View single post by James Longstreet
 Posted: Thu Aug 10th, 2006 12:20 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
James Longstreet

Joined: Thu Aug 3rd, 2006
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 89

  back to top

Y'all praise Grant for his aggressiveness and for being such a brilliant general, but he overwhelmingly outnumbered Lee, more than two to one.  With those odds, Grant couldnt have possibly been defeated by Lee.  But there's more factors than just numbers.  Lee's troops were starving, many of them barefoot, and had inferior weapons.  Very inferior weapons; like squirrel rifles and shotguns.  I think Shelby Foote was correct when he said that the South had no chance in winning the Civil War.  The North's industrial strength was enormous, I mean the South's ENTIRE economy was based on agriculture.  I dont think Grant shouldve been credited as being such a great general as he now is, I think he should even be criticized for his bloody defeats against Lee, like Cold Harbor.  I mean it took Grant a 10 month siege to wear down Lee's scrawny army.  If the odds were reversed, with Lee outnumbering Grant two to one, I doubt Grant would last half as long as Lee did.


Last edited on Thu Aug 10th, 2006 12:22 am by James Longstreet

 Close Window