quote:

Who is he?

No one wanted to take a guess?

Okay. He is General Stepehn Dill Lee.
This portrait used to hang in a prominent location in the Lee Hall at Mississippi State University. The painting depicts General Lee as the commander of artillery at the battle of Antietam. Stephen D. Lee was the first president of Mississippi A&M College formed in 1878 and later changed to Mississippi State University. This large painting was in a prominent location in the hall outside the auditorium.
There is a bronze bust of General Stephen Lee on the quadrangle or what the ROTC cadets called the drill field.

General S.D. Lee was from South Carolina but he eventually commanded a brigade of Mississippians. He adopted Mississippi as his home state.

General S.D. Lee commanded artillery at Antietam. The famous photo of the Dunker Church catches a glimpse of the position of his artillery. He commanded a division at Vicksburg. At Battle of Franklin, he was a Corps commander over Johnson's, Stevenson's and Clayton's Divisions.

This portrait has been discretely removed from display on the MSU campus and put into storage by the Political Correctness Police.

Steve

the Political correctness police are a pack of B A S T A R D S.

quote:

This portrait has been discretely removed from display on the MSU campus and put into storage by the Political Correctness Police.

Maybe they figured their football team was bad enough, they didn't more pictures of losers around.

Didn't Travis answer this question?

Hello Simon;

I thought I answered it well too. When you're a General from the South you had to be a good General. Remember this, The South only lost maybe 200,000 solders fighting an army more than twice their size and managed to kill over 400,000 Union soldiers, (Yankees)during that war. Grant was the best General the North had and Lee could have wiped him out if he had the manpower and weaponry Grant had. The odds were always against the South. You've got to give the Confederates the credit they deserve.

Bravery above and beyond the call of Do Do.

Seriously, The North wouldn't have stood a chance if the South outnumbered them as much as the North did the South and you know this to be true.

Travis

P.S. The South came really close to winning anyway. But that only counts in Horse Shoes and Hand Grenades huh?

P.P.S. Wouldn't it really be nice to have our Constitution back? Wellll, you can thank Ole' Honest Abe for leading the pack of Constitution trashers. Reach out and BUG someone. Hello Lincolnites. Is this the America you like? If it is then stand by for more eradication of our used to be rights going down the old tubes. The South tried to stop it once...now it's probably tooooo late.

Addendum; It’s hell when either senility or Alzheimer's kicks in at times LOL. Hmmmmm did I jest say that???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: travisab1,

When John Mosby, (The Gray Ghost), was asked, "Whom do you consider the ablest General on the Federal side?". This was his reply from a quote and I'll give the link to it.

"Whom do you consider the ablest General on the Federal side?" "McClellan, by all odds. I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."

Go to this URL and find out his reply to, "What is your individual opinion of Jeff Davis?"

here's the URL...

http://www.pattonhq.com/militaryworks/mosby.html
Jest thought this would be a good place to throw this in...

Travis

As a southerner, I respect General Lee. He was a able to hold off a numerically superior force for three years. However, I think his greatest mistake was the Battle of Gettysburg. After that battle, he was unable to fully replace his losses and was never again able to launch an invasion of the north. Please correct me if any of what I've said is wrong. My choices for the top three generals are:
1.Lee
2.Stonewall Jackson
3.Sherman

Here is a synopsis of Grant.

2LT, 4th Infantry, War with Mexico, Battles of: Palo Alto, 8 May 46; Resaca-de-la-Palma, 9 May 46; Monterey, 21-23 Sep 46, Vera Cruz, 9-29 Mar 47, Cerro Gordo, 17-18 Apr 47, San Antonio, 20 Aug 47, Churubusco, 20 Aug 47, Molino del Rey, 8 Sep 47 (Promo Bv 1LT for Gallant and Meritorious Conduct), Chapultepec, 13 Sep 47 (Promo Bv CPT for Gallant Conduct at Chapultepec), Mexico City, 13-14 Sep 47

CDR, Ironton, Mo., Aug. 7-17, 1861
CDR, Dist of SW Missouri, Aug. 17-29, 1861. Expanded Command to include Southern Illinois and Western Kentucky, headquarters Cairo, 1 Sep 61 - 17 Feb62
Captures Paducah 6 Sep 61, Belmont Nov 61,
CDR, Western Kentucky Campaign 10-22 Jan 62
CDR in the Tennessee Campaign, Feb to Apr 62
Ft Henry, 2-6 Feb 62, Ft. Donelson, 13-16 Feb 62

