I've heard about the argument Bragg had with himself. Supposedly it had to do with his service in the army out West before the Civil War. He was a post commander and quartermaster at the same time. Bragg refused his own request for supplies. Weird!
Sure Lincoln should have gotten rid of the ineffective generals sooner, but I think he still had some hope that one of them could get a victory in Virginia. McClellan knew how to get the army ready to fight again and raise morale even after they had been beaten (7 Days Battles, 2nd Bull Run).
How might the war have changed had generals like Grant & Sherman been put in command much sooner???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think this is a great question. Battles in the Civil War were unlike battles anyone had seen in the past and I feel that in the west, with time came experience and with experience came victory. So maybe even if they had been moved to the east earlier, they wouldn't have been as effective as they were in the end. Then again, maybe they would have dominated earlier and lives wouldve been saved. Just a thought...
Post a Comment