The Civil War

[Runnin]

Native Americans have always fought in our wars. It is interesting.

Parker was present when Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865. He helped draft the surrender documents, which are in his handwriting. At the time of surrender, General Lee "stared at me for a moment," said Parker to more than one of his friends and relatives, "He extended his hand and said, 'I am glad to see one real American here.' I shook his hand and said, 'We are all Americans.' Parker was brevetted brigadier general of United States Volunteers on April 9, 1865, and of United States Army March 2, 1867.

[Oklahomahawk]

Parker was present when Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865. He helped draft the surrender documents, which are in his handwriting. At the time of surrender, General Lee "stared at me for a moment," said Parker to more than one of his friends and relatives, "He extended his hand and said, 'I am glad to see one real American here.' I shook his hand and said, 'We are all Americans.' Parker was brevetted brigadier general of United States Volunteers on April 9, 1865, and of United States Army March 2, 1867.

Who was the last Confederate general to surrender at the end of the Civil War? Here's a hint, he was (at the time anyway) an Okie.

[Oklahomahawk]

I was sure that was McClellan but he and Babcock resemble one another, not only in facial hair. But McClellan was long out of the picture by then, no pun.

Parker's story is pretty interesting.

Yeah, McClellan and Babcock have always looked too similar to me to tell them apart.

[striker42]

Here's a issue that still is hotly debated. One that has been so impacted by narratives created by the politics of the intervening years that perception and reality are not always the same.

Who was the better general, Grant or Lee?

For the record, I don't think this is a question with a clear cut answer as there are many different jobs involved in being a general. I'll get more in depth to my answer later.

[cajunrevenge]

Well I grew up in the South so history class told me Lee was the greatest general to ever general. I didnt even know it was debated.

[nsacpi]

Who was the last Confederate general to surrender at the end of the Civil War? Here's a hint, he was (at the time anyway) an Okie.

I'm guessing someone out west. Maybe Hood, even though his army was destroyed even before Lee surrendered.

Worth noting that Fort Hood is an Army installation named after him. Wonder how African American servicemen feel about that. Hood was pretty outspoken about their being an "inferior race."

[nsacpi]

Here's a issue that still is hotly debated. One that has been so impacted by narratives created by the politics of the intervening years that perception and reality are not always the same.

Who was the better general, Grant or Lee?

For the record, I don't think this is a question with a clear cut answer as there are many different jobs involved in being a general. I'll get more in depth to my answer later.

It is an interesting question. The North had some very big advantages, including in manpower and industrial output. But the South had one enormous strategic advantage. They didn't need to win. They simply had to hang on until public opinion in the North reflected war fatigue. And it did at various points.

The northern generals that preceded Grant made Lee look good. They had no grasp of the strategic imperatives. Grant certainly did.

[Oklahomahawk]

Well I grew up in the South so history class told me Lee was the greatest general to ever general. I didnt even know it was debated.

It certainly shouldn't be debated. I know everything from history gets re-evaluated these days but I can't fathom anybody seriously thinking Grant was a better general. Lee's main fault IMO was that he trusted his subordinate generals a little too much. That was fine when he had Stonewall Jackson for his offensive coordinator and Longstreet for his defensive coordinator (to put it in football terms). Jackson wasn't great at defense and Longstreet certainly wasn't great at offense. Lee was a great "head coach" but while some HCs micromanage too much, Lee probably didn't micromanage enough.

Grant on the other hand was a good guy who had messed up pretty much everything he had ever touched except his marriage. He was not a great strategist IMO, he had one major skill, he could count. He tended to use head on attacks and just trade casualties with Lee because he knew he had so many soldiers he couldn't get them all on the battlefield at once, and if Lee lost 5000 guys in an attack today he just had to fight with 5000 less guys. As it turns out being good at math was really all he needed to be. I do believe both he and Lee shared the trait of having a conscience. I think that's why Grant drank so much. He knew he was sending kids off to die in battle and it got to it sometimes.

You could always check out what Grant's men nicknamed him, especially during the last couple of years of the war to see what they really thought of him.

[Krgrecw]

Here's a issue that still is hotly debated. One that has been so impacted by narratives created by the politics of the intervening years that perception and reality are not always the same.

Who was the better general, Grant or Lee?

For the record, I don't think this is a question with a clear cut answer as there are many different jobs involved in being a general. I'll get more in depth to my answer later.

Lee without a doubt. He really didn’t even have an army when the war broke out and he lasted longer and inflicted more harm on the North than anyone thought he would.

[Krgrecw]

It certainly shouldn't be debated. I know everything from history gets re-evaluated these days but I can't fathom anybody seriously thinking Grant was a better general. Lee's main fault IMO was that he trusted his subordinate generals a little too much. That was fine when he had Stonewall Jackson for his offensive coordinator and Longstreet for his defensive coordinator (to put it in football terms). Jackson wasn't great at defense and Longstreet certainly wasn't great at offense. Lee was a great "head coach" but while some HCs micromanage too much, Lee probably didn't micromanage enough.

