- Joined
- Aug 17, 2011
- Location
- Birmingham, Alabama
Split thread from Was Lee a traitor.
Have fun.
Have fun.
I give those who think this: Vicksburg, the Overland Campaign of 1864, and the March and April push to Appomattox in 1865 as proof otherwise. Good luck refuting it.
This is the post that initiated this discussion.Again, the Union winning the war had little to do with Grant really. The only reason Lee couldn't trash his army like he did with all the generals before Grant was because the war was already in the late stages when the Confederacy had very little resources and plus Sherman's attacks on the Western front proved to be nearly fatal for Lee's army due to the massive desertations. But Grant had absolutely nothing to do with Sherman nor did he help in any way the accumulation of resources the North had that helped them win the war. Grant was just a general whose only strategy was to launch front-attacks without caring too much how many of his soldiers will die.
Darn tootin'! The Navy did it all!
Following this line, the argument goes that the North won the war because of the big issues: it's substantial material superiority; the South's problematic geography; the South's peculiar institution and British reliance on Northern food exports proving almost insurmountable hurdles to gaining foreign recognition; etc, etc, etc.
I would like his detractors to name another Union general who did half of what Grant did.
This is the post that initiated this discussion.
- Alan
And I stand by it, btw.
And I stand by it, btw.