U. S. Grant

This is funny:D

General Stuart wrote:

I knew that, you don't have a third-grade spelling level, there's no way you could have done that. Plus, it's very typical for yankees to just post something that they didn't even think of, but just found on the internet (i.e., plagary). And about the "spin," you obviously got that off of a very pro-Grant site. Besides, "the winners write the history books."......and the suckers listen.

Stuart, you know nothing of plagarism. Obviously you came up with all of your information somewhere (I'm assuming that it just didn't pop into your head, right). Either in books, or articles, or textbooks, or from lectures, etc. If you want to point fingers about plagarism, start with yourself. Because, if you wanted to avoid plagarism, you would have to cite all the info from where you retrieved it. Whether it is a direct quote or not. Even if it is just a summary or stating something you know about this, the fact is you didn't pluck it out of thin air, you got it from somewhere. And don't mess with me on this....we are very strict at my school about plagarism. And, to point this out to everyone...we are all plagarizing, oh well(this means I am not blaming only you but everyone, including myself). It is a forum, not something that is going to be published. Obviously, if it was, we would have to give credit where credit is due.

Heh heh heh>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STUART<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,

General Stuart wrote:

Wow, that's some spin on the facts there Oppie. Don't get me wrong, in the end, Grant got the job done. However, he did it in a pathetically simple-minded way, one that lost him entire armies of men in casualties. The wide-spread warfare of the West seemed to have suited Grant, and this becomes more obvious as we see the results of Grants close-quarters "war of attrition" with Lee. Need I mention that, Wilderness, Spotsylvania CH, the North Anna, and Cold Harbor were all Confederate victories, and some near-union disasters? Grant committed more blunders in the 40 days than McClellan did in his whole carrear, and that's saying something. However, Grant had the tenacity to stay where he was, in spite of the defeats, and simply call for reinforcements to make up for his losses in dense-headed assualts whose main purpose were to keep the innitiative.

Since Oppie got this off a Civil War Site (taking that it is reliable) doesn't that mean that your facts are twisted?

Oh, and by the way, about what you said, "in the end, Grant got the job done. However, he did it in a pathetically simple-minded way...." Pretty sad that the south lost to someone who obviously didn't have an IQ higher than 2 when it came to war, eh?

You know, we all get our information somewhere. SO, are we all plagurists then?

Enigma you are being illogical. Oppie COPIED and PASTED! that is different then telling the story in your own words. And it isnt pathetic that the South lost to a guy with an IQ less than 2 when it came to war...Why? because even when the leader is really foolish the soldiers still know how to shoot straight. My point is no matter how stupid Grant was his men still killled Southernors little by little and the South didnt get reinforcements! The Yanks did.
Your friend General Lee

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Enigma you are being illogical. Oppie COPIED and PASTED! that is different then telling the story in your own words. And it isnt pathetic that the South lost to a guy with an IQ less than 2 when it came to war...Why? because even when the leader is really foolish the soldiers still know how to shoot straight. My point is no matter how stupid Grant was his men still killled Southernors little by little and the South didnt get reinforcements! The Yanks did.
Your friend General Lee

so what, this is a northvs south debate, not a argument about plagerism, which technially i havent commited.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Enigma you are being illogical. Oppie COPIED and PASTED! that is different then telling the story in your own words. And it isnt pathetic that the South lost to a guy with an IQ less than 2 when it came to war...Why? because even when the leader is really foolish the soldiers still know how to shoot straight. My point is no matter how stupid Grant was his men still killled Southernors little by little and the South didnt get reinforcements! The Yanks did.
Your friend General Lee

This is exactly why I said that you have no nothing of plagurism. Copying and pasting is the same as telling it in your own words and not citing your work because guess what - its plagurism. Both are plagurizing, doesn't matter if you copy and paste and it doesn't matter if you tell it in your own words and neglect to cite a source. (And yes, we are all plagurizing IBG).

Without order, there is only chaos. Sure, maybe they would've held off someone for awhile, because the last order that that general gave is still in effect. However, if they tried to retreat, or if they enemy adapted and outflanked them, they would eventually be defeated. Grant wasn't the smartest guy when it came to war, but guess what, an IQ of 2 is a whole lot better then 0. So yes, you should feel ashamed that he beat you. And to your point on the south didn't get reinforcements - Lee was brilliant enough, why didn't he just use what he had? He was genius, brilliant, he should've been able to outwit Grant - but he couldn't. Russia did it to Napoleon. Why couldn't Lee, or the South for that matter, have done it here?

Im not ashamed and I have no need to be. It is the Yanks who ought to be ashamed that the Lees army could kill thousand more men then they themselves did even thought Lee had less men.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Im not ashamed and I have no need to be. It is the Yanks who ought to be ashamed that the Lees army could kill thousand more men then they themselves did even thought Lee had less men.

