Skip to main content

View Diary: Waterloo? Try Fort Donelson - (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  God Bless Ulysses S. Grant (7+ / 0-)

    And kudos for the reference.

    "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

    by journeyman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:11:10 PM PDT

    •  And the Repugnants want to take him off (3+ / 0-)

      the $50 bill and put that Joke on instead.

    •  I guess he was the best they could scrap up (0+ / 0-)

      But Grant was not that good a military commander. He basically just attacked. Since he had vastly larger numbers of troops to kill than the southerners did, and more resources, he could just keep killing until the South ran out of soldiers.

      Fort Donelson is not a good metaphor either, because it's one of the more perplexing Civil War battles. The Confederates had a good sized force, and had initial success, but Generals John Floyd and Pillow both lost their nerve and turned command over to Buckner who instantly surrendered without putting up a further fight till reinforcements could relieve pressure.

      Grant immediately nearly destroyed his army with his disastrous and careless strategy leading up to Shiloh, which turned into a bloodbath and disaster was avoid only by the death of Albert Johnson which turned command over to the sheepish Beauregard.

      Grant was utterly humiliated in the Wilderness Campaign, defeated at Spotsylvania, and annihilated, utterly annihilated at Cold Harbor. Grant just kept killing Lee's men, and eventually used his superior forces to wear Lee down. It's a very basic and crude strategy, and it's what any competent commander who has large advantages in resources does. But Grant was not an impressive commander or strategian. Lee on the other hand, is an extremely impressive general, and his brilliance radiates through much of his campaign with Grant, indeed Grant gave Lee most of his most lopsided victories. Lee just couldn't replace the men he lost, but still, he had an eerie ability to predict what Grant would try to do then stop him. Lee definitely lost, but really it would have been no contest had Lee had Grant's resources, and because of that I always try to point out that Grant was not an exceptional commander, he was just a butcher, plain and simple, and later he turned out to be a sorry sack of a President with enormous corruption and economic downturns marring his tenure.

      "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

      by ArkDem14 on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:29:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but I must disagree. (4+ / 0-)

        I believe that Grant deserves the everlasting gratitude of his countrymen, as I have written in this diary on the very subject.

        The simple fact of the matter is that Robert E. Lee, the great military genius of the South never captured a Union Army.  Grant capture three Confederate armies, including Lee's.

        Grant was a military genius.  He was also a great champion of liberal values.  I stick to my earlier opinion.

        God bless Ulysses S. Grant.

        "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

        by journeyman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:21:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, perhaps old-fashioned (0+ / 0-)

          European Liberal values, wherein he was a libertarian. His economic policies were certainly disastrous.

          "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

          by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:52:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I mean liberal values. (0+ / 0-)

            Grant pushed through the 15th Amendment and busted the KKK.  He dealt more squarely with the Indians than any president until the 20th century.  He was a good and decent man.

            Also, while there may have been corruption in his cabinet, his policies, like those of the Republican party at the time were anything but libertarian.  It was big government developing the economy.  It was the developmental state policies first developed by Hamilton, and then espoused by Clay and Lincoln and later emulated by the German historical school and the Meiji government in Japan.

            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

            by journeyman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:29:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Panic of 1873 is largely on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              journeyman

              Grant's shoulders. There's a reason he's given very low marks by historians as a President, even if did a lot of admirable work protecting the rights of former slaves and holding back white intolerance against Indians for the most part.

              "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

              by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:23:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Grant Was No Financial Whiz. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ArkDem14

                His own situation is more than enough testimony to that.  That allowed, he basically continued the Federalist/Whig/Republican line of government encouragement of economic development.  He wasn't just  an economic libertarian.

                "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

                by journeyman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:32:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair to Lee as wel (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          journeyman

          He was only on the offensive twice, and both times all his plans got screwed up and he was forced into fighting where he hadn't planned to and didn't want to fight. Because of Jeb Stuart's egotistical attempt to ride around the entire union army, Lee had no idea, scouting wise, where his enemy was and what he was doing until the 2nd of Gettysburg.

