Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ? - Page 5

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:49

"Hooker himself was stunned by an artillery shell which struck a column that he was leaning against on the porch of the his headquarters at the Chancellor house. He and his army were bundled back across the Rappahannock River, and Lee had won one his most brilliant but costly victories.

Hooker remained in command of the army, but was relieved while leading the army northwards to counter Lee’s offensive in the early stages of the Gettysburg Campaign. General Meade replaced him and commanded the army on the field at Gettysburg.

Following the Union defeat at Chickamauga he was sent with the 11th and 12th Corps to reinforce the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. Units under his command assaulted and took Lookout Mountain, and contributed significantly to the overall Union success at Missionary Ridge.

Hooker commanded the 20th Corps capably with Sherman during the Atlanta Campaign, but again made himself personally unpopular with his peers and superiors. After McPherson was killed and Howard was given command of the Army of the Tennessee, a position that Hooker felt he should have received, he asked for be relieved. His request was promptly granted, and Sherman was glad to be rid of him.

He finished out the war in the quiet command of the Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois sector. He was mustered out of the volunteers in September of 1866.

Always popular with his men, he lost the confidence of his subordinate officers and was invariably quarrelsome with his superiors. Many Army of the Potomac's officers came to resent Hooker, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles turning the headquarters of the army into a bordello after Hooker assumed command of the army. The term “hooker” was coined to describe the prostitutes that reputably followed the army when he was in command."

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:53

I hate Sherman.

The South had the best leadership, hands down.
I'll always maintain, manpower and manufacturing.
That beats agriculture and pride any day.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Lincoln had to contend with politics that Davis did not. Naming a head commander for the entire army isn't simply a matter of choosing--one has to consider seniority and political standing. He couldn't afford to be riling his own generals.

His choice of McClellan was very smart from an organizational standpoint. Who was to know the man wouldn't fight? Then Lincoln was stuck with him until after the elections, because to remove him would have seemed like an attempt to undermine McClellan's presidential campaign. So once the Great Northern Turtle was no longer a political threat, his butt was on the curb.

Both Lincoln and Davis had political issues and I can't really say which was the most limited in what they could do. But you err slightly on McClellan who had his troops removed once and was sacked permanently prior to becoming a presidential candidate.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Both Lincoln and Davis had political issues and I can't really say which was the most limited in what they could do. But you err slightly on McClellan who had his troops removed once and was sacked permanently prior to becoming a presidential candidate.

Yes, it was the congressional midterm elections of 1862. Lincoln had to wait until he could be sure of the Republicans keeping control of Congress. Pissing off the loyal Democrats, who might then gain control of Congress, wouldn't have been prudent, either.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone

.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Hooker himself was stunned by an artillery shell which struck a column that he was leaning against on the porch of the his headquarters at the Chancellor house. He and his army were bundled back across the Rappahannock River, and Lee had won one his most brilliant but costly victories.

Hooker remained in command of the army, but was relieved while leading the army northwards to counter Lee’s offensive in the early stages of the Gettysburg Campaign. General Meade replaced him and commanded the army on the field at Gettysburg.

Following the Union defeat at Chickamauga he was sent with the 11th and 12th Corps to reinforce the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. Units under his command assaulted and took Lookout Mountain, and contributed significantly to the overall Union success at Missionary Ridge.

Hooker commanded the 20th Corps capably with Sherman during the Atlanta Campaign, but again made himself personally unpopular with his peers and superiors. After McPherson was killed and Howard was given command of the Army of the Tennessee, a position that Hooker felt he should have received, he asked for be relieved. His request was promptly granted, and Sherman was glad to be rid of him.

He finished out the war in the quiet command of the Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois sector. He was mustered out of the volunteers in September of 1866.

Always popular with his men, he lost the confidence of his subordinate officers and was invariably quarrelsome with his superiors. Many Army of the Potomac's officers came to resent Hooker, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles turning the headquarters of the army into a bordello after Hooker assumed command of the army. The term “hooker” was coined to describe the prostitutes that reputably followed the army when he was in command."

