(07-12-2014 09:56 AM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:04 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  McClellan lost his job as a result of his decisions, which isn't a good indicator for military prowess. Grant won the war, not McClellan.

And Grant didn't do it in Virginia.

If not there, where?

The Western theatre.

He had success there no doubt, but the war would have gone on much longer if he had not put Lee through the grinder in Virginia while Sherman was destroying Georgia.

Without Grant's success in the West Lee could have waged the war in Virginia indefinitely. The resources of the nation were sufficient to supply the ANV.

Lee was able to do more with less. Remember he was offered the Union Army first. JEB Stuart would have been a game changer at G'burg. Lee also perfected the 'Hit them where they ain't' strategy
Pershing - WW1 Generals get the shaft but he was instrumental in building the US Armed Forces into a World power
MacArthur - He had ego but at that level who doesn't? IMO, he combined the Adminstrative talents of Eisenhower and the battlefield instinct of Patton. Remember he was planning the invasion of Japan before the Bomb was dropped. It would have dwarfed D-Day. Even though he was seen as their Conqueror, the Japanese held and hold him in great reverence. Not to mention the Philippine people. And let's not forget the landing at Inchon. I also sort of liked his idea of nuking the border between Korea and China to cut supplies coming from China.

Honorable Mention - Cutiss LeMay. SAC was his baby and every time you see our B-52's and B-2's be thankful for him

I mark greatness by leading men to kill. Patton and MacArthur...then Sherman. All ruthless SOB's

(07-12-2014 06:41 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  Lee was able to do more with less. Remember he was offered the Union Army first. JEB Stuart would have been a game changer at G'burg. Lee also perfected the 'Hit them where they ain't' strategy
Pershing - WW1 Generals get the shaft but he was instrumental in building the US Armed Forces into a World power
MacArthur - He had ego but at that level who doesn't? IMO, he combined the Adminstrative talents of Eisenhower and the battlefield instinct of Patton. Remember he was planning the invasion of Japan before the Bomb was dropped. It would have dwarfed D-Day. Even though he was seen as their Conqueror, the Japanese held and hold him in great reverence. Not to mention the Philippine people. And let's not forget the landing at Inchon. I also sort of liked his idea of nuking the border between Korea and China to cut supplies coming from China.

Honorable Mention - Cutiss LeMay. SAC was his baby and every time you see our B-52's and B-2's be thankful for him

I just can't see LeMay. His ideas regarding Strategic Bombing are what led the AF to believe wars could be won w/o putting boots on the ground.

Why Sherman? He never won a battle until the Confederacy under. Bragg and Hood were so decimated there was no one to fight. Sherman was a terrorist that is all.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I tend to agree with you about Sherman. He was a terrorist.

(07-15-2014 10:10 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why Sherman? He never won a battle until the Confederacy under. Bragg and Hood were so decimated there was no one to fight. Sherman was a terrorist that is all.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Gen. Sherman was no terrorist!!! Now, Nathan Bedford Forrest? First Grand Wizard of the KKK? He's the real terrorist.

I know how red-a$$ed South Carolinians are towards Gen. Sherman, but to completely ignore Forrest? That's lower than low, IMO!!!

(07-16-2014 01:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I tend to agree with you about Sherman. He was a terrorist.

Sherman was definitive ruthless. terrorist ...ugh maybe. He did have the faith of his men and they would fight for him as evidenced by the battle of Shiloh. His men were about the only ones that weren't pushed back.

Terrorist? Not really

War criminal? Yea that's about right

Yes Terrorist...just research Roswell Women Mill workers for one instance..

Vast contrast between the two governments and their military leadership. The Army of Northern Virginia followed General Orders #72. Sherman as well as Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley burned private property, live stock and raped women.

The South has been fighting terrorism since 1859.

As for the urban legend of the KKK and N.B. Forrest that is incorrect and there is no supporting evidence to point towards that accusation.

(07-18-2014 02:58 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Yes Terrorist...just research Roswell Women Mill workers for one instance..

Vast contrast between the two governments and their military leadership. The Army of Northern Virginia followed General Orders #72. Sherman as well as Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley burned private property, live stock and raped women.

The South has been fighting terrorism since 1859.

