>Oh and for the record, yes Lee is overrated as a military leader and his
>politics misrepresented for the turn of the century reasons mentioned on
>this list. Lee sent thousands of his finest Virginians to a useless death
>on the 3rd day of Gettysburg (Picketts Charge), though he knew the battle
>was lost on the 2nd, when Longstreet and Hood failed to turn the Union
>flank on the Round Tops. And politically, he wasn't even a Rommel (who at
>least had the decency to commit suicide - all reactionaries should posses
>this kind of 'decency', it would make our tasks a lot easier - in
>connection with the plot against Hitler). No, Lee fought to the bitter
>end, well after the Cause was more than Lost.
>
>Grant, on the other hand, was the superior operational and strategic
>commander of the Civil War. This is overlooked by the focus on his
>(admittedly bloody and ruthless) tactics. But attrition, in a war where
>the advent of the rifled musket favored defense, was the Unions' main
>strategic advantage. Look at his operational skill in the Mississippi
>campaigns - Lincoln did. And what nobler President has there ever been
>than the one who (however ex post facto) condemned the Mexican War (of the
>1840s), a war the Grant himself had fought in as a young officer?
>
>-Brad Mayer
>Oakland, CA
>
> > continues to make the South a sump
> > of glorified stupidity and reactionary politics.
> >
> > Carl
>In stark contrast to the modest brilliance and consumate progressive-ness
>of
>the North, Midwest, and West.
>God, what is it with the Southern-bashing on this list?
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com