I hate to continue to disagree but I think Hooker's moves to counter Lee's march into Pennslyvania were deft and had placed the ANV in great danger. I believe Hooker would have done better at Gettysburg than Meade. Very few Federal commanders had every stolen a march on Lee, and with Stuart's difficulties Hooker had done just that.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hooker would have been more aggressive in Gettysburg than Meade, who was an excellant divisional and corp commander but too cautious to command the field.

In my opinion.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone

.

I'd rather have Sherman on my side than Nathan Bedford Forrest...

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 17:46

From the standpoint of capability or political views, Boris?

NBF, if memory serves, was damn good at what he did during the war.

-Arrian

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 17:49

Why oh why. In any sort of even fight Forrest would have had Sherman's head on a pike.

To follow up on my post above, Meade, in the grand tradition of Federal commanders, failed to attack counterattack Lee despite the fact that he had two fresh and unbloodied corps, the 5th and the 6th, 20,000 men strong.

Sherman however was a true leader and a most dangerous foe. I am convinced that if we researched his background we would find some good southern blood mixed in with the toxic Yankee swill.

I don't know if Sherman's actions landed him in heaven or hell, but perchance I'll end up in the same plane of existance and will get a chance to take a poke at the bloke.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
From the standpoint of capability or political views, Boris?

NBF, if memory serves, was damn good at what he did during the war.

-Arrian

So was Sherman. Which one committed the most horrific atrocity, though?

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone

.

Not exactly.
Grant took Vicksburg, and distributed food.
Sherman took Atlanta and others, and burned them.
Some difference there.

You get a lot less resistance when you "let them up easy".

And Boris , Forrest was an excellent general.

There were several Southern generals better than the Union had after Grant, and several better than Grant.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

I hate to continue to disagree but I think Hooker's moves to counter Lee's march into Pennslyvania were deft and had placed the ANV in great danger. I believe Hooker would have done better at Gettysburg than Meade. Very few Federal commanders had every stolen a march on Lee, and with Stuart's difficulties Hooker had done just that.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hooker would have been more aggressive in Gettysburg than Meade, who was an excellant divisional and corp commander but too cautious to command the field.

In my opinion.

I disagree, that I disagree.

I said I thought Hooker was decent.
When I went to look about the head thing, this is what I found.
The "hooker" part in particular I found interesting.
Trivia hound that I am.

H Tower · February 10, 2003, 18:02

Grant didn't know much beyond keep fighting. His strategy, if you could call it that was to grab the enemy by the jacket and not let go.

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 18:04

Grant took a look at the situation and realized that the South would lose a war of attrition. And then he set about fighting one.

-Arrian

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

I disagree, that I disagree.

I said I thought Hooker was decent.
When I went to look about the head thing, this is what I found.
The "hooker" part in particular I found interesting.
Trivia hound that I am.

I find it impossible to resist coming to the defense of a man that brought such fame to a profession that has provided mankind with so much comfort and cheer. Hooker proved that even a Yankee can have some redeeming qualities.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 18:10

You haven't seen me compliment any but Grant and Hooker have you ?

H Tower sums up Grant well. A tenacious bulldog.
And probably good in bar fight.

Dr Strangelove · February 10, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
My dad, who is 82 and in the next room singing hymns... and I would gleefully kill as many Yankees as I could. I will go to my grave hating. And for an eternity spit north in Hell, if I can summon any spittle.

Wow! That is so cool! Surely even you must concede that that is the place you are most likely bound for. If your Dad is just like you you can tell him to stop singing as it isn't going to do him one bit of good.

I'd give you your precious Confederacy back if I could, minus the slaves of course. You should bear in mind that most likely it would be a pariah nation, cut off from the world, with a resultant economy roughly on a par with North Korea's.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 18:28

Yes, that's constructive and informing.
Thank you for that input, Sawbones.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Maybe you guys can tell me what is so interesting about the Civil War. I never understood it.

What's not interesting about it? Brother against Brother. Perhaps the first modern war. Ripped apart the US and defines the present more than any other conflict in US history (even the American Revolution pales).

