Re: A different perspective
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bjer50010" <bjewell@i...> wrote:
> I wouldn't be quite so harsh ;-), but you have a point. Grant
> seem to be a guy to sit around doing nothing. And given some ofthe
> problems he encountered it would have been easy enough for him toI'm not much on the 21st century phsycho-analysis of 19th century
figures, but Grant's life experience told him that sitting around and
doing nothing lead to ruin, poverty and, for him, drink.
Grant's life was a continuous struggle at the bottom of the socio-
economic pyramid. To him, action was everything and complaining
Others, such as McClellan (and perhaps Rosecrans), had life
experiences telling them that procrastination was not such a bad
thing and the squeaky wheel got the grease...
- Thanks Dave.
Good points to ponder.
--- In email@example.com, Dave Gorski <bigg@m...> wrote:
> >Good points. I was thinking that long-term encampments would have
> >better sanitary and shelter arrangements and the men would be
> >rested than encampents of men campaigning.
> Secretary Olmsted of the Sanitary Commission issued a
> "Circular to the Colonels of the Army," in which he stated
> that "It is well known that when a considerable body of men
> have been living together in camp a few weeks a peculiar
> subtle poison is generated..."
> Another factor was that many soldiers were from rural areas
> where they had not had exposure to common illnesses, and had
> not built up any immunities. Groups in garrison were exposed to
> and often died of childhood diseases.
> Often soldiers who were hospitalized for wounds, died of some
> disease that they had been exposed to while in the hospital,
> especially typhoid.
> Yet, another point is that a soldier on the move was likely to
> have had occasion to have fresh fruits and vegetables than the
> soldier stuck in camp for weeks on end. A better diet made
> for a healthier soldier.
> Regards, Dave Gorski