# Who Was The Best Civil War General?



## Publius1787

General Robert Lee
General Thomas Jackson
General George Pickett
General Jebb Stuart
General John Hood
General Ambrose Burnside
General Ulysses Grant
General William Sherman
General George McClellan
General Winfield Scott









Of course, I have my own opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.

The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).

The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).


----------



## zzzz

General Winfield Scott Hancock. If it wasn't for Hancocks leadership during Gettysburg, General Lee may have well won the battle.

Note: it was the war between the states and not the civil war.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.
> 
> The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).
> 
> The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).



General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue.  If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg.  Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail.  His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves.  Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war.  Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.


----------



## Missourian

It's hard to choose the best,  but undoubtedly the worst was Ambrose Burnside.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

After his numerous successes in the West Grant won the war in the East by FIGHTING the War and not individual battles. He knew what his assets were and he USED them. He ground down Lee and the Confederates with his strengths.

He refused to be deterred by any battle defeat and concentrated on the BIG picture, which was his job as Commander of the entire theater. He refused to retreat and lick his wounds like all his predecessors had done. He used the numerical and technological advantages the North had and forced the Army to fight on.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.

Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed.   I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.

And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.

All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering.  Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg   Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward.  Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Baruch, I like your comments.  

Thomas held the gap at Chickamauga rent by CSA forces but did not defeat or destroy the CSA.  Hood was badly beaten by throwing his forces onto Schofield's fortifications at Franklin, Schofield withdrew to Nashville to join his commander's troops (those of Thomas), and there Hood built fortifications.  Thomas smashed Hood's army in its fortifications.  

Grant defeated Pemberton in the field and drove him into Vicksburg, and Grant defeated Lee in the field in a nine-day chase from Richmond to Appomattox Court Horse, where Lee's forces were surrounded and forced to surrender.

I have read where some have argued that Thomas was the best general of the war.


----------



## Granny

OK - it's just a guess, but I think Gen. Sherman would receive the worst rating by those from Atlanta and Savannah - well, I think Savannah may have fared a little better than Atlanta.  Sherman seemed to have a thing about fires.

I guess having lived in Virginia I was most familiar with Gen. Lee.  There's a rather lovely street in Richmond called Monument Avenue - has a whole lot of monuments to various people - Lee, Jackson, Stewart, etc.  Lee is the only General whose monument faces South - due to, as I remember, his surrender at Appomattox.  Richmond, of course, set itself on fire in advance of the on-coming Yanks - so they couldn't get their hands on all the munitions, etc. that could have been looted.

I think they all probably had their good points and bad points.  Lee didn't have all that much heart for bloodshed and I don't know much about Grant except for his penchant for booze.

http://www.monumenthouse.com/richmond/monument/


----------



## Old Rocks

Grant recognized that this war would be won by using the North's superiority in men and supplies to grind down the Confederacy. Sherman recognized that war was not just the front line, but the whole of the enemy nation. 

The greatest tragedy of the Civil War was that none of the lessons that were obvious were learned. All the mistakes of the Civil War were repeated by all sides in WW1.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I think General Robert E. Lee should replace Washington on the dollar bill...


----------



## Wry Catcher

General Hooker; he received the most claps under his command.


----------



## del

Wry Catcher said:


> General Hooker; he received the most claps under his command.


----------



## whitehall

Trite questions like "who was the best" trivializes complicated issues and adds a false pop-culture aura to the abilities and accomplishments of brave and talented Military leaders. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was arguably the greatest field commander and strategist in Military history. They still study his tactics at West Point.


----------



## Publius1787

RetiredGySgt said:


> After his numerous successes in the West Grant won the war in the East by FIGHTING the War and not individual battles. He knew what his assets were and he USED them. He ground down Lee and the Confederates with his strengths.
> 
> He refused to be deterred by any battle defeat and concentrated on the BIG picture, which was his job as Commander of the entire theater. He refused to retreat and lick his wounds like all his predecessors had done. He used the numerical and technological advantages the North had and forced the Army to fight on.



