Setanta wrote:No six hundred thousands were lost on Grant's watch. He did not become the Federal supreme commander until late in 1863. Certainly, during the campaign from the Rappahannock to Petersburg and then to Appomattox and the surrender of Lee's army, the butcher's bill was high. But it was high for the Army of Northern Virginia, as well, and that was the point. Throughout the war, Lincoln said he needed to "find someone who understands the numbers." In Grant, he had found that man, and Lincoln was well-satisfied.
Sherman's "butcher's bill" was actually rather low, all things considered. But then, he irresponsibly abandoned his primary objective--the destruction of John Bell Hood's Army of the Tennessee--and wandered off on the pointless "march to the sea." He left George Thomas to deal with Hood and the Army of the Tennessee, and that after taking all of Thomas' army, except two small divisions comprising one small corps. Thomas, however, was equal to the task, and scraping up men, mules and horses wherever he could find them, he assembled an army in Nashville and destroyed Hood's army, accomplishing the task which Sherman had abandoned.
So, as one can plainly see, Rayban once again is shooting his mouth off without knowing very damned much about the subject he chooses--an experience with which the members here become increasingly familiar.
Not withstanding your "awesome" knowledge of history and your penchant for putting us to sleep at every opportunity.........my POINT was that Lincoln's war cost the lives of 600,000 men because of.....WEAPONS PARITY on both sides. This catastrophe was brought about by the stupid military thinking of that day which forced men to fight with antique weapons (muzzle loaders that required several seconds to reload even by an expert without the stress of actual combat). Modern weapons were available ......the Spencer 7 shot repeater which used a rimfire cartridge......and a little later the Winchester repeating rifle. The Generals wouldn't buy these weapons because the rationale was that they couldn't keep the men supplied with ammunition. ? ! ?
A handfull of men managed to buy these weapons with their own scarce money.
I don't want to diminish Lincoln's achievement of holding the Union together........just pointing out that he was probably described as a butcher, a moron, and an idiot during the time.
Compare 600,000 with 1800, and our vast and awesome weapons superiority of today with Weapons PARITY during the civil war.
BTW.....parity means weapons of equal quality,design, and firing ability. Over the centuries....weapons parity has caused far more total deaths than religion......and that is a monumental comparison. No.....I can't prove that but common sense would support that thinking.
)
I do need a little help in that arena, but thank god for....CIALIS. That said, I probably get as much or more than you do.......however I would like to be your age again.