Grant on the other hand was a good guy who had messed up pretty much everything he had ever touched except his marriage. He was not a great strategist IMO, he had one major skill, he could count. He tended to use head on attacks and just trade casualties with Lee because he knew he had so many soldiers he couldn't get them all on the battlefield at once, and if Lee lost 5000 guys in an attack today he just had to fight with 5000 less guys. As it turns out being good at math was really all he needed to be. I do believe both he and Lee shared the trait of having a conscience. I think that's why Grant drank so much. He knew he was sending kids off to die in battle and it got to it sometimes.

You could always check out what Grant's men nicknamed him, especially during the last couple of years of the war to see what they really thought of him.

Plus the only reason Grant got the job is because Lee turned it down. Wasn’t Grant the third or fourth general to lead the North?

[nsacpi]

John Keegan is probably the best military historian of our time.

His book The Mask of Command looks at four commanders. Grant, Alexander the Great, Wellington and Hitler. Sometimes it takes a foreigner to have a dispassionate view of such things. Needless to say Keegan rates Grant very highly. I think Grant is somewhat misunderstood due to his introversion, a quality he shared with Wellington, whose only words to his men were a laconic "steady lads" as they faced off against the French at Waterloo.

[Oklahomahawk]

Plus the only reason Grant got the job is because Lee turned it down. Wasn’t Grant the third or fourth general to lead the North?

Well let's see, there was (before Grant). I'll be honest I remembered McDowell but couldn't remember his name and I had no idea about Parke. I looked those 2 up.
1.) McDowell
2.) McClellan
3.) Burnside
4.) Hooker
5.) Meade
6.) some guy named Parke was interim after Meade was relieved but before Grant took over.
7.) Grant

I don't mean to disrespect Grant. He got the job done and since he really didn't have to do much as far as strategy goes, we'll never know if he was that great at it or not. I do know that lots of Grant's men weren't crazy about him and his strategy lacking frontal assaults only mean to bleed Lee's forces. He and his tactics were successful in the end. I would liken him to the Soviet general Zhukov from WW2, very bloody not great strategy but effective when you can just "trade casualties" with the enemy. Remember the Russians lost more casualties fighting for one city (Stalingrad) than than the US did in the entire war, North Africa, Europe, and Pacific theaters combined.

[nsacpi]

Well let's see, there was (before Grant). I'll be honest I remembered McDowell but couldn't remember his name and I had no idea about Parke. I looked those 2 up.
1.) McDowell
2.) McClellan
3.) Burnside
4.) Hooker
5.) Meade
6.) some guy named Parke was interim after Meade was relieved but before Grant took over.
7.) Grant

I don't mean to disrespect Grant. He got the job done and since he really didn't have to do much as far as strategy goes, we'll never know if he was that great at it or not. I do know that lots of Grant's men weren't crazy about him and his strategy lacking frontal assaults only mean to bleed Lee's forces. He and his tactics were successful in the end. I would liken him to the Soviet general Zhukov from WW2, very bloody not great strategy but effective when you can just "trade casualties" with the enemy. Remember the Russians lost more casualties fighting for one city (Stalingrad) than than the US did in the entire war, North Africa, Europe, and Pacific theaters combined.

I think you're a little off on Zhukov as well!

[nsacpi]

This list takes a Moneyball approach to rating generals. Wins above replacement (WAR!!). It is a pretty good list imo.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/histo...3#rebelltitem3

Lee has a negative career WAR number. Sowwy.

Grant is the only American to crack the Top 10. I think that's about right too. He is by far the best general we've produced. I'd put Sherman second after him among American generals. Longstreet was easily the best of the Confederate generals.

It is amazing how low Grant had fallen in civilian life. And then the war came and he rode the tiger.

[Oklahomahawk]

This list takes a Moneyball approach to rating generals. Wins above replacement (WAR!!). It is a pretty good list imo.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/histo...3#rebelltitem3

Lee has a negative career WAR number. Sowwy.

Grant is the only American to crack the Top 10. I think that's about right too. His is by far the best general we've produced. I'd put Sherman second after him among American generals. Longstreet was easily the best of the Confederate generals.

Well we are definitely gonna disagree on this I can tell. WAR really has no place in a comparison like this, since WAR is a much less dynamic setup. Put Grant in there in 1861 and see how things turn out. By the time Grant took over Lee's forces were permanently crippled after Gettysburg. It would be like saying Snit is the greatest ever after this season (if there is one) when he goes .500 through about the 1/2 way point and then there's a COVID outbreak and every team the Braves play during the second 1/2 of the season is decimated by COVID based DL stints. I'm not a Lee is God kind of guy believe me. I see his positives and his limitations. Lee was great because he was the "aloof general" who had respect but didn't mingle all that much. It gave him more of an aura.

Nathan Bedford Forest was a piss-poor human being but a great tactician though he was practically illiterate, tactics he invented during the Civil War were used during every war since then. Stonewall Jackson was a genius at offensive warfare but a lot of his success was based on his own personal charisma. He was as great at being a general as he sucked at being a teacher at VMI before the war. If Jackson were to be put in Lee's place he would probably have sucked at that too. Too much stuff to think about and manage and he couldn't just go "git-r-done" like he did while commanding the Stonewall brigade. Sherman was really good if you like the old Russian scorched Earth in reverse policy. McClellan was one of the best ever at building and preparing an army for success, he was just absolutely clueless as far as using them in battle. I think he had too much of a conscience.

If you want to go with a Union general who was underrated I'd say Meade. He wasn't flashy or spectacular, he was just solid and fundamentally sound.

If you want to go with a US general from the 20th century I'd have to go with Patton. He was a crazy SOB but he was a "fun kind of crazy" and a genius at offensive tank warfare. I guess you could argue that he was a genius at lots of things if offensive were in the description, at least my uncle would have said so. He was in Patton's 3rd army and hated his guts with a passion.

Wellington's 2 greatest assets were his absolute obsession with Napoleon in every facet of life (he even insisted on sleeping with Nappy's mistresses to prove he was better) and the fact that Napoleon never put his whole strength into the fight against Wellington's "squares" at Waterloo because he feared the Prussians would return and attack the rear of his army. Around 4:00PM that day Napoleon had Wellington on the ropes, but hesitated for almost an hour before he sent in his own personal guard as reinforcements (after Wellington had almost an hour to rebuild his defensive position). Napoleon never sent his whole army into the fray because he feared the Prussians would show back up and hit his army in the backside. It was his ultimate undoing. I've always found that it's good to look at something besides just numbers when evaluating military stuff. Numbers can be misleading or at least that's the argument I used to try and use with my HS math teacher. lol

I'd be interested in knowing who else was on your genius boy's list of greatest generals, just for debating purposes.

EDIT: I looked at your list. Frederick the Great's accomplishments cannot be over-rated but IMO he was. He only won his greatest accomplishments because Russia was ruled by Peter III, or Peter the nimrod might be a better term, just ask Catherine. I'm not that up on the Islamic general or the Japanese general. Absolutely no argument with Julius Caesar or Hannibal. If Hannibal had one single ounce of diplomacy he could have beaten Rome once and for all. Caesar, in battle, was as good as any who ever lived.

[nsacpi]

Patton was a genius. That is about the only thing we agree on.

[nsacpi]

EDIT: I looked at your list. Frederick the Great's accomplishments cannot be over-rated but IMO he was. He only won his greatest accomplishments because Russia was ruled by Peter III, or Peter the nimrod might be a better term, just ask Catherine. I'm not that up on the Islamic general or the Japanese general. Absolutely no argument with Julius Caesar or Hannibal. If Hannibal had one single ounce of diplomacy he could have beaten Rome once and for all. Caesar, in battle, was as good as any who ever lived.

I like the list for a few reasons. One is the presence of one of the early Muslim generals. Islam had this amazing military expansion that defied the odds. It is good to have a name to give credit to. Napoleon is kind of obvious at the top. I think Ataturk succeeded against great odds. He is not on the list. Possibly not enough battles.

[Oklahomahawk]

I like the list for a few reasons. One is the presence of one of the early Muslim generals. Islam had this amazing military expansion that defied the odds. It is good to have a name to give credit to. Napoleon is kind of obvious at the top. I think Ataturk succeeded against great odds. He is not on the list. Possibly not enough battles.

IMO Mustapha Kemal (Attaturk) was a MUCH greater civilian leader and statesman after WW1 than he ever was during the war. Not to demean what he did during the war, but this is the guy who brought Turkey out of the 16th century and into the 20th century in so many ways, without abandoning their Muslim beliefs. He's kind of like the anti-Erdogan (or however you spell it).


So, are we talking actual military genius or just victories in the field? If it's the former, why aren't we including Sun Tzu, the Art of War guy?

[nsacpi]

IMO Mustapha Kemal (Attaturk) was a MUCH greater civilian leader and statesman after WW1 than he ever was during the war. Not to demean what he did during the war, but this is the guy who brought Turkey out of the 16th century and into the 20th century in so many ways, without abandoning their Muslim beliefs. He's kind of like the anti-Erdogan (or however you spell it).


So, are we talking actual military genius or just victories in the field? If it's the former, why aren't we including Sun Tzu, the Art of War guy?

The list is based on battlefield wins. Not theoreticians of war.

[Krgrecw]

This list takes a Moneyball approach to rating generals. Wins above replacement (WAR!!). It is a pretty good list imo.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/histo...3#rebelltitem3

Lee has a negative career WAR number. Sowwy.

Grant is the only American to crack the Top 10. I think that's about right too. He is by far the best general we've produced. I'd put Sherman second after him among American generals. Longstreet was easily the best of the Confederate generals.

It is amazing how low Grant had fallen in civilian life. And then the war came and he rode the tiger.

Ken Burns disagrees you about Lee