you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translationlenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.



More in one day? Didn't McClellan command at Antietam?

Bad civilian leadership will negate any military prowess. Look at the Germans.

The rebel government was extremely incompetent. State governments often just
ignored edicts from Richmond. The rebel government also had to resort to
conscription early on. When things started going badly, the rebel armies
largely faded away. There was little that the government in Richmond could do
to stop it.

Neither Grant nor Sherman were butchers. They were both masters of Maneuver.

In his campaign around Vicksburg, Grant used maneuver well and extensively to
defeat the rebels when they had generally more forces available than he did.
In the overland campaign, Grant constantly maneuvered around Lee's left. This
was ultimately successful. Grant did order the Cold Harbor assault. He
learned from that. Lee it was for 'hey-diddle-diddle-right up the middle'
tactics. He lost more men on every day of the Seven Days Battle than little
Mac did, and don't forget the third day at Gettysburg. No wonder Lee's army
was riven with desertion.

Sherman constantly turned the rebel forces out of ther positions during the
Atlanta campaign. After he left Atlanta, no sizeable rebel force opposed him
at all.

And don't forget Hood, who had seen that third days' attack at Gettyburg, yet
practically immolated his army at Franklin.



Walt