The Confederate Army was exausted before Grant took over. Though he did not return to DC after the wilderness there was really no need to. Defeat of Lee's army was a guarentee for whomever took charge at that point. Though Vicksburg was a work of art.


----------



## Publius1787

Baruch Menachem said:


> I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.
> 
> Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed.   I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.
> 
> And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.
> 
> All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering.  Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg   Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward.  Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.



Getteysburg would have been a different story if Confederates took the high ground which was certainly in their grasp. But the fella that replaced Jackson was not a Jackson himself and didnt have the understanding of Lee's incredably vague orders. Of course, Lee's orders are alway circumstantial and up to the initiative of the commander in the field.


----------



## Publius1787

Big Black Dog said:


> I think General Robert E. Lee should replace Washington on the dollar bill...



Nah, he should replace Lincoln on the 5. He earned it.


----------



## Publius1787

whitehall said:


> Trite questions like "who was the best" trivializes complicated issues and adds a false pop-culture aura to the abilities and accomplishments of brave and talented Military leaders. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was arguably the greatest field commander and strategist in Military history. They still study his tactics at West Point.



It definantly comes down between Lee and Jackson.


----------



## JakeStarkey

whitehall said:


> Trite questions like "who was the best" trivializes complicated issues and adds a false pop-culture aura to the abilities and accomplishments of brave and talented Military leaders. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was arguably the greatest field commander and strategist in Military history. They still study his tactics at West Point.



Among dozens of others, including Lee and Grant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> After his numerous successes in the West Grant won the war in the East by FIGHTING the War and not individual battles. He knew what his assets were and he USED them. He ground down Lee and the Confederates with his strengths.
> 
> He refused to be deterred by any battle defeat and concentrated on the BIG picture, which was his job as Commander of the entire theater. He refused to retreat and lick his wounds like all his predecessors had done. He used the numerical and technological advantages the North had and forced the Army to fight on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Army was exausted before Grant took over. Though he did not return to DC after the wilderness there was really no need to. Defeat of Lee's army was a guarentee for whomever took charge at that point. Though Vicksburg was a work of art.
Click to expand...


Grant fought a war, Lee fought battles.  When Lee held Grant off in the Wilderness and Grant's men filed off to the east, once again they thought they had been beaten.  When they instead turned south on the old plank and orange road, regiment after regiment, brigade after brigade, division after division, corps after corps, began cheering at the top of their voices.  Miles away, Lee raised his head and knew the war was over except for the dying.


----------



## Big Fitz

Lee was the best or the Civil war would have been over so much faster.

Grant was next IMHO because he actually implemented a winning strategy

Sherman would have been next because his tactics caused the war to end earlier by breaking the confederacy's back.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.
> 
> Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed.   I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.
> 
> And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.
> 
> All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering.  Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg   Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward.  Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getteysburg would have been a different story if Confederates took the high ground which was certainly in their grasp. But the fella that replaced Jackson was not a Jackson himself and didnt have the understanding of Lee's incredably vague orders. Of course, Lee's orders are alway circumstantial and up to the initiative of the commander in the field.
Click to expand...


The confeds should have taken Culp and failed because their leaders failed.

The 1st and 45th Alabama failed at Little Round Top because their leaders failed.

Lee listened to Stuart and ignored Longstreet instead of the opposite.

Lee failed because he did not think ahead.

John Buford, Winfield Scott Hancock, Joshua Chamberlain, and so many others succeeded because they were worthy of success.


----------



## Publius1787

Big Fitz said:


> Lee was the best or the Civil war would have been over so much faster.
> 
> Grant was next IMHO because he actually implemented a winning strategy
> 
> Sherman would have been next because his tactics caused the war to end earlier by breaking the confederacy's back.



Lee's and Jackson's leadership were the only ones that stood the test of time. Of course, Lee could have never been a Sherman because Lee gave strict orders to not burn, loot, rape, and pillage.