          Antietam was part of a campaign that started well with the capture of Harper's Ferry and enormous amounts of supplies, but he had too small a force to hope to sustain it against the 120,000 strong AoP. The rest of the war Lee was on the defensive side of things, though he had a quirky way of playing defense which was that he aggressively engaged his opponent and won victory after victory on the battlefield. Really Antietam and Gettysburg are the only real times where Lee lost a battlefield and was forced to retreat. I think that's a record that stands on its on. Whatever merits Grant did have, my point was always about comparing his abilities to Lee's. Look, even go and compare their West Point records and records on the battlefield. Grant didn't win battles, he merely moved on and kept pressing the flank, but he never got the smashing defeat on the battlefield, despite facing a numerically inferior force.

          And two of the armies he captured, really, were the result of incompetent Confederate leadership.

          Always had a great fancy for the military history aspect of the civil war. I'd love to press the point and debate it with you further.

          "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

          by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:04:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, I can't agree. (0+ / 0-)

            Usually when an army capitulates its considered a smashing victory.  Grant captured three armies, not two.  One of those was Lee's.  It's total nonsense to say he didn't win battles.

            Also you point to incompetent leadership on the opposite side as the key to Grant's victories.  Tell me, what brilliant and daring commander did Lee ever face in the field before Grant?  Even dealing with incompetents Lee wasn't guaranteed of success.  Even McClellan beat him twice.

            Also, you pointed out that Lee was disadvantaged because of mistakes by his subordinates when he lost battles.  Had Grant not been plagued by less competent subordinates, he would have taken Petersburg without a fight because he completely surprised Lee with that move.

            Lee only fought with truly incompetent subordinates once: in western Virginia.  That place is now called West Virginia because Lee lost to McClellan when he was burdened with incompetents.

            One of the reasons that Lee fared well was that he kept his most competent subordinates close at hand rarely allowing them to go to other theaters.  The temporary detachment of Longstreet's corps to Chickamauga being the sole exception I can think of.  The farthest he let his competent subordinates go (when he had control of the matter) was the valley.

            Grant on the other hand let his best men fight in other theaters in completely independent commands.  That's why the confederacy was crushed as Sherman took Atlanta and Thomas annihilated Hood's army.

            It's also interesting that you point to Lee's difficulties at Gettysburg and point the finger at Jeb Stuart.  While I agree that that certainly was a problem for Lee, it was more of a problem for every commander Lee faced until the final years of the war for the simple reason that all the best loyal horsemen were serving in the West and thus there was no one to conduct recon competently.  When this is added to the fact that Lee was fighting on his home ground, with plenty of sympathetic locals giving intelligence (intelligence without which victories like Chancellorsville would have been impossible) and Lee begins to appear to be what he really was: a competent, bold, resourceful and charismatic leader, but human nevertheless.

            Grant on the other hand pioneered a style of war that was to be essential in the coming century: the continent wide multiple theater campaign.

            There is no doubt that Lee was a very good commander, even if he did betray his country.

            That said, Grant was his superior.

            "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

            by journeyman on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 05:56:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Oh God where to begin? (5+ / 0-)

        Lets see, there WAS a Civil War and Grant WAS in it.....after that....
        Grant marches on Ft. Donelson with 15,000 men while Floyd, Pillow & Buckner hunker down with 20,000. Floyd & Pillow indeed force an opening and lose their nerve. In the retreat Grant's left wing seizes the high entrenchments and plants artillery there, planning on opening up the next morning. Grant reinforced overnight to about 28,00 total. Floyd & Pillow flee, leaving Buckner to either slaughter his own men or surrender.

        Grant would have liked to have crowded down into Nashville after Johnston and broken up what was left of his command, but Halleck countermanded. Halleck gave AS Johnston (CSA) 6 weeks to recollect an army from the Mississippi, New Orleans, the Gulf Coast, which he did.

