The Confederacy was About Slavery

Doesn't matter what transpired before Grant took over. What matters is how he handles the operations after he takes command. You do understand the term chain of command, don't you?

Does it really make that much difference to your claim that CS generals were better? I think not. Where their asshole is from other inanimate objects is about your speed.

I am sure you do not know what elegant is in warfare so I would suggest you read about the campaigns of Napoleon or Caesar and without question Hannibal Barca.

In the Civil war I would give the valley campaign of Thomas J. Jackson's a high mark for elegant.

In any case, elegant is not Grant winning by using sheer force and throwing bodies at Lee until Lee ran out of manpower to counter him.

Grant was a good general not a great general and only look that way because of the lack of good commanding generals before him.

CI
These guys are just throwing up these stupid assertions to be contrary. No way they could all be so dense - Or, COULD THEY?

I know, edgar. As been proven by so many on this thread, they're just throwing mud on the wall, because that's how they get their kicks.

You are a simplistic moron . You see the word slavery and deduce it must have been the major factor . I suppose cake is the main ingredient in cake .

Where is your agenda to make the north look like lovely people who welcomed the blacks with open arms and they all lived happily ever after.....well, apart from a few race riots, cop beatings and burning cities....but there is NO racism in the North .

Gomer the Turd must seek help.....
for alcoholism, an inferiority complex, delusions of grandeur, xenophobia, racism, etc...

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-battle-of-cannae-a198840

Double Envelopment Trap
During the heat of battle, the Roman infantry gradually forced back Hannibal's center, and victory or defeat depended upon whether Hannibal’s force would bend, but not break. While Hannibal’s forces fell back, they did not break, and the Roman center was gradually drawn forward into Hannibal’s trap. Hannibal's crescent formation had now transformed into a circle formation: the African troops, past whom the Romans were now thrusting, turned inward against them, and the Carthaginian cavalry was in the rear. Pressed tightly together and hence unable to properly use their arms, the Romans were surrounded and cut to pieces. Approximately 60,000 Roman soldiers died on the battlefield, about 15,000 Roman soldiers escaped death, and at least 10,000 Roman soldiers were captured. The Carthaginians lost only 6,000 fighting men.

Cannae is regarded by military historians as a classic example of Hannibal’s double envelopment trap. This battle was a perfect demonstration of the most brilliant strategic, operational, and tactical maneuver in military history ever to be employed by a military commander.

Station uninvited troops in Russia and then blame them for starting the war . Sounds about right .

Oh, now, we're talking about the Romans. This thread is about the Confederacy and Slavery.

He had no help from superior numbers, more industry, more railroads, and a blockade . He must have been very busy .

I was talking about what the hell a great general look like and if you think that Grant was a great general you got to be kidding me.

William, no one in their right mind thinks Grant was a GREAT general...he was adequate .

BillRM, There have been great generals in history, but this thread is about the Confederacy and Slavery. Unless it has direct relevance to any of the Civil War generals, talking about other wars and generals will be endless.

You can start a new thread on "Great Generals of History."

Agree and the others northern commanding generals was not adequate to say the least.

A thread police officer.....

No; common sense. If you want to talk about the wars Romans were involved in, that would have only relevance for that period. You can also talk about Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Napoleon, Ottomon Empire, the generals of WWI, the generals of WWII, and many others who were conquerors or protectors. Trying to mix and match them is a foolhardy task, because they were of different periods with different strengths and weaknesses.

So why would anyone compare Grant to a GREAT general ? Unless they had an agenda, of course....

Strange as the military experts who teach at military colleges such as West Point and Sandburg seem to disagree with you.

I do not think it is possible to get a military education without studying Hannibal Barca campaigns for example.

They seem to think that such old campaigns and generals are indeed relevance enough to the current time to be worth studying.

No, they don't; they teach tactics and strategies of war, but all wars are not the same because of different variables involved in wars. That's something you'll never understand. Roman wars were fought with the tools of war that was available at that time. Since then, the tools of war has dramatically changed; wars are not fought in the same way, and strategies have been improved upon with succeeding wars.

When Rome fought, they didn't have missiles, computers, nor GPS.