Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Civil War Question [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)16. Didn't Lincoln Sack McClellan For Lack Of Aggression
And Grant said "if he won't use this army I will."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Low" commitment to public education doesn't even come close. One state even outlawed public ed.
ieoeja
Nov 2012
#30
The British ruling class DID NOT detest slavery, but the British industrial working class sure as
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#43
Funny. Was it Lincoln didn't have decent generals, or a decent leader of generals.
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#25
The single biggest mistake of the Civil War can be summed up in a single name
RomneyLies
Nov 2012
#29
6-1 against Lee. Retreated 6 times anyway. And stopped at the Virginia border with Lee routed.
ieoeja
Nov 2012
#33
Its military could hardly have fought a guerilla non-conventional war in any
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#38
Before Washington fell to the Army of Northern Virginia, chances are that the North would
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#35
I Could Be Wrong But I Thought I Remember It From The PBS Special By Ken Burns In 1990
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#9
Shelby Foote was the historian interviewed who said that the North had one hand behind its back
JVS
Nov 2012
#12
Foote is the better writer, imo, but McPherson is the better historian (and
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#42
South was doomed, only lasted as long as it did because South had better generals at first.
yellowcanine
Nov 2012
#13
Um, excuse me, what battles did Grant lose? I can't think of any offhand. He
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#39
"Loss" is a loaded term to describe the outcome of either battle, as Grant was pursuing
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#52
The general strategy was established very early on by General Winfield Scott. His
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#64
Another factor which i've never seen discussed in this context is that the South was
hedgehog
Nov 2012
#22
Yes. If Grant had been the North's primary general from the start, the war never would have lasted
aaaaaa5a
Nov 2012
#31
Oh, please. I can bash McClellan with the best of them, but the Army of the Potomac
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#41
I must take issue with the first statement of your second paragraph. I know of no historian
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#51
Certainly they were. OTOH there is a very good argument made that it would have been
Egalitarian Thug
Nov 2012
#48
That is a specious argument (no offense) and does not give credit to the quasi-mystical
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#57
"Given British and French demand for Southern cotton," the South was exhausing its land.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#58
Well, your argument is belied by the fact of Lincoln's re-election in 1864 and by morale
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#55
You might want to review your history a little bit, specifically the
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#54
At Chancellorsville, Stonewall Jackson successfully attacked Hooker's exposed
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#59