        Johnston attacked at Shiloh and did catch Grant napping. Grant brought up more men and an artillery reserve (like any good commander; cf. Beauregard, 1st Manassas; Rosecrans, Mufreesboro; Jackson, Cedar Mountain) while Prentiss, Sherman & McClernand held on. And after the first night (UNLIKE Hooker, Chancellorsville; LIKE Jackson, 2nd Manassas) he refused to retreat but rather went over to the offensive. Nothing sheepish about Beauregard; his men had shot their bolt, half the troops had had 6 weeks training and the 25 mile hike from Corinth had been the longest march many of them had made in their entire lives.

        Grant would have like to have followed up, but Halleck arrived, assembled 100,000 troops and "advanced" on Corinth.....at 1 mile/day with full entrenchments thrown up each day. A month later, having "captured" the empty town (but not Beauregard's army) Halleck shattered his own army, sending some west, some east, some north, but decided he couldn't spare 10,000 men to capture Vicksburg with a 5 day march south. Then he got promoted to commander in clerk of the Union and left Grant (his 2nd) in command with orders to hold everything down until the Rebels surrendered.

        ArkDem14, since you see fit to utterly ignore the Vicksburg campaign, let it be simply noted that this campaign MERELY established Grant's reputation for diligence, strategic brilliance, and nerves (if the transports had been sunk on the run by Vicksburg, or if he couldn't cross the Mississippi and was marooned on the Louisiana side, or if once across he had tried to establish a conventional supply line, he would have lost his army.) Instead he got his men across (who cheered him lustily since they knew now they could fight) marched, fought, maneuvered between Pemberton & Johnston, invested Vicksburg and dared the South to try and break him. No dice. 31,000 surrendered, Grant's second army captured.

        ArkDem14, shall we ALSO ignore Grant's efforts in front of Chattanooga after Rosecrans had come a cropper at Chickamauga? Rosecrans & Thomas had the plan on foot to save the army from starvation but true, Grant got the credit.
        But Grant was also willing to go out against Bragg, left, right and center. Not that Bragg did well; after all he had merely been reinforced with the largest transfer of troops strength from 1 theater to another the Confederacy every tried, and he only held a position of 300 foot elevation looking down on Grant from every point.
        (And by the way, its no use complaining the North had greater numbers. The South knew from the 1860 census as well as anyone it was 22 million in the North vs. 9 million in the South, and 3.5 million of these were slaves. There are solid reasons the South chose the strategic defensive....they didn't have many options.)

        Now, finally, lets see about 1864. Grant had greater numbers against Lee.....shocking; the situation was UNCHANGED from 1861 when McDowell had greater numbers, as did McClellan, and Pope, and Burnside, and Hooker, and Meade. Your point IS.....?
        Did Grant APPLY those numbers steadily? Yes.
        Did he win on sheer numbers? Or did the Confederacy hang on by dumb luck? Day 1 of the Wilderness Lee himself was damn near captured in a clearing. Morning of day 2 Hancock had cracked AP Hill and was driving him onto his wagon train, with the battle saved at the last minute by Longstreet's arrival.

        Grant tried to turn Lee's right, and Robert Rhodes made an all night march (in defiance of orders to rest the men) that got him to Spotsylvania Courthouse literally 5 minutes in time. One coffee break would have ended the eastern campaign a week after it started. After this, it was a slug fest, Grant still trying to turn Lee, Lee fending him off. Hancock broke Lee at the Mule Shoe; Lee had to sacrifice an entire division to shore up  the breech.

        At North Anna Lee laid a trap for Grant, daring him to attack, and Grant recognized the snare and refused. Grant got to Cold Harbor ahead of Lee and wanted an immediate move but his subordinates wanted to wait till morning. In the night Lee came up, no one told Grant he had, so the attack went forward on basis of prior information. It was a bad move.

