Anonymous wrote:I think the confederates were by far the favorites going in. Everyone in Europe thought they would win. Look at the Revolutionary War only 75 years earlier - #s don't mean jack when you have to conquer thousands of square miles and hold it. Being on the defensive means you have short supply lines and a welcoming population.
Nobody realized that Lincoln would be such a fighter, would sacrifice so so so much, and would refuse to quit. We owe it all to Lincoln.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).
I disagree with this. The Civil War is really quite interesting from a military history perspective.
+1
To the poster in bold, you may not mean to do so, but this comes across as sanctimony. You grew wiser and were no longer interested in Lincoln? Lots of Phd's in history are obtained studying Lincoln. Its not like studying Abe Lincoln is confined to high schoolers and middle schoolers. Barack Obama has claimed he tried to duplicate Lincoln's well known "Team of Rivals".
Military History is a completely legitimate field of study. The OP obviously has an interest in this field.
To OP, I think the question is a bit broad, as another poster has stated. The best at what? James Longstreet was a very solid strategist. Of the prominently known Confederate generals, Jackson was, in my opinion, likely the best tactician. AP Hill is sometimes underrated. A couple of mistakes aside, he was pretty good at winning battles (or at least his own portion of the battle).
I am the PP you are referring to. Look, to some extent I get the notion of military history (and to a great extent I am still besotted with Lincoln). But, for me, this country's horrible stain and legacy of racism, coupled with the contemporary Confederate flag cult, renders me unable to be chill about this issue. I just don't think of this as a TV mini-series. As I wrote, I kind of get it. Then I think about "Twelve Years a Slave," and then, not so much.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Other than Robert E Lee...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).
I disagree with this. The Civil War is really quite interesting from a military history perspective.
Anonymous wrote:Other than Robert E Lee...
Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).
Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).