Anyone read Ron Chernow's recent bio of U.S. Grant yet?
Comments
-
Grant was a failure and a drunk at everything but war
I always liked that about him -
You'd like this one Race. He wasn't a drunk most of the time. Rather, he generally was a tee totaler who got really hammered on occasion when he was stressed out.RaceBannon said:Grant was a failure and a drunk at everything but war
I always liked that about him -
Dude won the war and the presidency.
Winners win. -
He had way more depth than Lee and was far better at big picture strategy than him.HillsboroDuck said:Dude won the war and the presidency.
Winners win.
-
Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
-
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
-
It's on my list. Still in the middle of Niall Ferguson - Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power
-
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
-
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations.creepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
-
Relic of the past.YellowSnow said:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves and with the world. to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with the world. all nations.creepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Foreshadowing of the future. -
CirrhosisDawg said:
Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Two of the biggest morons that fag out this boredcreepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
-
And he was on the right side of history. That always helps.YellowSnow said:
He had way more depth than Lee and was far better at big picture strategy than him.HillsboroDuck said:Dude won the war and the presidency.
Winners win. -
Fuck off idiot. Clearly under your skin; so much struggle with people who don't agree with you. Such fag.RaceBannon said:CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Two of the biggest morons that fag out this boredcreepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Strap into your wheelchair before you hurt yourself.
-
Make me Deener
-
Fuck off Bear.RaceBannon said:Make me Deener
-
I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging. -
-
It brings me much joy that our only real female poaster now the UO Duck Girl is gone is a true ladie and scholar.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
Grant was brilliant in the West- e.g., Vicksburg. In VA he grasped that it would save more lives in the long run to win once and for all. He was good at Maff n stuff and knew that Lee couldn't replace his losses. Sometimes war is a battle of attrition and the sooner you can end it the better. -
You seem extra angry and triggered lately. Everything Ok?creepycoug said:
Fuck off idiot. Clearly under your skin; so much struggle with people who don't agree with you. Such fag.RaceBannon said:CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Two of the biggest morons that fag out this boredcreepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Strap into your wheelchair before you hurt yourself. -
Read?
-
I'll have to check this one out.SFGbob said:It's on my list. Still in the middle of Niall Ferguson - Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power
-
Yes, thanks.MikeDamone said:
You seem extra angry and triggered lately. Everything Ok?creepycoug said:
Fuck off idiot. Clearly under your skin; so much struggle with people who don't agree with you. Such fag.RaceBannon said:CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Two of the biggest morons that fag out this boredcreepycoug said:
Good luck rowboat. You're a man of honor; but alas you are also a dreamer.YellowSnow said:
I want us to raise ourselves from being just a bored of vile filth that Derek created.CirrhosisDawg said:Are you sure the tug is the right place to post about a history book? Any book? At all?
Strap into your wheelchair before you hurt yourself.
Why do you axe? -
Love me some Chernow. For sure my favorite* Biographer.YellowSnow said:Only to 1862 so far, but skrong recommend. His biography of Worshington was excellent as well. That Ulysses Grant was a fighter and knew how to win.
@Doog_de_Jour already mentioned Washington and Hamilton.
But people forget Chernow got started writing biographies about famous capitalists - namely J Pierpont Morgan (The House of Morgan) and John D Rockefeller (Titan). Two biographies I still have on my shelf.
*David McCullough is a close second.
-
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply. -
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields. -
What in the world was the South thinking making Richmond their capital anyway? Why would you put your capital as close as possible to Union territory? Wouldn't Atlanta have made more sense? Or Birmingham?YellowSnow said:
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields.
Richmond as capital meant the margin for error in the east was about as slim as possible. You were either going to lose your capital or have to expend an inordinate amount of resources to protect it.
I understand the South was (is) mostly a bunch of dumbfucks but that seems like they were kind of just axing for it. -
Virginia was the most important state in the CSA in terms of population, industry (e.g., Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond), etc. But still, Richmond was a poor strategic choice for their Capital.HillsboroDuck said:
What in the world was the South thinking making Richmond their capital anyway? Why would you put your capital as close as possible to Union territory? Wouldn't Atlanta have made more sense? Or Birmingham?YellowSnow said:
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields.
Richmond as capital meant the margin for error in the east was about as slim as possible. You were either going to lose your capital or have to expend an inordinate amount of resources to protect it.
I understand the South was (is) mostly a bunch of dumbfucks but that seems like they were kind of just axing for it. -
Agree, Richmond was a poor choice, but I didn't think Lee had anything to do with choosing the capital? To your point, Lee was FORCED to defend Virginia an inordinate amount precisely because they put the capital there. Lee executed an amazing strategy considering what he was stuck with. 1/3 the industry of the North, a less educated soldiery, no Navy, blockaded everywhere, and no chance for significant campaigns in the north due to the need to protect Richmond at all costs. It was a shitty way to fight a war, and he still kicked ass for most of it.YellowSnow said:
Virginia was the most important state in the CSA in terms of population, industry (e.g., Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond), etc. But still, Richmond was a poor strategic choice for their Capital.HillsboroDuck said:
What in the world was the South thinking making Richmond their capital anyway? Why would you put your capital as close as possible to Union territory? Wouldn't Atlanta have made more sense? Or Birmingham?YellowSnow said:
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields.