        Grant followed it with a good one, putting the army on the march, bridging the James and getting 40,000 troops to the south bank near Petersburg. If Smith had attacked the same day or even the next morning Beauregard admitted he could have done nothing with his 4000 clerks and recovering wounded he had manning his lines.
        If you were right ArkDem14, Grant would have arrived and ordered an attack all along the line, because he was a butcher after all, with no skill. If he were tender of the men in his care or a thinker he'd settle for siege operations. Thats why it took another 8 months...of siege.

        And then, in the final retreat to Appomattox, Grant caught Lee, had him surrounded and outnumbered about 75,000 to 30,000. And Grant being the butcher he was ordered his army to shoot down every last rebel and put Lee in his grave by his own hand.....NOTTTT!

        Grant as president had plenty of corruption in his administration. He also invented the world idea of National Parks (Yellowstone, 1872), enforced the 15th Amendment that gave balck men the right to vote (which to this day is THE unforgivable crime in certain eyes) and was willing to use the army to break up the Klan and their reign of terror in the South (protected by white sheriffs, white judges, white juries; Grant tried them in military courts--killed the Klan from 1874 until 1915.)

        So Grant was lucky, was surprised, was defeated, learned from his mistakes, could out-think, out-march and out-flank with the best of them, wanted to crowd an opponent until they surrendered, stopped his men at Appomattox from celebrating/gloating over Lee's surrender and let Lee's men take a horse or mule home from the surrender with them so they could start plowing.

        "The Rebels are our countrymen again." he said, and pardoned Lee on the spot, later defended Lee against Stanton and others who wanted Lee arrested and tried for treason.

        Proud to be from Ohio, birthplace of Grant, Sheridan and Sherman.

        "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

        by WineRev on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:06:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well said, sir. (0+ / 0-)

          Well said indeed.

          And if you'll indulge me just one last time, may I say again, God bless Ulysses S. Grant, savior of the Union.

          "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

          by journeyman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:04:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And the mention of Prentiss . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elmo

          brings up another point.  Can we stop pretending it was a "war between the states" when men like Prentiss, Thomas, Farragut and Scott all fought for the Union,  When a man like Sam Houston knew that as a patriotic American he simply could not endorse secession?

          It was, as Sean Wilentz so aptly described it, a slaveholder's rebellion.  And it was put down.

          "I always found it interesting that people would cast aspersions on failure, as if it were a bad thing." -- Michael Steele, RNC Chairman

          by journeyman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:15:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Try Orniriness and Stupidty (0+ / 0-)

          "...Did Grant APPLY those numbers steadily? Yes.
          Did he win on sheer numbers? Or did the Confederacy hang on by dumb luck?..."

          Real secesh still can't accept the fact that they should have quit in 1863 rather than continuing the war into 1865 hoping for a miracle.  I guess that's where the doctrine of the rapture got its start, because that was all which was going to save the Confederacy at that point.  Grant could sense he was fighting a new type of war, which Lee never really seemed to grasp.  In this regard, Longstreet was by far a better commander.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:56:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i appreciate this very nice response from you (0+ / 0-)

          However, I'd make a few points:

          At North Anna Lee laid a trap for Grant, daring him to attack, and Grant recognized the snare and refused. Grant got to Cold Harbor ahead of Lee and wanted an immediate move but his subordinates wanted to wait till morning. In the night Lee came up, no one told Grant he had, so the attack went forward on basis of prior information. It was a bad move.

          Actually Grant did split his army between the River, but Lee fell ill with stomach cramps and was unable to coordinate and plan the assault on the day he planned it, and Grant then realized his enormous error and moved on towards Cold Harbor. As for Cold Harbor, after several stalemate skirmishes Grant went fully towards Cold Harbor. On the third day of fighting Lee at Cold Harbor, Grant launched an enormous force of some 50,000 men right at Lee's ingeniously designed lines which created an interlocking grid of gunfire which mowed down 5000 Union soldiers in some 15 minutes according to some estimates I've read. It was not misinformation on Grants part, and you defend him more than he defended himself in his memoirs, calling his decision at Cold Harbor a stupid move that gained him nothing.

