Who was the best Military leader of the American Civil War

Nope. His own men killed him, mistaking him for a unionfag.

>Believing history textbooks written & published in cities like (((Chicago))) and (((NYC)))
reeeally makes ya think.

As opposed to believing some random faggot on the internet?

As a tactician, Lee. As a strategist, Grant or Sherman.

I's the firstest with the mostest when I fought for Bedford Forrest!

Attached: Nathan_B._Forrest_-_LOCc.jpg (552x678, 163.26K)

George Thomas deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. He usually gets shafted because he wasn’t a self aggrandizing fuck like Grant or Sherman.

Attached: 6E694D2B-7375-4266-98E9-017A2934C479.jpeg (340x415, 30.2K)

Except Linc*ln was a politician who pushed for war against his countrymen for his own political gain. Moreover, his flagrant abuse of executive power set the precedent used by both Roosevelts, Wilson, and really every president of the 20th century who wasn't Coolidge to run this country into the ground. Good job, I hope Sherman's edginess was worth it, in return we got ZOG and niggers.

Pretty sure he just responded in kind to rebel aggression at Fort Sumter, and quelling a rebellion wasn't outside of his presidential duties. If antifa tried the same shit at Ft Hood, I would expect that the US government would retaliate in kind.

Hard to say, a lot of big brains in the Confederate side.

Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's fort, not the Union's fort. They were ILLEGALLY occupying that fort. The Confederate States wasn't like Bacon's Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion or Nat Turner's Rebellion, etc. This was a completely legal secession from the Union. Stop drinking the kool aid.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1200x1776 320.91 KB, 1.63M)

Pretty sure it was an Army fort and the US has jurisdiction on its own states. If you're going to claim that the Confederacy was a separate country, then Lincoln didn't "wage war on his own countrymen", so you can stop bitching about that part.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Nope.

And how is a legal case from 1869, 9 years after South Carolina seceded from the Union, relevant? Sure it says NOW states can't secede from the Union, a conclusion already known from 1865. Are you being purposely crass or are you really that retarded? As for the fort it's debatable, personally I think the state of South Carolina should've payed the US back what they payed for the land with extra, but I doubt President Buchanan would've agreed. Either way, South Carolina had every right to tell the Union Army to leave Fort Sumter, but that bastard Lincoln cooked up a nice scheme to declare war on the CSA. Even then the war was still unpopular.

Because it's supreme court law, and the ones arguing they never seceded were…the Texans. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
No. It's not. If Texas state guard (lol) troops attacked a federal installation, it would be totally within the rights of the US government to fuck their shit up.
Yeah, fucking Lincoln, firing on Fort Sumter, oh wait.
So unpopular that desertion rates were higher for the confederacy, especially after they decided to exempt large slave owners from the draft. Top kek.

ITT: guys who have never read Madison's transcripts or any other ratification-era documents pretending to know about the civil war, a conflict founded on constitutional issues.
Low IQ fellas, read more and learn the truth that I already know.

Whether or not Fort Sumter was legally property of the Feds or South Carolina, it is a true statement that Lincoln and Union officials deliberately escalated the situation there. While other federal property in the South was peacefully surrendered to the Confederate government, and Anderson was ready to do the same with Fort Sumter, his higher-ups forced him to hold onto the fort. The Confederates fired the first shot of the war in name only, there was unambiguous Union aggression leading up to that fact and it's clear that the Union was trying to goad them into action.

Who gives a shit if some fag court ruling determined that the secession was illegal? The Supreme Court's also used the Commerce Clause to justify everything from alphabet soup to public schools as kosher and constitutional, remember. Regardless of whether it was "legal" or not, secession, in any form, should be endorsed or encouraged.

fuck yankees tbh

Attached: cannonsflagchart2.jpg (1374x889, 313.22K)

Nope.
It wasn't. This happened in Texas and the guy that did it was dismissed and then joined the CSA. Stop making shit up.
top kek, m8.

Because they're the body that decides the ultimate legality in the US. That's why.

Yeah, and those are legal. What does that have to do with this?

Protip: The war is over and the rebels lost. It's time to get over it.

Yes, it was plainly illegal, but we won.

Union ships blockaded Fort Sumter and surrounded them with artillery. They threatened to shoot anyone who left on sight. The only deal they would make was essentially 'rejoin the Union and we won't kill you but you all go to prison'. Reported.

Attached: DC39D7F7-4249-484A-9794-7C4E06F851D9.jpeg (220x273, 23.21K)

Love him or hate him, most will hate him as do I, but it cannot be understated when I say he was ahead of his time. The mid-1800's was the beginning of the era of Total War where the civilian populace is automatically enlisted in every military conflict from that point onward. He set the tone that if a hundred years later people paid attention to they would have acted accordingly.

We're a victim of ourselves not going far enough. The Russians actually were the only ones who fought WW2 correctly in the sense of the sheer brutality they showed to hostile aliens.

Kek. Why do you keep making shit up? CO wouldn't leave until starved out. This wasn't good enough, so the rebels fired on the fort. Stop making shit up.

The point, you insufferable kike, is that the letter of the law has no bearing on whether the action taken is right or wrong.

Wow, it's almost like there's a correlation between leftist shittery infecting countries and wars becoming more wantonly destructive and brutal. Medieval sieges are the patrician's method of warmaking, get whole castles to surrender without a drop of blood.

