Grant

Grant and the other three generals that fought at Chattanooga all came from the Western theatre. Did the skills that they learned on the western front help them become such great leaders, or was it because they were a new kind generals that the South was not use too? Their tactics were not the same as other generals that the South was use to fighting in the East, and I think this is what helped Grant become so successful as general-in-chief.

The North's reaction to Grant's strategy.

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.

I think once Lee tried to resign the morale of the army went down greatly. Lee's confidence was not there and it probably trickled down to the men who were ranked underneath him.

turning point

I believe that it was just a matter of time for the south. Although all those aspects may have contributed to the falling of the south, I believe it was more just their time. All the advantages the south had at the beginning of the war such as better trained men the north now had. Those many advantages were evened out by the north and the north began to gain the advantages not only on the battle field, but also off as the war continued on.

Oct 15-18

turning point

for what reasons was the south unable to achieve any significant victory following their win at Chickamauga Creek? Was it a shot to Lee's confidence and realization that his army could be beaten following Gettysburg or the failure to replace veteren soldiers lost at places like Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Chattanooga or other possible factors? Was their defeat only a matter of time at that point in the war?