Cavalry Charger
Major
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
Let's hear your thoughts.
I agree.Both, at various times.
I don't think "Confederate apologetics" had anything to do with that feeling.After he died, he was underrated due to the confederate apologetics of the "Lost Cause"
Both, at various times.
Much of the praise and the condemnation directed at him have been from partisan sources, both "pro" and "con," which makes it highly difficult to arrive at an objective appraisal of his abilities. Grant, like Lincoln and Sherman, is someone that people have opinions about, no matter what the actual level of knowledge is behind those opinions.
I was referring to the Lost Cause denigrating Grant as a general while elevating Lee.I don't think "confederate apologetics" had anything to do with that feeling.
Grant was a great General, but not a great President.
I agree with this guy!Overrated, Grant would have been a Federal version of John B. Hood without his numbers.
Overrated, Grant would have been a Federal version of John B. Hood without his numbers.
No ... we' ve got new guys hereAre not not the exact same guys arguing the exact same things at:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ul...nt-negative-press.154077/page-12#post-2083282
Grant did not always have a great advantage in numbers in the west. And Hood did not always have a disadvantage in numbers (Franklin).Overrated, Grant would have been a Federal version of John B. Hood without his numbers.
Let's hear your thoughts.
One of the basic tenets of warfare through time is to try to have the advantage in quality and numbers...If battles were only about numbers and resources, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville would have been union victories.
One of the basic tenets of the Lost Cause, and of diminishing Grant as a general, is to blame disparity in numbers and resources.