----------



## Big Fitz

Publius1787 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lee was the best or the Civil war would have been over so much faster.
> 
> Grant was next IMHO because he actually implemented a winning strategy
> 
> Sherman would have been next because his tactics caused the war to end earlier by breaking the confederacy's back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee's and Jackson's leadership were the only ones that stood the test of time. Of course, Lee could have never been a Sherman because Lee gave strict orders to not burn, loot, rape, and pillage.
Click to expand...

It's part of why Lee is the greatest of them all.  He did it without resorting to the tactics that Sherman then perfected.


----------



## mudwhistle

I'm related to Sherman. 

I heard he was an asshole.


----------



## zzzz

I think one of the most brillant jobs of command in the civil war (there were many of course) was  Col. Benjamin Grierson raid through the confederacy, 600 miles throughthe enemies home turf. Even though the casualties and manpower involved did not approach the thousands in the east the very audacity, daring and execution of this raid was brilliant.

But the question was the best General, not the highest ranking Generals. There were many good ones on both sides and ranking them is difficult because not all the circumstances were the same. For me Gen. Hancock was the kind of man you wanted to lead. At Gettysburgh he took command and showed leadership, exposing himself to fire and even sustaining wounds but refusing to leave the field until it was over. His presence on the field inspired the Union soldiers to fight and hold the line just as Stonewall Jackson did for the South earlier in the war.


----------



## Trajan

Baruch Menachem said:


> I keep on wondering why folks think Lee could have achieved anything at Gettysburg but different kinds of disaster.
> 
> Actually, General Thomas destroyed two armies in the filed.   I forget the first time, but the second time was at Nashville.
> 
> And Starkey forgot about Chattanooga, which was where Grant took on the problem faced by Pemberton in Vicksburg, and defeated the besieging forces and chased them away.
> 
> All Lee had going for him was berserker courage and quality engineering.  Grant would never have caused anything remotely like Antittum and Gettysburg   Lee built his glory on a huge pile of corpses from the Seven days onward.  Grant build this victories on strategic misdirection and speed.



Ha..I thought I would trump the field by naming The Sledge of Nashville.........agreed.


----------



## Trajan

I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......

Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.


----------



## Big Fitz

mudwhistle said:


> I'm related to Sherman.
> 
> I heard he was an asshole.


Yep.  heard that too.  But he also was fully conscious of the horror he was committing.  I think that really messed him up come the end of the war.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

One you haven't mentioned Johnson Hagood, He was a great general with what he had to work with. He went on to be the govenor of the State of South Carolina and was beloved by his men.


----------



## Big Fitz

Trajan said:


> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.


Same here.  McClellan was too unwilling to scuff his spit-polish army to get them into a real fight and had a general strategic cowardice.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Publius1787 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.
> 
> The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).
> 
> The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
Click to expand...

Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.


----------



## zzzz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best tactical general was Stonewall Jackson.
> 
> The best operational general was U.S. Grant, the only general to kill a major enemy army in the field (Lee), and the only one to defeat a major enemy army in the field and drive it into fortifications and kill it (Pemberton).
> 
> The best strategic general was Winfield Scott who developed the Anaconda plans for defeating the CSA (blockade and capture of the Mississippi River).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.
Click to expand...


SHILOH
Grants disposition of forces was a joke. Instead of having his forces dug in he had them in in tents like a Sunday at the fair. Sherman was in fault too. It was here though that Grant did show his leadership in battle. He recieved a couple of minor wounds and was seen all over the battlefield.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We forget today just how shattering the effect of the Civil War on our country: greater than the Independence or even the Depression or World Wars or Vietnam.  More than 600,000 soldiers dead, perhaps another 50,000 civilians dead, more than a million injured, the South's economy and culture devastated.  The South was soaked in blood.

