The American Civil War

[The Republic Of Ardenhelm]

i chose option d- help mexico raid forts when the soldiers are fighting so they wont notice. its freaking FOOLPROOF.

Ahhh! Alas and behold, the common Mexican D-, if you look closely you'll notice it is the closest thing that any of them will ever get to an "A" in school.

[The Republic Of Ardenhelm]

Grant was better than Lee.

there is no substitute for victory.

I'm definatly on the Union side, like buried in it... But even then, Lee was a better general, though if Grant got the same experience as Lee, he would have been better by far.

[Meryuma]

I would've opposed slavery as well as opposing Lincoln.

[The Black Forrest]

I would've opposed slavery as well as opposing Lincoln.

You assume you would.

You would not have the "morals" and knowledge of today if you were living back then.

[Zathganastan]

Grant was better than Lee.

there is no substitute for victory.

I'm definatly on the Union side, like buried in it... But even then, Lee was a better general, though if Grant got the same experience as Lee, he would have been better by far.

He did, both Lee and Grant went to westpoint even though Lee graduated top of his class while Grant graduated at the bottom. Also later on both men would serve in the Mexican-American war.

[The UK in Exile]

I'm definatly on the Union side, like buried in it... But even then, Lee was a better general, though if Grant got the same experience as Lee, he would have been better by far.

He did, both Lee and Grant went to westpoint even though Lee graduated top of his class while Grant graduated at the bottom. Also later on both men would serve in the Mexican-American war.

indeed grant as an infantry officer and lee as a staff one.

its notable that lee's first real military command is in the civil war.

[Farnhamia]

He did, both Lee and Grant went to westpoint even though Lee graduated top of his class while Grant graduated at the bottom. Also later on both men would serve in the Mexican-American war.

indeed grant as an infantry officer and lee as a staff one.

its notable that lee's first real military command is in the civil war.

Lee was an Engineer first and foremost, from his graduation from West Point in 1829 until he was brought onto Winfield Scott's staff for the invasion of Mexico. After Mexico he was Superintendent of West Point for three years, then second-in-command of the Second Cavalry under Albert Sidney Johnson. His time with the 2nd Cav. was interrupted by frequent leaves of absence to go east and see to his father-in-law's estate.

Grant started as a quartermaster after graduating, but disliked it. During the Mexican War he managed to get to the front lines, serving as with the cavalry in a number of engagements in the northern campaign. He was in on the Veracruz to Mexico City campaign, too, where he and Lee met, though Lee did not remember it. After the War, Grant was posted to Detroit, New York, Oregon and northern California. He suffered badly being away from his family and eventually started drinking, which contributed to his leaving the Army.

Anyway, just a bit of background information. [/pedantry]

[The UK in Exile]

indeed grant as an infantry officer and lee as a staff one.

its notable that lee's first real military command is in the civil war.

Lee was an Engineer first and foremost, from his graduation from West Point in 1829 until he was brought onto Winfield Scott's staff for the invasion of Mexico. After Mexico he was Superintendent of West Point for three years, then second-in-command of the Second Cavalry under Albert Sidney Johnson. His time with the 2nd Cav. was interrupted by frequent leaves of absence to go east and see to his father-in-law's estate.

Grant started as a quartermaster after graduating, but disliked it. During the Mexican War he managed to get to the front lines, serving as with the cavalry in a number of engagements in the northern campaign. He was in on the Veracruz to Mexico City campaign, too, where he and Lee met, though Lee did not remember it. After the War, Grant was posted to Detroit, New York, Oregon and northern California. He suffered badly being away from his family and eventually started drinking, which contributed to his leaving the Army.

Anyway, just a bit of background information. [/pedantry]

I did my disertation on lee.

part of my argument was that his military background left him with a good grasp of operations but because of his lack of command experience he never understood what he was asking of his troops, which was part of the reason his casualty rates where so high. also that he had lots of influence but little strategic input.

[Farnhamia]

Lee was an Engineer first and foremost, from his graduation from West Point in 1829 until he was brought onto Winfield Scott's staff for the invasion of Mexico. After Mexico he was Superintendent of West Point for three years, then second-in-command of the Second Cavalry under Albert Sidney Johnson. His time with the 2nd Cav. was interrupted by frequent leaves of absence to go east and see to his father-in-law's estate.