I'm more interested in wars between nations for some reasons. I think I should be more interested, but I'm not.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
Grant didn't know much beyond keep fighting. His strategy, if you could call it that was to grab the enemy by the jacket and not let go.

That's a gross generalization if I ever heard it. Grant was a fine general in many regards, and was certainly quite skilled at maneuver. It was discussed at length in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=73423

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 18:52

If that's the Lee vs. Grant thread, I stayed out of it entirely, because the question was so stupid.

Jackson, Longstreet, Hampton all better.
Fitz Lee, and his Commander JEB Stuart, on Grant's level.

Custer! Man, how did we overlook Custer ?

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 18:55

The Union generals, I think are vastly underrated. They didn't have anyone that could match match Lee, Jackson, Stuart, or Longstreet tactically, but many of them were exceptionally talented, particularly Sherman who probably was the most brilliant general, in strategic terms, in the whole war.

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 19:00

Custer was actually a decent cavalry leader, barring Little Bighorn of course. He was no Stuart, but he was still wasn't as bad as generally thought IMO.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Custer was actually a decent cavalry leader, barring Little Bighorn of course. He was no Stuart, but he was still wasn't as bad as generally thought IMO.

Shush! People are trying to retain their grade school notions of history!

Dr Strangelove · February 10, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yes, that's constructive and informing.
Thank you for that input, Sawbones.

Well what did you expect as a response to that little diatribe of hate speech?

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 19:07

The south had, in Lee, Jackson, Stuart, and Longstreet, what amounted to the dream team....they complimented each other so perfectly that is was....jaw dropping.

In battle after battle, Jackson demonstrated that with only the vaguest of orders, he could intuit what Lee wanted of him, and do it faster and more savagely than anybody had reason to expect from his troops (which is what prompted my "what if" comment earlier). His loss was a *reeling* blow to the Confederate Army. Not saying the South coulda won had he not been lost, but he was....pretty d@mned amazing.

-=Vel=-

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 19:09

What did Custer accomplish in this war?
Nothing.
Oh, he killed lots of, um er, Native Americans. For a while.

Jimmy gets wound tightly, SB.
Normally, you're a little more low-key.

Ramo · February 10, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

What did Custer accomplish in this war?
Nothing.

He was a very effective cavalryman. He had the balls to ride at the head of numerous charges without calling retreats, etc. He might not have had the same finesse as Stuart or Forrest, but he was still pretty damn effective IMO.

MichaeltheGreat · February 10, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

While that's nice conjecture, you'll have to produce some statistics for me to believe them and then explain why they contradict the official records of the states, and why I should believe one over the other.

I referred you to the source, you can look 'em up. I've got work to do.

Quote:

And excuse me, MtG, but AFAIK, it is southern apologists who favor the "monolithic south" argument by asserting none of the Southern states fought over slavery. All these documents show is that, yes, many of them did. It is in no way indicative of a universal mindset.

I've heard many pro-southern speakers and writers say that slavery wasn't the exclusive reason, or the main reason, but I've yet to hear any of them say it was not a reason at all for any southerners. And the monolithic south crap has been spouted in Yankee history textbooks for years, because (one would assume) they don't like to look at the notion that more moderate states had significant enough concerns about the expansion of Federal power assumed by Lincoln.

Quote:

It seems to me folks like you

"Those people" seems a little more to the point.

MichaeltheGreat · February 10, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Custer was actually a decent cavalry leader, barring Little Bighorn of course. He was no Stuart, but he was still wasn't as bad as generally thought IMO.

Custer wasn't a pimple on John Buford's ass. Any stone psycho can lead a charge. For screening, scouting, road control, etc., Custer was utterly undistinguished, and in his later WYA career, he had the freedom of maneuver that naturally occurs when one's cavalry division is unopposed by cavalry forces, and outnumbers enemy infantry and home guards in one's area of operation.

Custer was about a good matchup for Hood in the reckless aggression department. In the later days when Hood was stoned on laudanum.