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 : Civil War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (134)	1/30/2003 3:14:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 341

I think Lee is sometimes overrated and Grant is sometimes underrated by those who claim he had nothing going for him except superior numbers. However I still think Lee was a better general then Grant. The idea of attacking Ohio was interesting and may have been a good idea considering the fact that the South needed to take risks in order to have any chance of winning (the north with superior power could play it relatively safe and still eventually win). But the idea has weaknesses as well. It would extend the supply line even further, and leaving some solider in MD while attacking Ohio would subject the Confederates to defeat in detail. The force left in MD could be rolled up by the Union with Lee's main force in Ohio. Then the Union could take on a weaker force that was further away from support and resupply then it was in MD. It still may have been a good idea, but it is not such an obviously good idea that I would mark Lee down for not having it or not executing it. Tim