I have heard it suggested that McClellan (a general whom his troops worshipped) thought in terms of a limited war ~ how to bring back the South without disturbing it or the fact of slavery.  He was too cautious, for a fact (the Penisular Campaign and Antietam witness that), but I wonder if he was unwilling to shed excessive amounts of soldiers' blood and wounds and lives for an enslaved race.


----------



## JakeStarkey

zzzz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Grant got to clean up General McClellan's scraps and he rode that all the way in to the White House. I wouldent have contributed Lee's surrender to Grant. If Lee had won Getteysburg and for some odd reason the war continued, Grant would have been no match for Lee. Furthermore, if Grant had control of the Army before Gettysburg he would have been thrown under the bus in defeat just like every other northern general. Grant was about as good as a commander as he was president. And yes this is taking in to account Vicksburg.
> 
> 
> 
> Both Grant ad Shermen have a lot of blood on their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SHILOH
> Grants disposition of forces was a joke. Instead of having his forces dug in he had them in in tents like a Sunday at the fair. Sherman was in fault too. It was here though that Grant did show his leadership in battle. He recieved a couple of minor wounds and was seen all over the battlefield.
Click to expand...


The battle indicates the transformation from earlier battles and wars of the 19th century to the evidences of modern war, including field fortifications.


----------



## whitehall

Grant was an innovater for sure. The (former?) alcoholic was the first American general to purposely make war on civilians. If the Union didn't win he would have been tried as a war criminal. Grant authorized the devistation of the Shenandoah Valley in Va. where Blue clad terrorists were authorized to burn barns and loot homes for provisions (and valuables). In other areas Grant authorized his mentally unstable (insane?) general Sherman, who apparently thought he was God's terrible swift sword, to order civilians to evacuate Atlanta while they burned the city to the ground. Grant authorized war crimes that would not be tolerated in any other conflict in US history.


----------



## Publius1787

Trajan said:


> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.



Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Trajan said:


> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.



McClellan couldn't grab his butt with both hands free. 

He almost lost the war for the Union until Lincoln replaced him with Grant.


----------



## JakeStarkey

whitehall said:


> Grant was an innovater for sure. The (former?) alcoholic was the first American general to purposely make war on civilians. If the Union didn't win he would have been tried as a war criminal. Grant authorized the devistation of the Shenandoah Valley in Va. where Blue clad terrorists were authorized to burn barns and loot homes for provisions (and valuables). In other areas Grant authorized his mentally unstable (insane?) general Sherman, who apparently thought he was God's terrible swift sword, to order civilians to evacuate Atlanta while they burned the city to the ground. Grant authorized war crimes that would not be tolerated in any other conflict in US history.



Americans have preyed on Americans before.  Did you forget about reading about Patriot and Loyalist?  Did you forget about the bloodshed from North Carolina to Northern Florida?

Yes, Grant and Sherman waged war against an insurgent South to break their spirit.  They succeeded.  After the fall of Atlanta, thousands upon thousands of rebels deserted and went home.  Their families were writing them to come home.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......  Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.
Click to expand...


Wow!!


----------



## Big Black Dog

You don't even have the most famous Civil War General listed in your poll.  Have you forgotten about General Horace J. W. Whitcomb of the Confederate States of America?  Although he was a great warrior, he is best known for secretly sneaking out all of the grits from Richmond, Virginia just before it fell thereby saving this southern delicacy for all the rest of the world to enjoy - even until this day in time.  If it had not of been for him, you couldn't get grits in any eating establishment in America.  Because the invaders of the North don't want this historical fact known to the general public, you won't be able to find any links to this post but it's history that has been passed down from generation to generation via story telling.


----------



## Bill Angel

zzzz said:


> General Winfield Scott Hancock. If it wasn't for Hancocks leadership during Gettysburg, General Lee may have well won the battle.
> 
> Note: it was the war between the states and not the civil war.