As for the urban legend of the KKK and N.B. Forrest that is incorrect and there is no supporting evidence to point towards that accusation.

.....and there's no supporting evidence Gen. Sherman was a terrorist. Yet you've said it twice and not once condemned N.B. Forrest for his blatant terrorism towards blacks/former slaves.

I'll just chalk you up as another red-assed South Carolinian who's still bitter about something that happened before he was born.

You didn't research what I asked you to look up did you? I would suggest that kidnapping women and children and taking them go undisclosed locations ( different states or a different country for that matter ) would be terrorism.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-18-2014 11:07 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  You didn't research what I asked you to look up did you? I would suggest that kidnapping women and children and taking them go undisclosed locations ( different states or a different country for that matter ) would be terrorism.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Unfounded accusations. You're still whitewashing N.B. Forrest as a terrorist towards blacks/former slaves, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Fact. You can't rewrite history regardless of how hard you try.

I'm not white washing anything. You are the one without any facts supporting your accusations on Forrest.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-10-2014 09:29 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Lee

On a side note, it looks like someone donated close to $12 million to restores Lee's house in Arlington. Good news, IMHO.

Robert E. Lee's House Gets Huge Donation

(07-18-2014 10:03 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 01:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I tend to agree with you about Sherman. He was a terrorist.

Sherman was definitive ruthless. terrorist ...ugh maybe. He did have the faith of his men and they would fight for him as evidenced by the battle of Shiloh. His men were about the only ones that weren't pushed back.

Like I said above...I judge greatness by ruthlessness. I think Sherman was a scumbag. That has nothing to do with him effectively leading killers to do their jobs.

"Ni@@&rs and cotton caused this war. I wish them both to hell".

William T. Sherman Fayetteville, NC 1865.

Said while destroying a textile mill.

Quite the racist as well as terrorist.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-19-2014 01:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:03 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 01:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I tend to agree with you about Sherman. He was a terrorist.

Sherman was definitive ruthless. terrorist ...ugh maybe. He did have the faith of his men and they would fight for him as evidenced by the battle of Shiloh. His men were about the only ones that weren't pushed back.

Like I said above...I judge greatness by ruthlessness. I think Sherman was a scumbag. That has nothing to do with him effectively leading killers to do their jobs.

So you think Heinrich Himmler was great? He was ruthless, and effective at leading killers to do their job.

Of course, their job was to efficiently exterminate the Jewish population of Europe, and eventually the world (had Germany won WWII). They were very effective in their job, killing approximately 6,000,000 Jews (2/3 of all Jews who lived in Europe). Himmler was the mastermind behind it all.

Frankly, I see no difference between Himmler and Sherman, other than the fact that Sherman happened to be on the side that won their war. But they were both of a similar mind, and it was only superior technology that allowed Himmler to be so much more effective at killing those he hated.

(07-20-2014 09:27 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-19-2014 01:03 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 10:03 AM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 01:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I tend to agree with you about Sherman. He was a terrorist.

Sherman was definitive ruthless. terrorist ...ugh maybe. He did have the faith of his men and they would fight for him as evidenced by the battle of Shiloh. His men were about the only ones that weren't pushed back.

Like I said above...I judge greatness by ruthlessness. I think Sherman was a scumbag. That has nothing to do with him effectively leading killers to do their jobs.

So you think Heinrich Himmler was great? He was ruthless, and effective at leading killers to do their job.

Of course, their job was to efficiently exterminate the Jewish population of Europe, and eventually the world (had Germany won WWII). They were very effective in their job, killing approximately 6,000,000 Jews (2/3 of all Jews who lived in Europe). Himmler was the mastermind behind it all.

Frankly, I see no difference between Himmler and Sherman, other than the fact that Sherman happened to be on the side that won their war. But they were both of a similar mind, and it was only superior technology that allowed Himmler to be so much more effective at killing those he hated.

I dont think Himmler lead men into battle. I think that is what the OP was referring to. I agree BTW that Sherman was a POS.

Himmler thought he was leading men into battle. A battle to rid the world of Jews. But a soldier wouldn't call that battle, since back then the Jews didn't fight back. Ever since that day, the Jews will fight anyone who even considers taking away their freedom. I can't blame them for that either.

I was merely nitpicking on your choice of words. It was rather infelicitous. If you know what I mean.