And yet, for all of your brilliance, you lost to the most dimwitted army around (according to you it was dimwitted). All I am saying is that Grant was a little smarter than you make him out to be. And beware of the statistic I gave you concerning how many men each side per capita that were lost during the war (the South had more).

enigma7patriot wrote:

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Im not ashamed and I have no need to be. It is the Yanks who ought to be ashamed that the Lees army could kill thousand more men then they themselves did even thought Lee had less men.

And yet, for all of your brilliance, you lost to the most dimwitted army around (according to you it was dimwitted). All I am saying is that Grant was a little smarter than you make him out to be. And beware of the statistic I gave you concerning how many men each side per capita that were lost during the war (the South had more).

Per capita OF COURSE! But we arent talking capita we are talking men period. Because in war men period count. Besides like I said before you even if the large army is commanded by a stupid guy they will wear down on the MUCH smaller army slowly by slowly.

You guys, I wasn't really that serious about the plagary thing, you didn't have to take it this far lol. I couldn't care less if oppie copies and pastes. Infact, I did it not too long ago on here, but that was only because some people will only believe what they see in print (the published kind) But in this instance, oppie, Gen. Lee and I already know too much to be fooled by something that simple. Now:

enigma7patriot wrote:

Lee was brilliant enough, why didn't he just use what he had? He was genius, brilliant, he should've been able to outwit Grant - but he couldn't. Russia did it to Napoleon. Why couldn't Lee, or the South for that matter, have done it here?

That is just about THE one most uninformed, unintelligent, naive statement I've EVER heard concerning the CW. I think the pure idiocy of the statement speaks for itself, though. I suddenly doubt enimga has ever read about the war; what else could explain it?

enigma, during the war, Lee had a system going that was producing victories; he was shipping incapable officers West, and pulling the best from that department East. Thus, the cream of the crop. And once these men are lost, through battle wounds, disease, etc., Lee suddenly loses the ability to have his battle plans executed with precision. Take the North Anna for instance; Grant committs tactical suicide and splits his army into three isolated segments. Lee sees the opportunity, and pounces on it. But who does he have left to lead the assault? Remember, Jackson had been dead a year, Longstreet had been seriously wounded only weeks ago, and A.P. Hill, suffering from a terrible disease, was out of action. He gave the assignment to Jubal Early, -who was competant, but no Jackson. Early bungled the opportunity, as most first-time corps commanders might. Thus, Grant committs the blunder, Lee organizes a brilliant counter-punch, and Lee's lieutenant fails to pull through. Now, was this Lee's fault? I don't think so. But then I didn't think that enigma would be naive enough to make that statement.....so, I'll put this into baby language:

Ever watched football, enigma? For a team to function efficiently, everyone has to know their job, and how to execute under pressure. The quarterback can make a perfect through, but if the wide reciever doesn't catch it, the team doesn't score any points, right? Thus, it is impossible to win. The running back can be one of the best in the league, but if his offensive line can't block for him, how many yards do you think he'll gain?

Hope I made my point. And I also hope you know better than to ever say something like that about Lee again.

enigma7patriot wrote:

I found that 16.36% of the Union's force perished while 24.28% of the Confederate's force perished.

Assuming that you passed your 8th-grade math class, enigma, I'll assume that you purposely twisted the way that statement was meant. If we deal with percentages, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the South lost a greater percentage of men than the north. See if you can find a statistic dealing with total losses period for both sides. That would be much more telling.

Grants not having a very good day.

General Stuart wrote:

enigma7patriot wrote:

I found that 16.36% of the Union's force perished while 24.28% of the Confederate's force perished.

Assuming that you passed your 8th-grade math class, enigma, I'll assume that you purposely twisted the way that statement was meant. If we deal with percentages, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the South lost a greater percentage of men than the north. See if you can find a statistic dealing with total losses period for both sides. That would be much more telling.

My thanks to Oppie, who posted these stats, and I'm just going to post them here too since they apply:

Union Killed In Action: 110,100
Confederacy KIA: 94,000

This tells more than percentages.

The South couldn't take the casualties, the North could.

Exactly.

And they especially couldn't take the loss of many of their greatest generals.

Yep, because there were only a few of them left in the south.

I feel sorry about that, that so many generals died.

"Genius generals come once every decade. Too bed we need about a dozen." Jefferson davis

I'm not sure that is the exact quote.

I haven't heard that one, but it is fitting coming from Davis.

Let me check. It is in the cover jacket of my book, Leaders of the Lost Cause.

You finished your book? That's awesome! Was it published?

IBG wrote a book?


nobody tells me anything

maybe you just didn't read back far enough? (moron) jk