Anyone read Ron Chernow's recent bio of U.S. Grant yet?

creepycoug

Swaye said:

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.

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.

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.

You take whitey if you want. As for me and Spirit Horse, we will consult Geronimo on matters of war!

creepycoug

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

HillsboroDuck said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Who was Lee's Jake Browning? Take the analogy further please.

Swaye

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

HillsboroDuck said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Let's take this further. Lee is like Peterman but with a better coaching staff. Stonewall, Cleburne and Forrest! That's some shit right there. I mean Grant had Sherman, but Cleburne whooped Sherman's ass at the Battle of Missionary (lulz) Ridge. The South had a bunch of rednecks, but damn if they didn't have some Generals.

And yeah, Lee is sort of like Peterman, trying to eek the most he could out of try hards but eventually Bama rolled in and squished him with lots of black dudes.

RaceBannon

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

Swaye

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

RaceBannon

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

I think there is truth to this. I am guessing but my guess is the South has provided more troops for most of our wars

Swaye

RaceBannon said:

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

I think there is truth to this. I am guessing but my guess is the South has provided more troops for most of our wars

Scots like two things - drinking and fighting.

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

I think there is truth to this. I am guessing but my guess is the South has provided more troops for most of our wars

Scots like two things - drinking and fighting.

I'm 1/8 Scots. I love drinking but haven't punched someone since HS.

RaceBannon

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

Swaye said:

RaceBannon said:

Didn't the South officers train at West Point by and large pre war?

So they only won with the North's training

This is true. It just somehow worked out that 75% of the really good Cadets came from the South. I think it might have been because those southern boys were like TUFF logger liberals, and the NE was already producing fancy pants fags, but that's just a guess.

I think there is truth to this. I am guessing but my guess is the South has provided more troops for most of our wars

Scots like two things - drinking and fighting.

I'm 1/8 Scots. I love drinking but haven't punched someone since HS.

The Tug is a substitute for real violence

PurpleThrobber

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

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.

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.

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.

You take whitey if you want. As for me and Spirit Horse, we will consult Geronimo on matters of war!

Swing your sword, bitches.