Reply to Whom do you think was the best Confederate general?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Whom do you think was the best Confederate general?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Stonewall Jackson or JEB Stuart.  Both were brilliant.

While the reasons behind the South succeding and strating the US Civil War was wrong and morally corrupt (and it WAS slavery, not States Rights, get real people), the Confederacy had much better military leaders and enlisted men.  The Confederacy lost due to the rapid industrializing of the Northern States and their greater wealth.  Of course, that too was one of the reasons the South succeded, the Southern planters knew the economy of the South was completely dependent on slave labor and would rapidly become the most impoverished region of the USA without the slaves to make the agraian society successful.  [/quote]

JEB Stuart was responsible for the union gaining the high ground at Gettysburg which was the turning point in the war. For this alone he should have been court martial. Dozens of "atta boys" are wiped out by one "ah shit".  Jackson didn't live long enough to attain greatness. He was cleaver during the Penisula Campaign exploiting McClennen's unwillingness to engage in a war of attrition. Great, game changing Generals don't get killed by friendly fire.

The north had more industry than the south, but the economy of was still primarily agrarian in the antibellum era. Cotton was the more valuable commodity it the U.S.  Had the southerners been prudent they would have freed the slaves and paid them a living wage. Their expenses would have increased which they could have passed on to northern and European textile manufactures who bought their crops. By having slaves southerners ruined their families, culture, properties, and states. It ironic, but in the process of destroying themselves they did so to subsidize northern and European textile manufactures with cheaply priced cotton.

The Confederate Army was not as good as the Union Army during the Civil War. There is a simple and logical reason the Confedrates won several battles during the early stages of the war. After John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1858, Southerns became convinced a full scale northern attack was imminent. They already had existing state militia units to put down potential slave revolts and believing they faced imminent attack these militia units grew into regular army units preparing for war. While the South was preparing for war the peacetime army in the north was virtually nonexistent.

When the war finally broke out in July 1961, the South had trained soldiers and they were prepared, hence the Confederates dominated the early stages of the war. So, from July 1861, the Confederates dominated over the Union Army, but after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862 the tide began to shift in favor of the Union. The Conferates won at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Fair Oaks in the Spring of 1864, but after that the Union dominated every front until the end of the war.

Also, the notion that the Confederates fought gallantly again the North which won because of it's industrial might is shear nonsense and it slanders the dedicated Union soldiers who died in greater numbers attacking southern strongholds and who actually won the war.

During the las two year of the the rate southerners deserting the Confederate Army far outnumbered Union desertions.

So, sure the Conferderates got off to a pretty good start, but that's only because they had planned for it and then proked the war. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics