In polite company, defending slavery is considered a major character flaw.

Damn if he's so smart why'd he join the losing side, and then lose?

Lee and every member of the southern aristocracy should have been executed.

deganerate

Bullhorn dogwhistle.

General Grant was not an alcoholic. He drank missing his wife. He never drank while in battle. That's one of many slanders of the Lost Cause that victimizes the South as well as proposes the South to be superior in many aspects.

Grant was by far the better general. While Lee fought a mostly defensive Virginia campaign, Grant was out completing the North's military objectives in aggressive, modern strategies. His rally and subsequent victory at Shiloh, despite his mistakes. His Vicksburg Campaign that is still studied to this day. Grant's ability to fight the war that Lee could not win when Grant finally took over the army of the Potomac and hounded Lee, when previous generals would turn, until he had nothing but a ragged army.

lol, really is a shame West Point didn't have courses on not being a racist, slavery-defending piece of shit then isn't it?

I mean, if Ulysses S. Grant had a problem, it was that he had no clue how to run a country, but that's every single president

"unimpeachable character" idk the slaves he was fighting to keep probably had a different take on his character

literally who cares about graduating top of the class? pure cope. grant did way the hell better where it actually counts

I remember Matt Christman on radio war nerd talking about how all the westpoint grads in the American Civil War were hobbled by their education and were unable to think outside the box strategically, and how guys like Willlich (the German Communist general) was able to shake up the war by bringing over different tactics. He might have been overstating his case a little, but still. It is interesting when people make appeals to shit like "graduated with good marks at the nepotism factory"

Maybe they should have settled their differences in the octagon then? Can't change history.

i say with absolute certainty the commander and president of the Union could've beaten the shit outta their confederate counterpart barehands

grant needed none of that fancy book learnin' to kick the shit out of lee

confederate defenders stop pretending "defending his home state" is a meaningful distinction from "defending the institution of slavery"

Is this what people mean when they say the south had "better generals"?

lmao the person in the replies posting the Tony Snell stat line