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 : FLAME THREAD - Post all obnoxious/derogatory comments here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BamaReb who wrote (3890)	3/22/1998 8:28:00 PM
From: Druss	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12754

BamaReb--You under estimate Grant. His Vicksburg campaign is considered one of the great ones in the history of warfare. Johnston and Pemberton had more men on the field than Grant. He got his troops between the two rebel armies and preceded to whip on both of them. His tactics are considered brilliant, as is his strategy of abandoning his supply lines to live off the country. Against Lee he was poorly served by his Corp commanders partially because Gettysburg had resulted in the death of Reynolds and the wounding of Hancock. Had he been better served at the initial phases of Petersburg the war would have ended there, not to mention Burnsides performance later at the Crater. Butlers performance was hideous and also could have been decisive. You should remember too that many of the casualties that were taken were to keep a continual pressure on Lee. Grant and Sherman had agreed before the respective campaigns began that they would continually drive against their opposition so the South could not transfer troops from one theater to another as they did at Chicamauga. Druss I would take Forrest, Longstreet, Hancock, and Thomas over Lee.