Grant Grants eating habits was A formal debate propostion for Grant.

I am all confused by this thread. Is it on Grant's likes and dislikes of food.? I did post the one on Grant and Cucumbers. I didn't know about eating kittens. Is this some kind of joke? I am baffled.
I think it easier for some on this site to discuss Grant's eating habits than to defend his military career.
 
...Really, really getting fed up with some of the petty bickering on these Grant and Rosecrans threads. Food for thought.
Posted as moderator.
 
...Really, really getting fed up with some of the petty bickering on these Grant and Rosecrans threads. Food for thought.
Posted as moderator.
I agree with you. In the future I will post mostly primary source materials I have found in my research. I feel obligated to respond to the two people who object to anything positive I write about Rosecrans. I think I should ignore them from now on but that's easier said than done.
 
Read Generals in Blue for a fuller treatment of that statement.
Thanks but to the victor go's the spoils. Grant had three field armies surrender to him no one in the CW comes close. Facts are facts. Speaking just for myself I never said Rosecrans was a bad general as others have pointed out he was not the best but compared to say Banks,Butler and McCllean he was not the worse. If we go by your logic Eisenhower should not get credit for D-Day nor Zukov for Stalingard. War is a zero sum game their are winners and their are looser's. The general rule of tump in conventional war is size matters and bigger is best. That's just how it goes.
Leftyhunter
 
Thanks but to the victor go's the spoils. Grant had three field armies surrender to him no one in the CW comes close. Facts are facts. Speaking just for myself I never said Rosecrans was a bad general as others have pointed out he was not the best but compared to say Banks,Butler and McCllean he was not the worse. If we go by your logic Eisenhower should not get credit for D-Day nor Zukov for Stalingard. War is a zero sum game their are winners and their are looser's. The general rule of tump in conventional war is size matters and bigger is best. That's just how it goes.
Leftyhunter
I guess the question is what would other generals have done with the resources and naval help Grant had at Vicksburg and with all the troops given to Grant in 1864-5. (Donnelson is not quite the great military feat some think it to be.) I'd say many thousands of men on both sides wouldn't have lost their lives. It took Grant more than the summer of 1864 to fight it out on the line.
 
I guess the question is what would other generals have done with the resources and naval help Grant had at Vicksburg and with all the troops given to Grant in 1864-5. (Donnelson is not quite the great military feat some think it to be.) I'd say many thousands of men on both sides wouldn't have lost their lives. It took Grant more than the summer of 1864 to fight it out on the line.
So do you blame Lincoln for this?
 
Back
Top