Shiloh, Apr. 6-7, 1862
CDR, District of West Tennessee, Mar- Oct 62
2IC Mississippi Campaign, Apr - Oct 62,
Siege of Corinth, 10 Apr-30 May 62, CDR of the Right Wing and Reserve of Halleck's Army,
CDR forces in the Battles of Corinth 3-4 Oct and Hatchie 5 Oct 62
CDR, Battle of Iuka, 19 Sep 62
CDR Department of the Tennessee, Oct 62- Oct 63
CDR Army on the Mississippi, Vicksburg Campaign, Nov 62 -Jul 63
Battles of Bruinsburg, Grand Gulf, Williams's Canal, Yazoo Pass, Port Gibson, Raymond, Capture of Jackson, Champion's Hill, Big Black, Vicksburg

July 63 Promoted to MG
Various expeditions in the department under his command July-Aug 63, forces Johnston to retreat his army beyond Brandon, MS
CDR Military Division of the Mississippi to include the Armies of the Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee, 16 Oct 63- Mar 64
Defense of and Operations about Chattanooga 23 Oct-23 Nov 63
Battle of Chattanooga, Nov. 23-25, 1863
Pursuit operations with large captures of prisoners, 26-27 Nov 63

Promotion to LTG Mar 1864
General-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States, 17 Mar 64-12 Aug 66
Richmond Campaign, 4 May 64 – 9 Apr 65, in direct command of all the forces in the field; Battles of Wilderness, 5-6 May 64, Spottsylvania, 8-21 May 64, North Anna, 21-25 May 64, Totopotomy, 28-29 May 64, Bethesda Church, 30 May 64, Cold Harbor, 1-13 June 64, Petersburg, 16-18 June 64, Operations and Siege about Petersburg 18 Jun 64-3 Apr 65
Pursuit of the Rebel Army, 3-9 Apr 65; Battle of Sailor's Creek, 6 Apr 65; Capitulation of General Lee, with the Army of Northern Virginia, at Appomattox C. H., 9 Apr 65.

If one takes a purely military viewpoint/analysis and leaves the southern/northern bias out of the equation, the only result is that Grant was the best general (on either side).

quote:

If one takes a purely military viewpoint/analysis and leaves the southern/northern bias out of the equation, the only result is that Grant was the best general (on either side).

Scutarii;

If you take on this view point it's kinda like watching all of China beating and killin' the hell outta England.

Tell me this. How many Union troops fought against how many Confederate troops?

Truth be known, the North couldn't survive moneywise without the South's cotton belt, tobacco, ETC... Dear ole' Lincoln would have killed every body, (that means every man, woman and child)down South to reap the fortuns the South held then and now. It was the closest thing, (if not) to TOTAL WAR.

I get soooo sick of hearing the slave thingy. The truth is MONEY and LOT's of it. Look at Iraq and Afghanishit...MONEY...OIL...who cares how many Americans have to die to get this MONEY???

Wake up America, You've been fleeced at least since 1860. The black folk saw little relief for almost one hundred years after Ole' Honest Abes passing away. Now we hear the race card and free people who murder people in the name of raceism...hmmmmm, is that a word???


My two cents.

Travis

Travis,

I'm not iterested in this kinda stuff, i.e. the socio-enconomic-political psychobabble. I am expressing a point based on military aspects of history. The point being the abelest general that led Americans is combat during this period demonstrated by facts. If I'm unaware of the feats of other generals, please inform me.

The fact I was demonstrating was that by 1862, Grant was commensurate to Lee's highest level of command; or ever greater.

Simple as that.

You saw what Col Mosby said about Gen Grant and Gen McClellan I posted earlier. Maybe you didn't. Here 'tis again. I was stating a fact...if you have enough men and fire power you don't need officers. Just teach everybody how to ;ock and load

quote:

"Whom do you consider the ablest General on the Federal side?" "McClellan, by all odds. I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."

Grant was toooo aggresive and like Mosby said, had Grant been there at the start of the war the North would have lost big time.

Travis

Sherman.

I don't know about the greatest, but I have three names for most underrated... In the North i submit Winfield Scott Hancock and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. In the South I say Patrick Cleburne.

My vote is for Major General Winfield Scott Hancock.

George G Meade deserves consideration for his victory at Gettysburg. After Gettysburg, Union victory was virtually certain.

Yes, Lee was great but he owed much of his success to subordinates such as Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson whose absence at Gettysburg contributed to the Confederate defeat.