I also agree that Hancock was a great General. It's ironic to note that Hancock was the nominee for the Democrats for the Presidential race  in 1880 but was beaten by James Garfield. James Garfield was assassinated shortly after taking office, so it just as easily could have been Hancock who got shot, had the Democrats prevailed in that Presidential election.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> We forget today just how shattering the effect of the Civil War on our country: greater than the Independence or even the Depression or World Wars or Vietnam.  More than 600,000 soldiers dead, perhaps another 50,000 civilians dead, more than a million injured, the South's economy and culture devastated.  The South was soaked in blood.
> 
> I have heard it suggested that McClellan (a general whom his troops worshipped) thought in terms of a limited war ~ how to bring back the South without disturbing it or the fact of slavery.  He was too cautious, for a fact (the Penisular Campaign and Antietam witness that), but I wonder if he was unwilling to shed excessive amounts of soldiers' blood and wounds and lives for an enslaved race.



"He who cannot look over a battlefield with a dry eye, causes the death of many men uselessly."

Napoleon


----------



## Trajan

Publius1787 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.
Click to expand...


uh huh.


----------



## editec

Big Fitz said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here. McClellan was too unwilling to scuff his spit-polish army to get them into a real fight and had a general strategic cowardice.
Click to expand...

 
McClellan is arguably the worst general (of significance, I mean)  of the Civil War.

Perhaps not at all ironically, the troops love him.

In his defence he did much to get the Northern Army trained and organized, though. Winnie was just too old to undertake that work, I guess.

Unhappily for Lincoln, once trained and organized, McClellan dearly hated to get hist troops all dirty and disorganized by sending them out to seek and kill the enemy.

His constant over estimations (that the Southern forces vastly outnumbered his) is well documented in history as being wrong MOST of the time. He missed _at least twice_ crushing the Southern VA armies early on in the war  according to various studies that were conducted by the DoW after the conflict

FWIW my great great grandfather was one of the silversmiths who helped make a ceremonial sword given to him by the people of Philadelphia, or so the apocrophal family history would have me believe.

I have yet to confirm this tale or locate that sword.


----------



## Publius1787

Trajan said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......
> 
> Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh huh.
Click to expand...


Thats all the response I need.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion about Anaconda, but not to your own reality.


----------



## Trajan

Publius1787 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats all the response I need.
Click to expand...


and thats all you'll get.


----------



## TossObama

JakeStarkey said:


> You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue.  If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg.  Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail.  His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves.  Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war.  Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.



FYI, England was advising Lincoln and Lincoln passed it on to Grant. England had a vested interest in maintaining control of the northeast because it feared "the new country would collapse". England wanted the tax monies, and the makings for their whiskey and control of the country. 

The north did not win the war, and you'd know this if you actually studied the matter. Lee was betrayed by one of his own advisors and unknowingly walked his men into a killing field. That is exactly when England ordered Lincoln to stop the war, Lincoln declared the war won by the north when in fact it was the South who won. Of course, the harpies in the north were furious when Grant simply sent the Southern soldiers back home, so furious in fact that the scum made a cemetery of dead norther solders in Lee's front yard. (Personally I would have dug them all up and dumped them somewhere on a New York street corner.) 

Why did England order the halt to the Civil War? England stated and this is a quote "if you (Lincoln) don't stop the war the Americans will keep fighting until they are all dead". England was alarmed at the death rates.

Lee and Grant fought together prior to the Civil War.


----------



## Sallow

General Sherman.

Had the right attitude..but didn't go far enough.


----------



## Publius1787

Sallow said:


> General Sherman.
> 
> Had the right attitude..but didn't go far enough.



WOW! Never thought I would ever hear anyone describe Sherman that way.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> Publius1787, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion about Anaconda, but not to your own reality.



Anaconda was not a work of genius. Sorry. Its a basic no brainer strategy. The question is who wouldent have thought of it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Who says other than you that it was basic stuff?  You will find no credible support for the claim.


----------



## Neubarth

JakeStarkey said:


> You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue.  If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg.  Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail.  His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves.  Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war.  Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.