Grant started as a quartermaster after graduating, but disliked it. During the Mexican War he managed to get to the front lines, serving as with the cavalry in a number of engagements in the northern campaign. He was in on the Veracruz to Mexico City campaign, too, where he and Lee met, though Lee did not remember it. After the War, Grant was posted to Detroit, New York, Oregon and northern California. He suffered badly being away from his family and eventually started drinking, which contributed to his leaving the Army.

Anyway, just a bit of background information. [/pedantry]

I did my disertation on lee.

part of my argument was that his military background left him with a good grasp of operations but because of his lack of command experience he never understood what he was asking of his troops, which was part of the reason his casualty rates where so high. also that he had lots of influence but little strategic input.

I wouldn't consider the Corps of Engineers "staff," but what do I know. I agree with your argument, though I would say that the high casualty rates in the Civil War are a function of the disconnect between tactics and weaponry. Lining men up in parallel lines and letting them shoot at each other was fine in the days of the Revolution and Napoleon, when the muskets were smoothbore, capable of missing the broad side of a barn at 300 feet. Rifled muskets brought in a quantum leap in accuracy. If your men were dug in behind even a little stone wall, you could make the other guy pay dearly for dispossessing you of it. If you had a couple of cannons, he might not be able to do so.

[The UK in Exile]

I did my disertation on lee.

part of my argument was that his military background left him with a good grasp of operations but because of his lack of command experience he never understood what he was asking of his troops, which was part of the reason his casualty rates where so high. also that he had lots of influence but little strategic input.

I wouldn't consider the Corps of Engineers "staff," but what do I know. I agree with your argument, though I would say that the high casualty rates in the Civil War are a function of the disconnect between tactics and weaponry. Lining men up in parallel lines and letting them shoot at each other was fine in the days of the Revolution and Napoleon, when the muskets were smoothbore, capable of missing the broad side of a barn at 300 feet. Rifled muskets brought in a quantum leap in accuracy. If your men were dug in behind even a little stone wall, you could make the other guy pay dearly for dispossessing you of it. If you had a couple of cannons, he might not be able to do so.

lee tends not to command sappers though, he gets given very few roles where he is given a set of instructions and told, "make it happen", his roles tend to be ones where he does a great deal of planning and very little executing. when he is executing its by building things not fighting them.

I agree with the point about tactics vs technology.

[Farnhamia]

I wouldn't consider the Corps of Engineers "staff," but what do I know. I agree with your argument, though I would say that the high casualty rates in the Civil War are a function of the disconnect between tactics and weaponry. Lining men up in parallel lines and letting them shoot at each other was fine in the days of the Revolution and Napoleon, when the muskets were smoothbore, capable of missing the broad side of a barn at 300 feet. Rifled muskets brought in a quantum leap in accuracy. If your men were dug in behind even a little stone wall, you could make the other guy pay dearly for dispossessing you of it. If you had a couple of cannons, he might not be able to do so.

lee tends not to command sappers though, he gets given very few roles where he is given a set of instructions and told, "make it happen", his roles tend to be ones where he does a great deal of planning and very little executing. when he is executing its by building things not fighting them.

I agree with the point about tactics vs technology.

Well, see, Combat Engineer. Remember what they called him in 1862? The King of Spades. He was lucky in having an incredible collection of subordinates, Jackson and Longstreet and AP Hill and the rest. The trouble was, the Confederates couldn't replace their good officers as fast as they got shot to pieces.

[The UK in Exile]

lee tends not to command sappers though, he gets given very few roles where he is given a set of instructions and told, "make it happen", his roles tend to be ones where he does a great deal of planning and very little executing. when he is executing its by building things not fighting them.

I agree with the point about tactics vs technology.

Well, see, Combat Engineer. Remember what they called him in 1862? The King of Spades. He was lucky in having an incredible collection of subordinates, Jackson and Longstreet and AP Hill and the rest. The trouble was, the Confederates couldn't replace their good officers as fast as they got shot to pieces.

lee's the opposite of a combat engineer though, king of spades was meant to be a piss take, though they changed their mind pretty sharpish after the seven days.

as to his subordinates, I think he can probably take some credit, he could have had his pick. the command team he took to antietam was probably the best the war.

