Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
What is the logic in diverting a whole army to attack a specific foe in a specific place and in regarding the outcome as decisive only if you win and of no consequence if you lose?
Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
There were MANY subsequent events that may have turned out completely differently. It was not a victory at Shiloh that 'caused' Vicksburg's fall, and I posit to YOU that it had the equally even odds that it would've seen Vicksburg safe, EVEN WITH THE SAME BATTLEFIELD OUTCOME.
There was a very serious inquiry held into the fact that General Grant had been surprised, was very nearly destroyed, and wasn't even present with his army when the attack opened, arriving from many miles away, possibly under the influence of alcohol. It was reccommended that he be relieved, and I seriously doubt that in the MORE than likely event that he had been, Vicksburg, taken only becuase of Grant's bulldog determination and iron will, may not have fallen AT ALL.
Originally posted by JAD_333
View Post
BUT...what we DO know is that the actual, historical results that came from the Battle of Shiloh makes the claim that after that day in April '62, the South's defeat was inevitable is simply false.
NOT DECISIVE.
Comment