Richmond as capital meant the margin for error in the east was about as slim as possible. You were either going to lose your capital or have to expend an inordinate amount of resources to protect it.
I understand the South was (is) mostly a bunch of dumbfucks but that seems like they were kind of just axing for it. -
The CSA offered a really shitty relocation package and Jeff Davis said Fuck it - I ain't moving.HillsboroDuck said:
What in the world was the South thinking making Richmond their capital anyway? Why would you put your capital as close as possible to Union territory? Wouldn't Atlanta have made more sense? Or Birmingham?YellowSnow said:
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields.
Richmond as capital meant the margin for error in the east was about as slim as possible. You were either going to lose your capital or have to expend an inordinate amount of resources to protect it.
I understand the South was (is) mostly a bunch of dumbfucks but that seems like they were kind of just axing for it.
-
Lee was the Chris Petersen of Civil War generals. He generally had great defenses and had some nice wins at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, defense of Richmond in 1862, etc. However, he choked in the really big games at Antietam and Gettysburg. Sure he had a lot of disadvantages in terms of depth but this vile filth bored values win or GTFO above all else.Swaye said:
Agree, Richmond was a poor choice, but I didn't think Lee had anything to do with choosing the capital? To your point, Lee was FORCED to defend Virginia an inordinate amount precisely because they put the capital there. Lee executed an amazing strategy considering what he was stuck with. 1/3 the industry of the North, a less educated soldiery, no Navy, blockaded everywhere, and no chance for significant campaigns in the north due to the need to protect Richmond at all costs. It was a shitty way to fight a war, and he still kicked ass for most of it.YellowSnow said:
Virginia was the most important state in the CSA in terms of population, industry (e.g., Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond), etc. But still, Richmond was a poor strategic choice for their Capital.HillsboroDuck said:
What in the world was the South thinking making Richmond their capital anyway? Why would you put your capital as close as possible to Union territory? Wouldn't Atlanta have made more sense? Or Birmingham?YellowSnow said:
Lee for the most part was the best tactician of the war, excluding some bad play calling like Picket's charge. In terms of an overall strategist for the Confederate cause, I think he was lacking. There was too much emphasis on holding ground in Virginia (is for lovers like @dnc) and keeping Richmond as the capital while the Federales managed to run rough shod in the West.Swaye said:
I have spent some time at the War College getting learned up about wars and shit. Most true experts believe Lee was on balance a much better strategic and tactical General than Grant. But, Lee made mistakes. He wasn't perfect. Still, he is generally regarded as one of the finest Generals this country has ever produced by true experts. I will say in my Civil War class the Prof did mention that Grant was nowhere near as bad as some tales have made him out to be though. He was a good General - he was just pitted against one of the finest military minds of an era.Doog_de_Jour said:I appreciate any and all attempts to mix things up in the Tug. Politics gets tiresome.
I haven’t read Chernow’s Grant biography yet but I enjoyed both his Washington and Hamilton books.
Grant has always been one of my favorite figures in history. People love to say that he wasn’t as good of a general as Lee - that he merely won because of superior numbers he tirelessly threw at the Confederates (Mary Todd Lincoln called him a butcher for all the Union casualties he racked up), but I think he did some impressive work in his field victories in the West that this criticism is unfair. As to his Presidency, I think he inherited a bit of shit show and was (much like our dear Chris Petersen) too loyal to the wrong people.
Anyone who wants a good TLDR review of Chernow’s book and Grant’s life venture here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/pour-one-out-for-ulysses-s-grant
Oh, and read Grant’s memoirs if you get a chance, even if it’s an annotated copy. He’s actually an excellent writer, concise yet engaging.
But to Yella's point he did well understand the realities of this war - he knew Lee was a damn genius, but he also knew he was aggressive, believed in his own genius, and was running out of troops, food, bullets, boots...everything. Hell, Lee knew it as well. That war was over when the Union didn't give up after Second Bull Run. The only chance the South and Lee ever had was getting the Union to sue for peace early.
Lee was stellar though - winning at Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Deep Bottom (lulz), Overland, etc. Just huge wins, and even in his strategic losses he almost always found a way to keep going, which was a minor miracle given the differences in fighting strength and supply.
Someday I will hit you up when I'm out there to tour some battlefields.
Richmond as capital meant the margin for error in the east was about as slim as possible. You were either going to lose your capital or have to expend an inordinate amount of resources to protect it.
I understand the South was (is) mostly a bunch of dumbfucks but that seems like they were kind of just axing for it.
