View single post by pamc153PA
 Posted: Mon Feb 15th, 2010 12:53 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407

  back to top

Huh, I never thought about Couch, Blu. Makes me want to go back to my copy of Ferguson's Chancellorsville. Don't know that I agree, but it makes for an interesting concept.

I would say Grant, but I am thinking of the Grant after Henry and Donelson, and not right afterwards. He had to prove and build on his reputation in order for Lincoln to hand him the reins. And I think Lincoln had to go through the succession of less effective leaders (don't need to list them--my fingers are already tired) to get to that exact point where he found the right man for the job, that man was ready to take the job, and the war was at the exact right spot for the two things to happen. Now, if you could have the Grant of 1864 at the start of the war, Lincoln would have been a fool to not choose him. Hindsight is always 20/20, though, and we'd have a lot less to discuss here on the board!

I think Hancock was offered the job, j harold, and did turn it down. So did Reynolds, who I would have liked to see take the AoP, but both men wanted to run things themselves using their military experience, not have politics involved a.k.a. Lincoln. Can't say I fault them for it. And I'm not faulting Lincoln for it, either; he had to find the man he knew could do the job reliably. That, as it turns out, was Grant.


 Close Window