          Grant was nothing if not tenacious, I'll always cede that in any debate about his merits as a general. He wore down the enemy. But he was able to do that due to an enormous advantage in material resources. The Vicksburg campaign is interesting, a vast stream of failures to actually take the city head on. So he eventually won by starving his opponent in a slow siege. However I look at General Pemberton as being a rather incompetent and very complacent general who made many careless mistakes along the way fighting Grant.

          I'd disagree with your points on the Wilderness campaign. Longstreet's arrival was a little late, but it was part of the strategy Lee PLANNED. And Lee was almost caught because he was always at the thick of things, thinking it his honor and what not. Anyway, Longstreet almost swept the entire Union army but he got shot by his own men late one evening just a few miles from where Stonewall Jackson got killed, talk about terrible luck, though Longstreet did survive.

          You bring up numerous examples from his southern campaign without mentioning he was up against some of the most incompetent Generals in the entire Southern Army; Braxton Bragg and John Pemberton. With Albert Sydney Johnson's death there was nobody left who had the daring and planning skills to lead the army.

          As for Beauregard being sheepish, I was talking about his decision not to press an evening assault the first day, before Grant's reinforcements arrived and he had a chance to regroup; afterall the Confederates had just broken through Grants lines.

          But your post really does prove one thing; the south had lousy politicians in charge of some of their most important armies and positions in the Western Theater, people like Floyd, Bragg, Pemberton, and Beauregard.

          But in the end Grant was just the commander the North needed and was when they needed him, somebody to just keep attacking and killing soldiers and doing flanking maneuvers until he destroyed and wore down the opponent. He was an unorthodox commander, but so was Lee. Like that user below who said Lee never realized he was fighting a new kind of war. That's ridiculous. Lee was a highly unorthodox commander himself; and in multiple instances split his army up and attacked the Union army on different fronts, causing confusion and panic that the southern forces were larger than expected, such as in Chancellorsville and The Seven Days campaign which thoroughly unnerved McClellan.

          And in other campaigns such as Second Mananas where Lee was able to engage a surprise mobilization and deal a crippling blow on John Pope, routing his new army and effectively ending his Civil War military career.

          Lee was particularly good against Grant. He seemed to know what Grant was thinking, maybe they were more alike than I give them credit for, maybe Lee was able to predict Grant's moves because Lee was considering what he would do with superior resources and the offensive. In any case Lee knew he could provoke Grant to attack him in the Wilderness despite the terrain's unfavorability, and he knew he could bring in Longstreet and sweep the flank, (but Longstreet was late, no matter, it still worked when he finally arrived). He knew where Grant would try and withdraw too.

          In fact however you slice it, Lee performed a flawless defense of Richmond against a force that at no point was less than twice his size. Grant was tenacious, but Lee knew what he was doing each step of the way and mobilized his soldiers faster each step of the way. He countered each attempt to turn his flank masterfully, and then defended crucial positions against massive assaults, such as Spotsylvania.

          Up to the Petersburg campaign, Lee inflicted casualties against Grant on a 2:1 margin and kept him off Richmond despite having an inferior force, both in terms of men and supplies. Problem was Grant could replace his men, Lee couldn't have a point.

          Such a shame he ended up fighting for his state, but Lee had a very strong sense of "Southern Chivalry" as was the norm for someone of his class of life. He truly wasn't must of a racist, so it's a shame he fought so hard for a country trying to maintain the institution, though he did try to convince Jefferson to institute a program to grant black slaves their freedom in exchange for fighting for the CSA.

          A shame indeed. Had Lee taken command of the Army of the Potomac, which was offered to him, the Civil War really would have ended in about 6 weeks.  

