Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (56104)	10/12/2000 5:04:08 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

That's a fascinating thought--- and had they had him, I bet the North COULD have won quickly. The South, because of his leadership and Jackson, put up an incredible fight, and came very close to winning the war, despite the much lower numbers and lack of resources. I don't know the dates of that decisive battle, I do know that even after Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Jefferson Davis refused to admit it was over and wouldn't stop fighting, which (according to FLood) caused the General enormous grief over the unnecessary lost lives. His explanation of why he refused the command of the Federal Army was that he could take no part in an invasion of the South, though he was opposed to secession. Of course, he could not have known the terrible outcome of the war. I am no student of war or history- I loved reading about the man portrayed in the book. He would have been very difficult to live with I think. And he had an unnatural attachment to his daughters. Not one of them married- he was incredibly controlling and possessive-- very selfish. But he WAS a man of unusual integrity and dignity. His legacy lives on at W&L. I know Dan is very proud of the gentleman's tradition there. I wonder if there are still men who have that kind of moral decisiveness. (whether it's bad or good)