Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : FLAME THREAD - Post all obnoxious/derogatory comments here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Druss who wrote (3892)	3/22/1998 9:42:00 PM
From: BamaReb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12754

Way Off Topic <<Johnston and Pemberton had more men on the field than Grant.>> This is not accurate. Grant had an army of approx. 45,000 men (between his corps, McPherson's and McClernand's) while Pemberton's total force was less than 32,000. Johnston's force was a mere 6,000 and did not even see action at Vicksburg. They were to the East around Jackson, Miss. << He got his troops between the two rebel armies and preceded to whip on both of them.>> Not true. Pemberton set up defenses in Vicksburg. They backed themselves into a corner and yes eventually surrendered. 31,000 confederates were taken prisoner out of an original 32,000. 1,000 dead is hardly a whupping. Most of those were probably from disease. The Federals lost 5 times that many men. The rebels surrendered because they were starved, not because they were being routed by Yankees. And Johnstons troops never saw action at Vicksburg and got whupped by no one. He went on to face Sherman during his march through Atlanta. They actually became close friends after the war and Johnston was a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral. <<His tactics are considered brilliant, as is his strategy of abandoning his supplylines to live off the country.>> Brilliant? Ive never seen that opinion written anywhere! His strategy for leaving behind slow and cumbersome supply lines did work in this instance. Everyone gets lucky. As a strategy, that was wreckless and very dangerous. Had it not worked for him he would have gone down as one of the worst Generals in history. You might note that the ONLY time Grant faced Lee in action was at Richmond in June 1864 and Grant withdrew to Petersburg. << not to mention Burnsides performance later at the Crater. Butlers performance was hideous and also could have been decisive.>> You prove my point exactly. Both of these Union Generals were complete jokes. The North was loaded with shit leaders. The South had none this bad. <<I would take Forrest, Longstreet, Hancock, and Thomas over Lee. >> Oh my God, where do I start? Forrest was great calvary. He, however was a quarterback not a coach. He carried out orders wonderfully but was no strategist like Lee. Longstreet was far from a "great" general. He was very much like the North's McClellan in that he was slow at engaging and lacked the balls of an effective field commander. In the very erroneous movie Gettysburg, Longstreet is portrayed as a concerned commander who dug in on the field reluctantly, prefering to continue east to Washington. This is not an accurate depiction of what really happened. Longstreet lost valueable time on day 1 of G-burg by not carrying out orders made by Lee in the morning to dig in until late in the afternoon. This was partly the reason that the Union was not routed before reenforcments arrived on day 2. Longstreet was no slouch, but he couldn't shine Lee's shoes, IMO. Hancock was a good General, but again was a quarterback, not a coach. The thing that sets Lee apart from all others was his ability to plan and his ability to motivate troops. He was not a field General. But then neither was Grant. Lee had little in the way of numbers and developed what he had into a machine that made Union troops believing was as big if not bigger. By ALL accounts of Lees time in the war, the ONLY maneuver he has been critcized by historians for as being less than wise was Gettysburg, and this was arguably a case of hindsight. IF he chose different ground for the last large engagment, would it may have made a difference? Possibly. I don't believe that the South would have won the war, but they may have scared Washington and the Northern voters enough to demand an end to the war and a subsequent truce.