The 5 most decisive leaders and events in American history.

My list:

1. Washington - Revolutionary war
2. Lincoln - The civil war and emancipation proclamation
3. FDR - New Deal
4. MLK - Civil rights movement
5. (Tie) Polk - Acquisition of the American West; Jefferson acquisition of the Louisiana territory.

 

Washington and the victory at Trenton is probably at the top of my list. In addition to the factors you mentioned, one must remember that this important battle took place after the British had routed the American army in New York, morale was at an all-time low and many of the soldiers' enlistments were about to expire. If it wasn't for Washington's decisiveness and victory at Trenton, the American army might have disintegrated and the Revolution along with it. I don't know if it's possible to overstate the importance and impact of this battle and General Washington's leadership.

While I'm on the subject of the Revolution, I'm going to have to mention Samuel Adams as one of our greatest and most decisive leaders. It was Adams, who many call the Father of the American Revolution or the chief ideologue of the Revolution, who started and sustained the drive for independence after the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764. I've always felt that the two indispensable men of the Revolution were Samuel Adams and George Washington, although Benjamin Franklin and his efforts in Paris probably qualify him as the third indispensable man.
.

 

Good list, particularly the inclusion of James K. Polk. He is probably the most underrated president in U.S. history.

 

You could question is methods, but he was decisive, and acquisition of the entire Western portion of the U.S. was one of the most decisive events in US history, that I could think of. Jefferson's acquisition of the Louisiana territory was right there too.

 

This is true, and Polk was successful in enacting the two major domestic policy initiatives he set out to accomplish during his one term in office. He was both decisive and doggedly persistent, and those qualities, along with his vision, contributed greatly to his remarkable success.

 

Not only this, but Bush would not have been given the same credit for Bin Laden's death. You would have heard a lot of, "It doesn't matter now. It's too little, too late." If I remember correctly, Pelosi even said something like this as far back as 2008.

 

Wasn't it Bush himself who said Bin Laden was no big deal or something to that effect?

 

I am not a fan of the younger bush in the least but I do applaud bush for staying the course in Iraq as it appears at present that the surge acheived both its tactical and strategic objectives. Fair or not, i think Bush is largely at fault for our failures in afghanistan and the prolonged insurgency in Iraq. Admittedly, bush did not have the luxury of hindsight that we have noe but i strongly believe that the failure to commit sufficient resources and urgency to the afghanistan campaign at its outset is one of the primary reasons that after more than a decade of operations in that theatre we are still a long ways from acheiving our strategic objectives. Additionally, while the maneaver warfare employed by franks and mattid to topple the iraqi regime was a historic acheivement and unparalled success the failure to immediately institute a decisive and effective campaign to stabalize post saddam iraq was obscenely myopic and resulted in a prolonged insurgency in iraq.

Not that im a big conspiracy theorist but if one gives sny credence to dalton furys account of the battle of tora bora one could make an argument that OBL was perhaps knowingly permitted to escape afghanistan by the US govt. its hard to reconcile the fact that insufficient resources were committed to kill OBL when he was known to be cornered at tora bora. I suspect that part of the reason that resources and contingencies to kill capture kill obl were denied to us operators at tora bora is because if obl was killed it would erode us public support for the invasion of iraq. Admittedly yhis hypothesis is a bit of a stretch its very hard for me to reconcile why OBL wasnt pursued with all the might and fury available im theater.

 

One problem he had: his troops were tired from a long march (some of it at night), had outrun what passed for their supply line...and also, the march had left them pretty disorganized. (I recall reading of one artillery battery that had somehow managed to lose its munitions wagons during the night!)

Also, Lee had recently taken a spill off his horse. He was nursing a broken arm, a sprained wrist, and probably a concussion. I suspect he wasn't thinking clearly & probably not sleeping.

 

There is a fair amount of evidence that Lee had had some sort of coronary event back in February of 1863.

The 14th Alabama had been marching for fourteen hours and had lost all their canteens when they were called on to assault Little Round Top. Three times they went up that hill. Tough, motivated men.

 

The lack of contact with Stuart (and hence the location of the Army of the Potomac) led Lee to scatter his army in an arc from the Maryland line to Harrisburg. Until recalled by Lee, Ewell's orders were to burn the railway facilities at Harrisburg.

If Lee had known the Yankees were that close, he would have consolidated his army.

Having not done so he fought at Gettysburg because it was about halfway between his van (Ewell at Harrisburg) and his rear (Longstreet on the road from Maryland). If he had been consolidated he could have disengaged (Lee had disengaged Heth on the morning of July 1) and tried to swing around behind Meade or maybe strike Meade while the Army of the Potomac was in road march formation - hoping to defeat Meade in detail.

Meade wanted to fight at a prepared position twenty miles south at Pipe Creek.

 

Excuse me, but Obama can't take credit for killing Osama.