          "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

          by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:51:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bobby Lee Destroyed His Army - At Least Twice (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, yeah, Bobby Lee was the greatest general to ever trod a battlefield in North America.  That's true if you weren't one of the soldiers he put into the ground and that's true if you weren't the nation which couldn't afford those sorts of losses.  Worse, it started with Lee's first assumption of command in the Battle of the Seven Days, when Lee jumped to the offensive and wound up killing more troops than he could afford to lose.  The same thing happened when he decided to try his Maryland campaign later that fall and found himself being hammered in the Battle of Antietam.  By the following summer Lee rolled the dice in invading Maryland and Pennsylvania again and got chopped up twice as bad at Gettysburg, largely because of an ill-considered and stupid frontal assault on a defensive line.  Lee hadn't learned a damned thing from his experience forcing the Union Army to attack an entrenched position and just threw away his army.  Yeah, Bobby Lee was the greatest.

        Re, Grant, you clearly didn't understand what he was doing.  Grant wasn't going away.  Grant was going to find a way around Bobby Lee's flank one way or the other.  Bobby Lee was able to operate from an interior line in badly broken terrain, which is what enabled him to inflict those loses you recount on the Army of the Potomac.  We saw what happened when Lee finally had to fight in the open fields west of Richmond after Grant flanked him at Petersburg - just one more loser secesh general.  Lee was certainly not the wonder you make him out to be and was, in many ways, a worse butcher than Grant.  Grant could accept his losses and still triumph.  Lee couldn't without losing the war, yet he never recognized it.  Grant knew that war had changed.  Lee was still stuck in the Napoleonic era.

        I won't even begin to describe Grant's ample mastery of strategy in his command in the Western theater and the reduction of Vicksburg and the total destruction of the Confederate army in the West.  Yeah, Grant had no idea of strategy and the operational arts.  

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:46:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Grant didn't flank Lee at Petersburg (0+ / 0-)

          he slowly ground his forces down and cutting off his supply lines. Eventually Lee was outnumbered by a margin of 2.25:1 and he knew an additionally 50,000 plus men under Sheridan's command were nearing him and Sherman was in the Carolina's working his way up to Virginia. So he made a break for it and within shortly afterwords realized his position was hopeless.

          "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

          by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:08:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, Anything You Say (0+ / 0-)

            Right, Grant did not move around Lee's exposed right and got between Lee and his supply lines to the west.  That's the reason Lee didn't have to abandon Richmond and try to withdraw into interior Virginia.  Lee realized his position was hopeless at Appomatox because the Union cavalry (I do believe that would be Sheridan's command) had already blocked his army's retreat.  

            Where Grant really went wrong is doing what the Allies did during the final days of WW1.  Grant should have totally obliterated Lee's army, just to make sure the secesh understood for all time that you lost the war you started.  Everything you've written so far is simply just another version of the German's "stab in the back" theory of why they lost the war and that they never lost the war in the field against those effete, incompetent enemies.

            "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

            by PrahaPartizan on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:51:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd disagree with your position (0+ / 0-)

              on WWI, and I'd say you basically said the same thing I did. Grant, slowly, over a nearly ten month period, ground Lee down with multiple assaults and gradually pushed Lee's lines back and cut off his supply lines until Lee finally was put in a decision where he decided he had to run for it, but then realized his situation was utterly hopeless.

              It seems you are suggesting that Grant should have massacred the Confederate Army after it had surrendered. Which is ridiculous.

              The real problem at the end of WWI was that the Allies focused on punishing Germany and making them pay for the war and accept blame. As someone who's studied European History from the neo-colonialism of the mid 19th Century to WWI in several courses, it's quite clear the everyone was at fault for WWI and nobody really had an exception high ground morally.

              Frankly I don't care for your tone. It's rather ridiculous to spout your derisive condescension at everyone who gives a different take than you.

              It seems you really didn't even read what I said that closely, because you basically just repeated what I said in a different fashion.

              "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". -Alexnader Pope

              by ArkDem14 on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 11:17:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (183)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Elections (42)
  • Culture (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Environment (27)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (22)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site