he knew how despite being in a poor position to fight that way. Attacking a numerically superior, better supplied opponent in strong defensive ground of their choosing was not a viable strategy, it was desperation and it was madness.

I think the south would have held up to the constant fighting in their own territory far better than the north would have endured the massive casualties they would have endured, especially since the north waivered as it was. History, even American history, has numerous examples of weaker groups, fighting solely on their own ground, eventually outlasting a superior opponent. Lee ignored relatively recent to him examples of the style of warfare needed to give them a chance of winning, one of which from his own father.

You may be right, but we only have one outcome from which to make judgements. Lee chose a strategy that was unsuccessful. We don't know if another strategy would have been any more successful. We can pontificate about it but we can't know. Claiming that we do as evidence that Lee wasn't a exemplary military strategist is a bit disingenuous Probably should start a thread on this if it goes on as the subject's not particularly germane to this one.

 

[spencer rifle]

As is our usual way, most of us are thinking of land-based war only. By the time of New Orleans, Shiloh and Malvern Hill (one a Union Navy victory and the other two partially so) - the spring of 1862 - any chance of British or French interference was gone. After that it was all a big mopping-up action.

"Although he (French Foreign Minister Thouvenal) did not directly say so, it left me fairly to infer that if New Orleans had not been taken and we suffered no serious reverses in Virginia and Tennessee , our recognition would very soon have been declared." - Confederate Commissioner John Slidell quoted in The Night the War Was Lost, p. 331.

"There is good evidence that the failure of Napoleon III to recognize the Confederacy and take some positive step towards bringing the war to a close even without English cooperation was due to Farragut’s capture of New Orleans . If Farragut had failed, it is not unlikely that, a few months later after McClellan’s army suffered such a crushing defeat in Virginia, England, too, would have taken steps towards bringing about peace with the establishment of the Confederate States of America as an independent nation." - Farragut biographer Charles Lee Lewis

Lee learned to avoid fighting where there was a chance of the Navy being present. “The great obstacle to operations here is the presence of the enemy’s gunboats which protect our approaches to him and should we even force him from his positions on his land front, would prevent us from reaping any fruits of victory and expose our men to great destruction.” - Lee quoted in Combined Operations in the Civil War, R. Reed (United States Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1978), p. 181.

No matter how things progressed on land, the South was being slowly starved of supplies and trade, and had no navy capable of contending with the Union Navy, either on the rivers or seacoast.

 

[jwamplerusa]

It's about time to tell people offended by the flag, or red/white/blue, to leave.

Start carrying around one of these, Form DS-4080, just hand them to the offender and say "here, this will help you fix your problem".

I took a couple with me to the 2019 NRAAM, for the walk in, but didn't get to use them.

 

[actaeon277]

How about starting a Civil War strategy discussion in it's own thread?

 

[foszoe]

I for one have been very surprised there hasn't been a single BigRed post!

 

[Magyars]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Funny but not funny. Wtaf?

 

[Drewski]

Funny but not funny. Wtaf?

 

[actaeon277]

Waiting for more women to scream about this.
But it seems, they don't want people to think they are mean.