View single post by JoanieReb
 Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 12:29 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Wed Jan 24th, 2007
Posts: 620

  back to top

"About the failed June 3 assault, Rhea adds: "Aggressive by nature and accustomed to taking risks, Grant seized the moment. If the offensive worked, the rewards would be tremendous. If it failed, he would simply treat the reverse as he had his earlier disappointments at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, and the North Anna River and try another tack. In short, the consequences of not assaulting, thereby forfeiting the chance for quick victory and extending the war, seemed worse than those of attacking and failing.'"

"What were Grant's alternatives?
Not to attack at all. And if that happens, he's no better than McClellan, Pope, Burnside or Hooker."

Get your defribulator, Pvt. Clewell:  Good arguments.  The second paragraph is a bit strongly stated - still haven't really looked into any possible alternatives to that specific frontal attack, but good arguments.  If he could employ no reasonable alternative strategy, I might concede on this.

As for McP., please remember, baby and bathwater.  As I said in another thread, I read 3-1/2 of his books, than just got tired of dealing with what I felt was his bias and moved onto other things.  But, he is useful and thought-provoking - even if the thought he provokes is "bias!".

We've already done the bias thing, the end.

 Close Window