Re: [civilwarwest] Concerning "what if"
- Pat,Thank you. I am new to this group and certainly did not want to offend anyone. I realize we could get carried away with "what if's", however, I have always found it fascinating that both Grant and Sherman were so unsure of themselves at the beginning of the war, yet became close friends and, if nothing else, shorten the time of a Union Victory. I just wanted to get other viewopoints.Mike----- Original Message -----From: P. B. JonesSent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:02 AMSubject: [civilwarwest] Concerning "what if"Which brings up a point worth making. ANY of us are free to DELETE and/or not read contributions from other members. While Mr. Beatty does not see value in "what if" based discussion, this board is not discouraging them so long as they are cordial in nature. It is a lack of civility, or covering topics clearly stated as forbidden here, that will get a person removed from the board.Best regards from SEK.Pat----- Original Message -----From: John BeattySent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:04 AMSubject: Re: [civilwarwest] ShilohWell, if Grant would have
> resigned, there
> probably would not have been a "Burning of Atlanta
> and March to the
> Sea" by Sherman. There probably would not have been
> a persistent
> Union General who would have forced Lee to fight,
> and I don't think
> there would be 50 United States today.
That does not mean, however, that his resignation
would have been accepted, or that he would not have
been inticed back to duty soon therafter.
Further, you did not mention that the Martians might
have invaded, or that the Earth could have stopped in
In short, the results of a Grant resignation after
Shiloh are not only unknowable but not worth
discussing, simply because there is NO END to any such
arguments. "What if"-based discussions are just
trolls for flame wars.
I, however, conclude my part of this "discussion."
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"