Did the north see Grant's strategy of starving out Vicksburg as unmoral or did they just care about the victory for the north? Everyone saw him as a hero because of his victory but he was killing southern civilians in the process.
As we discussed in lecture Grant's reputation as a butcher never had anything to do with southern collateral damage. Only the level of troop casualties he would sustain in order to achieve a win. I'm pretty sure that his win didn't really make as many headlines because it was a siege, which isn't really the bloody sort of battle that makes a headline.
1 comment:
As we discussed in lecture Grant's reputation as a butcher never had anything to do with southern collateral damage. Only the level of troop casualties he would sustain in order to achieve a win. I'm pretty sure that his win didn't really make as many headlines because it was a siege, which isn't really the bloody sort of battle that makes a headline.
Post a Comment