Comments by "Not shaped for sportive tricks" (@notshapedforsportivetricks2912) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
 @TheNecromancer6666 If materiel was all that counted, I'd agree with you. But the war was deeply unpopular in the North at certain points. The south, by contrast, was much more united behind the war effort. Morover, they had unambiguous aims, which the north did not.
Had Grant not been such a positive force in the west, then the confederates might well have held on to Vicksburg, the fall of which was crucial for Lincoln. And consider; if no Grà nt, then probably no Sherman. That would mean no march through Georgia and the Carolinas, no fall of Savannah and no electoral boost for Lincoln's reelection. Then McClelland wioud have become president with a negotiated peace very likely.
No, I still think that Grant was essentual for victory.
4