OT: Good books

[ZooCougar]

I didn’t like Grant, and I didn’t finish it. Grant really wasn’t that interesting a person, and there was not really a bigger story to tell about him or his role in the era.

Yeah. Not a big story. Saved the United States and he's the most important General in US History next to Washington and Eisenhower.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yeah. Not a big story. Saved the United States and he's the most important General in US History next to Washington and Eisenhower.

The worst part of how history was taught in the past is its "Great Man" bias. Grant was maybe the fourth best general of the Union side, behind Sherman, Thomas and Sheriden, and those are three I come up with off the top of my head.

Since the industrial revolution, the side with the greater economic capacity usually wins. The North was going to win that war regardless of Grant. The war had been won when the North was 30 years ahead of the South in production capacity, and had a larger population. Furthermore, societies based on slavery or serfdom generally do poorly in extended wars.

The most interesting aspect of the Civil War was why the South continued to fight after July 4, 1863 when it was apparent that the South had no path to victory. This on top of the fact that the South was trying to maintain a socio-economic structure that benefitted about 5,000 Southern families and no one else. None of that was not covered in the Grant book.

 

[ZooCougar]

The worst part of how history was taught in the past is its "Great Man" bias. Grant was maybe the fourth best general of the Union side, behind Sherman, Thomas and Sheriden, and those are three I come up with off the top of my head.

Since the industrial revolution, the side with the greater economic capacity usually wins. The North was going to win that war regardless of Grant. The war had been won when the North was 30 years ahead of the South in production capacity, and had a larger population. Furthermore, societies based on slavery or serfdom generally do poorly in extended wars.

The most interesting aspect of the Civil War was why the South continued to fight after July 4, 1863 when it was apparent that the South had no path to victory. This on top of the fact that the South was trying to maintain a socio-economic structure that benefitted about 5,000 Southern families and no one else. None of that was not covered in the Grant book.

Sherman was a screwup with no tactical abilities and Grant had to cover for him time and time again. Totally overrated.

Your opinion isn’t shared by many. Actually the kinds of people who wouid agree with your take are Confederate lost cause types.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Sherman was a screwup with no tactical abilities and Grant had to cover for him time and time again. Totally overrated.

Your opinion isn’t shared by many. Actually the kinds of people who wouid agree with your take are Confederate lost cause types.

Thomas was a genius and his casualty rates were a fraction of Grant's, and Sheriden was a chaos agent against the Confederates. We will agree to disagree on Sherman.

The Confederacy "lost cause" types think the Confederacy should have surrendered after losses at Vicksburg and Gettysburg made it impossible for the Confederacy to win?

 

[ZooCougar]

Thomas was a genius and his casualty rates were a fraction of Grant's, and Sheriden was a chaos agent against the Confederates. We will agree to disagree on Sherman.

The Confederacy "lost cause" types think the Confederacy should have surrendered after losses at Vicksburg and Gettysburg made it impossible for the Confederacy to win?

Thomas was one of Grant’s subordinates.

It’s like you’re comparing Eisenhower to Patton.

Thomas went up against the JV team.

Grant captured Vicksburg with guile and then beat Lee and the best Armies in the Confederacy, while also commanding the rest of the US Forces.