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 (3899)	3/23/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Druss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12754

BamaReb--I agree they were kind words. Lee was ever the gentleman (he must have been insufferable to be around, give me the carousers and womanizers). However Lee did not have to go that far. I think Lee studied the campaigns and the moves of the various general in the light of having all the information available to him after the war and came to that conclusion. Grant suffered badly in the early part of his campaign against Richmond from poor subordinates. The closest I can come to a similar situation for Lee was the Seven Days where he would have shattered McClellan had his orders been properly carried out. Lee sacked several generals after the battles were over. Grant because of politics had to wait to get rid of some of his worst. I think Lee saw that Grants moves were well chosen and thought out and then poorly carried out. Druss I think John Gordon was another one who might have been a better general than Lee. But Forrest was the best of the war.