And I explained why those were exceptional circumstances. One officer violated his oath and flipped sides. That doesn't exactly mean the government was fine with handing over forts, retard.

But the claim was that it was legal, when it clearly wasn't.

That's because in communism human life is cheaper than bread.

...

I would say a lot of things about unwarranted aggression but fort Sumter is 100% warranted. South Carolina seceded, whether that shit is legal or not is another dispute, but when someone repeatedly warns you that you should get the fuck out of their land, and you don't do it, you are 100% deserving of the result.

The confederates really were the best troops and soldiers in America in that period, and it's really too bad they lost due to simple logistics, or in some cases, plain bad luck like Jackson being killed by nigger jew. This fact is similar to the Nazi in WW2.

Not quite. The CSA made quite a few strategic mistakes, I won't deny that, but their logistic situation was largely one of circumstance, whereas the Wehrmarcht's poor logistics could have been avoided if they made better decisions.

vs.

U wot. Dixie rail lines were notoriously underdeveloped, they didn't even have a standarized gauge until after the war.

Who said anything about standardisation? I said they had the industrial path to the west, which is true. Rail in the south was used pretty much only for the shipment of goods and materials. They had long, straight lines for that specific purpose.

Conceded, but by saying that you're pulling the discussion away from wartime benefits, which was the original subject. The ability to send goods West in a long straight line doesn't affect one's ability to rapidly and efficiently move troops and materiel to where they are needed most, and in that sense the Confederates were lacking in comparison to the Union. Having a unified rail gauge not only makes this process far more efficient, it makes it easier to maintain and repair the rail line itself. Because the Union imported locomotives from the bongs, all of the Northern rail lines were set for standard gauge before the war had started, and the intra-Union rail system was far more developed, thanks to the Union's more developed industrial base. And on top of that, while we associate the South with expansive plantations, they planted mostly cash crops. The Union had the advantage in edible crops like wheat and corn, as well as in heads of livestock.

The driving point is that, while I won't say the war was "unwinnable" for the South–there were some mistakes they made strategically, and they had some bad luck with Stonewall's untimely death–economic realities meant that the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The Germs, by contrast, made a massive number of logistical errors that were easily avoidable:

Surprised Johnston wasn't mentioned yet. He gave Sherman a hell of a time getting to Atlanta with very inferior forces, and didn't give Sherman battle but stretched his supply lines and harrassed him. Sherman's strategy was basically make Johnston look like he was letting him pass unopposed, frustrate the hell out of the idiot Jefferson Davis, and get him replaced by the other idiot John Bell Hood. If Jefferson Davis had stayed out of it, Atlanta might have never fallen which would be a very different story. Johnston was a better general than Lee because he understood that he had limited men and resources, whereas Lee just bled the South dry. Comparing Northern and Southern generals is sort of apples and oranges because they were in different circumstances. Lee would be a good Northern general, and McClellan would be a good Southern general, but they weren't so they sucked.

The western (Midwestern today) US soldiers were of very high quality and were why the US generally did better in the west (fewer terrible debacles) than where the east coast soldiers fought. Also, Ohio produced basically every good Union general.

Attached: johnston.jpg (668x817, 205.71K)

This. 1862 Valley Campaign was genius. If only he had survived Chancellorsville.

Who else, other than Nathan Bedford Forrest?
The man was an illiterate farmer, merchant, slave trader, and Memphis city alderman, before he became one of the greatest generals in America's history. He had no military education, yet he and his men routinely defeated, raided, and frustrated his educated opposites of the North. And after the war ended, he would forever infuriate the Republikikes, carpetbaggers, scallawags, niggers, of the black-as-night and glowing varieties, and commies by forming the Ku Klux Klan, which reaffirmed the white Dixiean's authority over the South.

Get fucked, Yankees. You and your pet niggers deserved to get cut down by the superior Dixie man.

Attached: NBF_I.jpg (588x754, 43.94K)

Lee was better than Grant. Lee's only problem was the confederate states couldn't give him proper resupplies

Ironically enough, the CSA were the first to sink a warship with a submarine, often Northern cucks hate to mention that fact lol, albeit it sank after

Nathan Bedford Forrest is currently my cavalry man along with JEB Stuart in Ultimate General: CW.

Good show, good show.

Man, if the South has won, maybe the USA would have a worthwhile cavalry tradition.

Cav is for gays and every cav faggot I've met has always managed to reinforce this fact.

Modern cav is vehicles, dumbass.

Can't get anywhere without them.

If the South won, the CSA would have a worthwhile cavalry tradition. At least we made up for it with Patton and the rest of the armored generals.

This is what cav faggots would have you believe, but it's untrue. Modern cav is for gays that like to believe stetsons and shitfag spurs look cool. Pic unrleated, as they aren't cav.

Attached: main-qimg-f3c445db64580f61a5c99e2946a058b9-c.jpg (602x384, 52.49K)

all baste posts. i'll drop these 2 lesser talked about commanders here. John Mosby, the Confederate partisan ranger who led many successful raids, and once captured a Union general. His only downside is one of his successful raids may be the reason why Stuart was 2 days late to Gettysburg.

PGT Beauregard commanded the forces that fired on Fort Sumter, won the first battle of Manassas, defended Charleston in 1863, and ultimately saved Richmond via the battle of Petersburg

Attached: Beauregard-3b.jpg (291x461 53.91 KB, 30.7K)

Attached: 800px-George_B_McClellan_-_retouched.jpg (800x1000, 108.1K)