There are 1350 users online
You can register for a user account here.
Login
Military Photos
Main Menu
Online
Past Articles
Military Quotes
He that makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long -- Napoleon Bonaparte |
Current poll resultsWho was overall the most impressive Civil War General?
Total votes: 237 |
Military History
Forum Posts
This Day in History
1779:
The War of Bavarian Succession ends.
1846: The United States declares war on Mexico after fighting has already begun. 1861: Britain declares its neutrality in the American Civil War. 1861: Union troops occupy Baltimore. 1864: The Battle of Resaca commences as Union General Sherman fights towards Atlanta. 1864: The struggle for the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania concludes. 1940: Winston Churchill takes the helm as Great Britains new prime minister. 1944: Allied forces in Italy break through the German Gustav Line into the Liri Valley. 1958: French troops take control of Algiers. 1968: Peace talks between the United States and North Vietnam begin in Paris. |
Comments
Besides how can you not like a man who when surrounded just told his soldiers,"split in half and charge both ways." He was a fighter without peer except just maybe Stonewall. But Forrest had no military education. It came to him naturally.
North and South had great generals and both had some real duds. Seems that the North Had more than its fair share of duds.
My vote goes to Grant because he was a winner and knew how to win. Maybe not the greatest tactician but he won. It is impressive that a shoe salesman could excell in battle.
Keith
I would have to go with Robert E. Lee. He did so much with so little, especially after Jackson was gone.
He was at the top of his class at West Point. He commanded troops under the Union flag at Harper's Ferry. Lincoln, and many others, thought so highly of him that he was offered command of the Union forces, but reluctantly turned it down out of loyalty to Virginia. His command of officers and men was so deeply regarded that they remained completely unflinchingly loyal to him even in failure. He with his men won most of the battles they fought, usually against amazing overwhelming odds. Arlington Cemetery, Lee's ancestral home, our national military resting place today was taken from his family by Union officers burying their fallen on the grounds while the war was still on. Few who visit there are aware of this. He was gracious in defeat. His opposite at Appomatox truly respected him. He never ignored or forgot the sufferings of his troops or the Confederate citizens, he put them ahead of himself. He accepted responsibility in a genuine way for failures. After the war he went on to dignified service in his own quiet way, and did nothing to spoil the Union victory by bitterness or poor conduct, and he advised all to do the same. He was a true gentleman, and will always remain deep in the hearts of all who cherish the freedoms for which the Revolution itself was fought long before.
I guess General Lee found that he DID find it necessary to do battle with and protect america from a domestic enemy. There was no other honorable choice, as an american soldier.
I know the cause is just, and I see your point. States rights are important, protecting your home is important. But as American soldiers we have our roots in the United States not the Confederate States.
Sherman. His decisions were brilliant.
Andy
Lee was a soldier in the service of the United States. When he felt he could not take up arms against the state of Virginia, he resigned. When you resign, technically at least you are released from your oath. Therefore his decision to aid the Confederacy was quite proper.
I can't speak from an officer's point of view, but from an enlisted person's point of view, I know this, when you reenlist or extend your tour beyond your original tour of duty, you have to take the oath again. That implies that the oath is not a forever kind of thing. In addition pre 1861 oaths swore fealty to the state NOT the nation.
I'm not sure so I need an officer's opinion here. I think officers have to take the oath again each time they are promoted.
Bill
Fascinating information, had no idea about that at all. I was wondering in what way military loyalty oaths were given in 1860s.
Mike
In 1861, the oath still refered to the state as opposed to the nation. The June of 1861 class was subject to the old oath. When the federal government realized the issue regarding the oath was creating problems they changed the oath to swear allegiance to the United States. It was done in the summer of 1861. So the true class of 1861 used the older oath. Then to get more officers into the field, the second class of 1861 was graduated. THAT class was subject to the new oath which swore fealty to the Country.
At one point there was a real problem because the cadets who were sworn in under the older oath were asked to reaffirm their allegiance by swearing to the new oath referencing the United States. As a result many of the southern cadets that were still hanging on, resigned or were dismissed due to their refusal to take the new oath.
Bill
I agree Robert E. Lee was a General who commanded his troops with the dignity and grace of a truly noble gentleman. He was humble with his troops and in his glory but carried his command with earned respect and dignity while the alcohol drinking Grant even was in awe at his gracious surrender of his troops.
Thanks for bringing me up to date on the oath, I had no idea things were this different. Do you know if the Confederate Army had an oath, and if so was it like the pre-1861 or post-1861 U.S. oath.
bargunner
It was not until Christmas of 1868 when Johnston gave a blanket pardon to everyone. One interesting note here. Lee had applied for reinstatement as a citizen. It was denied because there was no signed copy of the oath of allegiance with his request for citizenship. For many years, people thought that he had been singled out just because he was Lee. Well, in the early 70's his signed oath was found out of place in the archives by a researcher indicating that had all the paperwork been together, he would have been granted citizenship. So when they found it in the 1970's he was granted citizenship posthumously.
Some people argue that his oath was lost on purpose to turn the screws so to speak. I don't believe it because had that been me who was in possession of his oath and wanted to cause him grief, I would have just destroyed it altogether, not hide it.
regards,
Bill
Nathan B Forrest. From what I've read of the man, I can't help but NOT like him; but I don't think anyone (except Sherman) had a better understanding of how to fight a war. I don't know if NBF could have handled the large number of troops that Sherman did so I lean a bit towards WTS and really wish Reynolds had kept his head down.
<b>Nathan Bedford Forrest, ruthless, cunning and not an overall nice guy what hey that's war.</b>
Yes, But under the Geneva Convention we are under today Sherman would have been convicted of War Crimes by the World Court and probably Court Martialed for his actions against civilians whose homes ,Farms, and livestock were slaughterd and deystroyed all in the process of cutting the Souths Supply lines and... Because He decided to spare Savanna GA as a present "Happy St. Patty's Day"
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in