This is a funny damn tweet…

[SirBarksalot]

it's pretty obvious some are holding on to it.

these OM students certainly were…

 

[L4Dawg]

I also could be completely wrong, but didn’t Longstreet famously refuse to give the order to charge at first and even cried over the decision knowing it would be a massacre?

You are correct. He knew Lee was absolutely wrong on this occasion. Longstreet wanted to flank the Union line to the south, get between Meade and Washington, take up a strong defensive position, and force Meade to attack it. The defense had a marked advantage tactically in the Civil War due to the state of the technology. Longstreet was correct. Had Lee done what he advised Gettysburg might have been a Confederate victory. Gettysburg is absolute proof that Lee was NOT a great general. That being said, even if the Confederate's had won at Gettysburg their fate had already been sealed in the West by Grant. That war was won and lost between the Mississippi and the Appalachians.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

 

[SirBarksalot]

Gettysburg is absolute proof that Lee was NOT a great general. That being said, even if the Confederate's had won at Gettysburg their fate had already been sealed in the West by Grant. That war was won and lost between the Mississippi and the Appalachians.

i wouldn’t go that far. Yeah GB was a mistake. Grant made mistakes. Lee was at such a huge disadvantage to begin with…industrial power, man power. No way they would win, with out European support, or the Northern population losing the stomach to fight.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

You are correct. He knew Lee was absolutely wrong on this occasion. Longstreet wanted to flank the Union line to the south, get between Meade and Washington, take up a strong defensive position, and force Meade to attack it. The defense had a marked advantage tactically in the Civil War due to the state of the technology. Longstreet was correct. Had Lee done what he advised Gettysburg might have been a Confederate victory. Gettysburg is absolute proof that Lee was NOT a great general. That being said, even if the Confederate's had won at Gettysburg their fate had already been sealed in the West by Grant. That war was won and lost between the Mississippi and the Appalachians.

Basically a repeat of Fredericksburg minus the river crossing? It has always been obvious the loss at Vicksburg in terms of rail capacity and sheer land mass is what crippled the CSA. I would argue Gettysburg was a loss of arrogance while Vicksburg was a loss of capacity.

 

[STATEgrad04]

Yeah. I think digging up the racial history of our state is not really a good thing to do. Cause it doesn't make any white Mississippians look good. At all. I would hope we've all moved past that era, but it's pretty obvious some are holding on to it.

Its not digging up racial history when they continue to use the racial terms ole miss and rebels.

 

[BingleCocktail]

It wasn't a fail at all. Spot on.m

It wasn't a fail at all. Spot on.

lame

 

[L4Dawg]

i wouldn’t go that far. Yeah GB was a mistake. Grant made mistakes. Lee was at such a huge disadvantage to begin with…industrial power, man power. No way they would win, with out European support, or the Northern population losing the stomach to fight.

Both of them made mistakes. Grant could afford to, Lee could not. Grant understood that. Grant was a great general in the same sense that the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire was an unstoppable military force. Grant and those Romans knew what their real advantage was, and they used it to win wars. That is the mark of great generalship. The purpose of generals in war is to WIN wars. Back to my point about Lee: he could have won at Gettysburg by flanking, which he could have done easily, and taking up a position between Meade and Washington and thereby forcing Meade to attack him at a tactical disadvantage. This was the ONE time in the whole war in the eastern theater that Lee could have forced that. Instead he chose to squander manpower he could not afford to lose in brutal frontal assaults. Even if they had been successful, he would have just forced Meade back on Washington, and on his supply base. Meade would have still been between Lee and HIS supply base, and secure in his own. What Lee did at Gettysburg was Just plain STUPID. How he is so revered in the South after that debacle is and will remain a mystery to me.

 

[L4Dawg]

Both of them made mistakes. Grant could afford to, Lee could not. Grant understood that. Grant was a great general in the same sense that the late Roman Republic/early Roman Empire was an unstoppable military force. Grant and those Romans knew what their real advantage was, and they used it to win wars. That is the mark of great generalship. The purpose of generals in war is to WIN wars. Back to my point about Lee: he could have won at Gettysburg by flanking, which he could have done easily, and taking up a position between Meade and Washington and thereby forcing Meade to attack him at a tactical disadvantage. This was the ONE time in the whole war in the eastern theater that Lee could have forced that. Instead he chose to squander manpower he could not afford to lose in brutal frontal assaults. Even if they had been successful, he would have just forced Meade back on Washington, and on his supply base. Meade would have still been between Lee and HIS supply base, and secure in his own. What Lee did at Gettysburg was Just plain STUPID. How he is so revered in the South after that debacle is and will remain a mystery to me.

And if you walk the ground at Gettysburg, what Lee did there is even more mind boggling. If you stand in the Confederate line on the 3rd day and look at the Union line, the only question in you mind has to be WHY? If anything what Lee ordered on the 2nd day was even worse. Lee had been great up till Gettysburg. To me the Jackson-Lee partnership made Lee. Jackson had his faults as well, but together they were pretty good.

 

[L4Dawg]

Basically a repeat of Fredericksburg minus the river crossing? It has always been obvious the loss at Vicksburg in terms of rail capacity and sheer land mass is what crippled the CSA. I would argue Gettysburg was a loss of arrogance while Vicksburg was a loss of capacity.

Correct. The Civil War was won and lost between the Mississippi and the Appalachians. The South committed enough resources to keep the Union in check East of the mountains, but did not have enough to do it on both sides. Tactically and strategically a little went a long way in the congested areas with good natural defensive barriers in Northern Virginia. The land favored the defense there. The lay of the land and the sheer scale of the theater favored the opposite in the West. The South irreversibly lost the Civil War at Forts Henry and Donelson. The results there led inexorably to the defeat of the South.

 

[L4Dawg]

One more on Lee.....if anything Antietam sums up Lee. He was daring, and he had probabaly the best troops on the planet at the time in his Army. His subordinate commanders were almost universally superb. Tactically at times he could be brilliant, but sometimes not so much. The not so much times, to me, basically boiled down to arrogance. Giving battle to the force he did WHERE he did at Antietam should have resulted in the total destruction of his army. He was bailed out by the incompetence of the opposing commanders and the excellence of his troops and subordinates. Both of those were a recurring theme in the East till about Gettysburg. By then most of the fools had been purged from Union Command in the East. Meade was no military genius, but he was competent. He had at least a few competent to superb subordinates by then too. When Grant came East, Lee was outclassed. THE campaign that is still studied as a great example of the military arts in the Civil War is Grant's Vicksburg Campaign.

 

[L4Dawg]

One last one on the Civil War: it is one of the few wars where the losers controlled much of the historical narrative about the war. Even now you find writers who approach it from the Southern perspective. The "Lost Cause" myth is still alive and well.

 

[HRMSU]

I

Even if it just a little bit it is totally worth it to bring up history from 150 years ago. Also it is a history that OM held onto pretty hard until public opinion for the Lost Cause changed in the south.

Dev you need to stay in character