Grant was a fuggup who fought.  He got too many of his men killed, but used his numerical advantage to wear down the Confederates.  So, he sacrificed the lives of Irish Immigrants and the poor to gradually wear down the enemy.  That does not qualify him as a great general.

A great general is one who takes war to the enemy and breaks their spirit.  Only one General qualified and that was Sherman.  God Bless Him, he was ruthless and violent and nasty and he took the fighting spirit right out of the heart of the Confederacy.


----------



## rightwinger

For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman

For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest


----------



## gunnyrogers55

Big Black Dog said:


> I think General Robert E. Lee should replace Washington on the dollar bill...



and why the hell do we do that


----------



## JakeStarkey

TossObama said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue.  If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg.  Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail.  His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves.  Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war.  Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, England was advising Lincoln and Lincoln passed it on to Grant. England had a vested interest in maintaining control of the northeast because it feared "the new country would collapse". England wanted the tax monies, and the makings for their whiskey and control of the country.
> 
> The north did not win the war, and you'd know this if you actually studied the matter. Lee was betrayed by one of his own advisors and unknowingly walked his men into a killing field. That is exactly when England ordered Lincoln to stop the war, Lincoln declared the war won by the north when in fact it was the South who won. Of course, the harpies in the north were furious when Grant simply sent the Southern soldiers back home, so furious in fact that the scum made a cemetery of dead norther solders in Lee's front yard. (Personally I would have dug them all up and dumped them somewhere on a New York street corner.)
> 
> Why did England order the halt to the Civil War? England stated and this is a quote "if you (Lincoln) don't stop the war the Americans will keep fighting until they are all dead". England was alarmed at the death rates.
> 
> Lee and Grant fought together prior to the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Wow!  That is good [stuff], man!   Doesn't how much righties and lefties love to revise, still entertaining and laughable comes along.  Thanks, Toss.


----------



## zzzz

rightwinger said:


> For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman
> 
> For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest



Jackson's Valley campaign was a masterpiece in the conduct of fighting against a superior force. 

Sometimes we rate Generals of their accomplishments against sub-par opponents. When you are fighting someone who has no clue to what is going on how can you rate their greatness. US Grant's arrival on the eastern theater of operations coincided with a noticable drop of the quality of Confederate Generals. There were still a few around but many had been taken from the fields of battle. The confederate troops were demoralized and the discrepancy between the industrial output of the north and agragarian society of the south were being felt. The anocanda strategy of Gen. Scott had already been implemented, the blockade, even though porous (2/3 fot the ships ran the blockade) kept larger cargo ships from even attempting to run it, and Grants western campaign had already divied the south. So when Grant came east the die had already been cast and Shermans "march to the sea" was against a ghost of what had been there before. It would not have been possible 2 or 3 years earlier.


----------



## JakeStarkey

zzzz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman
> 
> For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson's Valley campaign was a masterpiece in the conduct of fighting against a superior force.
> 
> Sometimes we rate Generals of their accomplishments against sub-par opponents. When you are fighting someone who has no clue to what is going on how can you rate their greatness. US Grant's arrival on the eastern theater of operations coincided with a noticable drop of the quality of Confederate Generals. There were still a few around but many had been taken from the fields of battle. The confederate troops were demoralized and the discrepancy between the industrial output of the north and agragarian society of the south were being felt. The anocanda strategy of had already been implemented, the blockade, even though porous (2/3 fot the ships ran the blockade) kept larger cargo ships from even attempting to run it, and Grants western campaign had already didived the south. So when Grant came east the die had already been cast and Shermans "march to the sea" was against a ghost of what had been there before. It would not have been possible 2 or 3 years earlier.
Click to expand...


Jackson did poorly after Shenadoah in the campaign in front of Richmond that year.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> Who says other than you that it was basic stuff?  You will find no credible support for the claim.



Yeah yeah I got it. Cut off their supply, create an embargo, control their main sources of transportation, and devide their forces. Thats not common since?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are not the judge of it.  You can have an opinion, just like me, then we can see what those who are expert on the matter have to say.


----------