Scootermech, I'll agree somewhat with that about Jackson's absence at Gettysburg, but its just not that simple an issue to make that statement and let it go.
Lee commanded in a very unique way and he tried to treat Ewell in the style of command that he did Jackson. Lee suggested what needed to be done and Jackson, Stuart or others would do it, without further ado. Ewell was not made from the same cloth, he was a more indecisive man and deferred to others recommendations. Jubal Early had a very big influence on Ewell and not always for the best.
I firmly believe after thirty some odd years of studying the war and participants that if Lee would have said, "General Ewell take your corps and attack those heights south of town and drive those people off. It would have been done. But he merely suggested it and said "If possible."
Now he's shifted the responsibilty to Ewell hoping that Ewell will be as agressive as Jackson would be. Just didn't happen.
Another thing to think about, if the man who was originally rcommended to command Jackson's old corps would have been in command would things have turned out different? I believe so, but he didn't get the job nor his third star over a battle that was not all his fault and the south really didn't lose as they drove off the Union forces back acroos the river. The man who really should have taken the blame for Brandy Station got off very lightly because he had more friends in the Confederat congress and press, Brig. Gen Beverly Robertson. JEB Stuart should have commanded Jackson'e old corps, not Richard Ewell. Would Gettysburg been different? Point to ponder.......

Great analysis.
I have felt the same way for years. Had Ewell done as Lee wished..........

Longstreet, I feel was the best, but the problem he had was being held back.

I am a Northern boy, but I still feel he was the best.

I appreciate the compliment. But its after alot of studying,reading and quite abit of leg work checking out the locales at Gettysburg.
I also believe that the Civil War was the awakening of the United States Army of a much larger world. That world being the size of armies and theaters of operations. The old one man, one general, one officer control was gone and the learning curve operating with a staff with each officer in a specific area of expertise became necessary.
It also started the lesson for the need of an Operations Section. The planning and executing a campaign with out the knowledge of what each skirmish or battle contributes to the overall plan was gone. Commanders had to show progress and not just fight a battle and retire.
It seems we had a start of that by a chain smoking general from the Western Theater.
Gary Owen in glory!

I've put to posts on here without puttong my two cents worth in on my choice or choices as to who was the best general during that conflict.
The term "Best" ia a bit of a misomer in its self when used describe the accomplishments of these men who led during the four year conflict.
There wer many who were outstanding and could succeed today because they had the charisma of personal character to go along with their leadership skills.
Winfield Scott Hancock. "Hancock the Superb" Wow! Like the pasta sauce commerical what do you say? The man had it all. He excelled at every level of command and although he had a setback at the early portions of the 64 campaign, he went on continuing to be a fine officer and leader.

JEB Stuart A personal favorite of mine, since I portrayed him for several years with very good success. Stuart was a very complicated man. Far more so than many historians think. I disagree with those who call him "the proverbial momma's boy" Bull, I've know some Momma's boys and he does not qualify in that respect. I think that tag has been put on him because some historians can't figure the man out to put him their nice neat categories.
He was fighter, period. Colonel Fremantle said that of all the American officers in that war, only JEB Stuart understood the tactics of Fire and Shock. Many deride Stuart for not being at Gettysburg on time. In my years as Stuart 85% of the questions were "Where were you at Gettysburg?" I, Stuart was right where he was supposed to be. He did not disobey orders, he found when he started his march north that along his purposed route was a corps of the Union Army of the Potomac! He had to march South then swing back around and head the direction he should have.
He didn't receive word of the engagement at Gettysburg until LATE on the first of July. He had detachments out and had to wait until they came back. Marching the thirty some odd miles they got to Gettysburg late on the second day. Much has been made of the wagons that slowed him down, BALONEY! People tody have no idea what it is to march a formation of cavalry through hostile country, with gear, wool uniforms in high summer. During the first week of July 1863, temperatures hovered in the mid to high 80s. Also, you do not ride your horse the whole time. At prescribed intervals the men get off and walk, letting the horse rest. That will slow you down, but the wagons really were not a burden. As it turned out they were a blessing that most historians ignore because they carried much needed medical supplies to Lee's army and was the transportation to haul away the bulk of the Confederate wounded.
I could write more, but that is enough for now.

Patrick Clebourne What a commander! A great, great loss to the south when he was killed. Who knows what other skill at command he would have attained. He richly deserves the title "Stonewall of the West."

Those are my top three. I have others that I look up to, Longstreet, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Lee and Grant.

My system is messing with me, I proof read my piece and made the corrections. Somehow they did NOT come out. Oh well, such is life!