re: History Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee

quote:

---

Somebody, somewhere in the union Govt. at some time had confidence in all of the men you just mentioned. They had to have impressed at some point to have gotten their rank

---

Many of them got their rank because, at the time of South Carolina's secession from the Union, there were only 16,000 men in the U.S. Army - officers included. Many of those officers and men went South once their native state seceded. To replace them, the Union army promoted these officers to positions of authority.

McClellan actually did impress. In May and June of 1861 he won the first Union victories of the war in what is modern day West Virginia. Some of those were over Lee actually. But those were battles involving only several thousand troops.

Pope won an important Union victory at Island No. 10 on the Mississippi River but, once again, it was a battle involving only a few thousand men.

Burnside was actually an interesting case. Before taking command of the Army of the Potomac, Burnside had refused it twice before. The reason? He knew he sucked. He said, and I quote, "I am not competent enough to command such a large army as this." The only reason he finally accepted command of the army is because, if he refused, his rival Joe Hooker would get the job.

Hooker had shown brilliance as a corps commander but, like many solid division and corps commanders who rose to command an army, he was incompetent in overall command.