The Civil War

I see your point, and you’re right. The Army of Northern Virginia was worn down by 1864. Though it was still well motivated and well led, had the interior lines of defense, was more familiar with the terrain and had the support of the local population, it still was weakened from its previous ordeals - though not quite the "half dead zombies" that Southern lore would have it. It was still an effective fighting force and fought very well in its last campaigns.

But I know what you are implying: That if Grant and Lee had had equal armies that the results would have been different. That is of course true given all the above-mentioned intrinsic advantages that the South had to begin with. On the other hand, had the opposing forces been of equal strength, Grant wouldn’t have attempted that campaign in that fashion. He would have attempted to whittle down Southern strength until he had sufficient resources to overcome those intrinsic advantages.

[There is a funny story about Grant’s 1862 capture of Fort Donelson on the Tennessee River. The Confederate Army was commanded by two absolutely useless politician/generals named Floyd and Pillow. Grant completely outclassed them, closely invested the fort and forced its surrender. The two Confederate generals fled in the night before the surrender negotiations, leaving the command to one competent West Point grad and former close friend of Grant's named Simon Bolivar Buckner (whose son, interestingly, was the highest ranking American general killed in World War II – at Okinawa). Buckner, of course, was annoyed as hell that he had to surrender to his old friend, and at the surrender negotiations bitterly said to Grant "Had I been in command I would have never let you encircle us so closely." Grant nodded in sympathy and said "If you would been in command I wouldn’t have attempted it." The point is that part of Grant’s genius was that he adapted his tactics to his army, the terrain and the opposing commander. ………………..But once again I digress. ]

There is only one battle I can think of in which think Grant can justifiably be accused of being wasteful with his troops and that was at Cold Harbor, which was a debacle. Lee I think can be accused of the same at the Seven Days Battle and that last day at Gettysburg. The situation sometimes dictates your tactics and leads to bad decisions.

We will never know what would have happened had the two of them faced each other on equal terms (people often wonder the same thing about Patton and Rommel), but between the two of us I would have put my money - though not too much - on Grant, especially if he had Sherman and Sheridan with him, because I think Grant was the more adaptable of the two.

I didn’t mean to imply that your childhood idol's reputation is in any way underserved. Only he could have kept the South in the game as long as he did. Great man placed in a horrible situation with no good choices……………………………..Luca

(I apologize for being so goddamn verbose. It’s my nature and the topic is one of my hobbies)

Geez, you're really a "Lost Causer", aren't you? But you may be right regarding the results if Lee had had the initial command of the Northern armies. He likely would have outclassed Joe Johnson and Piere Gustav Toutant Beauregard (that’s the most pretentious name I’ve ever heard outside of English royalty), who would have been his probable opponents.

But the Northern army was still awfully inexperienced and it would have been difficult. How well the brigadeers/soldiers would have been able to carry out his instructions is unclear. Certainly the war would have ended sooner if for no other reason than the South would not have had Lee to lead them. It would have been interesting to see Lee with a comparable army take the offensive, and how he would have handled maneuver in Northern Virginia.

As for Jackson: I think not, noble respondent. Grant had some interesting comments about Jackson in his autobiography. He was clearly near death when he wrote the last few chapters but he took the trouble to evaluate several of the leading generals of the war. Surprisingly, he was not all that impressed with Jackson. He was of the opinion that while Jackson had the advantage of rapidity of movement and decisiveness, his simple flanking maneuvers were carried early in the war and would never have worked when he was facing competent opposing commanders. His comment was something to the effect that "I’d like to see him try to pull that shit on Sherman or Sheridan and see what happens." (I paraphrase, you understand.)

The point being that his maneuvers at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, while well executed, were something that a more experienced/competent commander would have anticipated and been able to stop. Losing Jackson was obviously a huge blow to the Army of Northern Virginia because his replacement was nowhere near his caliber, but I doubt Jackson would have had a definitive effect on the war’s outcome. I wonder, though, if the South might not have won the Battle of Gettysburg had he survived. His speed and decisiveness might have been the difference at Culp’s Hill or Cemetery Hill or on day two …………………………………….Luca

156 years ago, Battle for Little Round Top Colonel Chamberlain and the 20th Maine -- Gettysburg -- July 2, 1863.

On July 2, 1863, at the Battle of Gettysburg, the 20th Maine under the command of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain held the far left of the Union line. In a desperate attempt to "roll up" the Union flank, the 15th Alabama repeatedly assaulted Chamberlain’s line only to be repulsed each time. Out of ammunition, the shout of "Bayonet" from Col. Chamberlain was heard up and down the line, and the men from Maine rose up and charged.

This bold counterattack won Col. Chamberlain the Medal of Honor.

If Cenk Uygur's statements are true, then it's clear that progressives win a major battle about once every fifty to a hundred years. I'm not sure that's a very stellar record.

What a tool.  He is redefining "progressive" to mean "whoever wins, thats us".

The Founding Fathers were Classical liberals and their stances were embodied in the Constitution.  Considering how todays progressives want to dismantle most of the Bill of Rights, I wouldn't put the Founding Fathers down as "Progressive".

The Civil War & Slavery were not won by an ideology or party, albeit it Abraham Lincoln was Republican.  Both progressives and conservatives in the South wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons while those same two ideologies in the North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons.

Interesting he left out WWII.  The left tried to appease Hitler and it ended up in disaster.  It took people with conservative views like Eisenhower to do the things necessary to remove Hitler from power & end the war.

Progressives have a very loose grasp on reality.

as I believe it is...