|View single post by JoanieReb|
|Posted: Thu Feb 7th, 2008 01:22 am||
|"Maybe Mary’s calling Grant a butcher was a political way of protecting her husband. Elections were coming soon and maybe by not condoning the deaths of 17,000 men, Mary was protecting her husband’s political future."
Very interesting thought - and, outside the box. I like it!
Mary may have been a very unhappy woman, to put it mildly, but she was not simple.
"Men died in this needless battle of wills and semantics, and a favorable light does not shine on either commander because of it. But it was a 19th century mindset — they were a product of their times, like we all are. They both had points of pride. And war is hell."
So, would other generals have indulged in this rather extreme denial of the facts - and, more - risk what it would do to their men's morale, knowing that they could be next to die a most hellish and anguished death, out of pride?
Or perhaps it was neurosis - Grant also had that thing about refusing to retreat or backtrack that also proved costly to his men. It is almost as if he chose the simple strategy of attrition and could not carry in out in any but the simplist possible ways.
Furthermore, are you saying that, at this critical juncture in the war, Lee waw wrong for not saying, "Oh, isn't that Little Grant Fellow cute, the way he refuses to play by the rules and doesn't want to admit he lost this one, when he obviously did? Well, guess I'll just play along for the sake of his men, it will build the little fellow's confidence and make him look good, just what I want!"
(For anyone just jumping in here, we're discussing Grant's refusal to call for a truce to collect his wounded, letting them die slowly over a period of four days, instead.)
Last edited on Thu Feb 7th, 2008 01:54 am by JoanieReb