[Farnhamia]

Well, see, Combat Engineer. Remember what they called him in 1862? The King of Spades. He was lucky in having an incredible collection of subordinates, Jackson and Longstreet and AP Hill and the rest. The trouble was, the Confederates couldn't replace their good officers as fast as they got shot to pieces.

lee's the opposite of a combat engineer though, king of spades was meant to be a piss take, though they changed their mind pretty sharpish after the seven days.

as to his subordinates, I think he can probably take some credit, he could have had his pick. the command team he took to antietam was probably the best the war.

No, "King of Spades" was not a compliment. And yes, the team at Antietam was the best. If Hill hadn't had to stay behind at Harper's Ferry ... well, if, if, if ...

I don't know, I'll have to go back and read, it's been a very long time since I spent much time in the Rebellion. I have several books, including Freeman's Robert E. Lee and Lee's Lieutenants.

[The UK in Exile]

lee's the opposite of a combat engineer though, king of spades was meant to be a piss take, though they changed their mind pretty sharpish after the seven days.

as to his subordinates, I think he can probably take some credit, he could have had his pick. the command team he took to antietam was probably the best the war.

No, "King of Spades" was not a compliment. And yes, the team at Antietam was the best. If Hill hadn't had to stay behind at Harper's Ferry ... well, if, if, if ...

“For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863"

[Wikkiwallana]

No, they don't. Not unless they have a clause in the lease saying they can. Contracts have to be binding or all agreements not constantly enforced at gunpoint are worthless.

>My father signs a contract to be married to my mother
>my father dies, i succeed him as head of household
by your logic, i am now married to my mother.

Marriage very specifically includes a clause about ending at death. Property sales don't. A better comparison would be your father selling his house to his neighbor. When your father dies, your neighbor still keeps the house, it doesn't devolve back to you.

[Wikkiwallana]

Slavery?

The war kinda disproved that, particularly when you consider that Southern agriculture was busted by the end of the war and in no way could have supported anything.

In Maryland. Davis did it in Tennessee and Alabama, and would have done it in West Virginia if it hadn't been for McClellan.

Way to bet on the losing side. Sukhomlinov effect, and all that.

>Slavery
independence from a perceived foreign threat
>War kinda disproved that
the war does not disprove that the south had a higher GDP, and that whole tariff issue.
>in maryland!
irrelevant. he still suspended the constitutional rights of the American citizens in a state not in rebellion.
>bet on the losing side
what?

No. How do you even say that with a straight face.

[Wikkiwallana]

I care more about the coming Civil War than the first one!

My hypothesis is that the leftists will secede from the US, and the rightists wont care. they will then try and come back, and this will cause the civil war, because the right doesnt want them.

Your hypothesis is moronic.

[Marshmellowstan]

It seems to me that many people take the Union's victory for granted.

[Paragade]

The Union, the only reason the states seceded was just so they could keep slavery. They used the guise of states' rights for propaganda and the states' right in question was slavery. Any educated person should know this.

[Trotskylvania]

The Union is unquestionably on the side of righteousness. And that's where I'd be.

[Lancearc]

It seems to me that many people take the Union's victory for granted.

Heh.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The Union is unquestionably on the side of righteousness. And that's where I'd be.

To be fair, they were on the side of righteousness because of the advantages it gave them in the international arena. "We're fighting this war to end slavery guiz!"

I mean, they're doing the right thing yes. But for the wrong reasons (and, to some extent, very hypocritically). Which should steal some of the thunder from the "righteous" deed.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I support the South's right to secede, I support the Union's morality. However, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, they fought to regain their lost colonies.

[Wikkiwallana]

I support the South's right to secede, I support the Union's morality. However, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, they fought to regain their lost colonies.

Colonies?

[Zathganastan]

I support the South's right to secede, I support the Union's morality. However, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery, they fought to regain their lost colonies.

Uh what colonies?

Because if you mean the south then your just bullshitting yourself.The South dominated the federal government repeatedly threw out the period leading up to the civil war and held the same (if not more) power then the Union.