The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Yes, I knew that Sherman was the first president at LSU (not "LSU" back then).  I have not ever read that letter.  Rather prescient, and well-worded.  He appears to have been a decent writer.

Sherman and Grant were both good writers. Clear communicators.

I'm not nearly enough of a historian know the ins and outs, but the Mississippi River is such an important trade commodity that it seems the South should have expected some advantage as far as trade with Europe and anyone else, contrary to Sherman's words here.  Its ports, presumably, would've been under control of the South.

But maybe he meant something else, or the situation was, most likely, much more intricate than I understand. 

Union forces captured New Orleans on 1 May 1862. That blocked most sea traffic into and out of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy wasted 1861 as far as exporting its most valuable commodity--cotton. Jefferson Davis announced a boycott of cotton to Europe in an attempt to force Britain and France to recognize the CSA and to provide military aid. It didn't work, because 1860 had seen a bumper cotton crop, so the British cotton mills had a lot of raw cotton left over. That was typical of the CSA's maladroit diplomacy.

Sherman and Grant were both good writers. Clear communicators.

Union forces captured New Orleans on 1 May 1862. That blocked most sea traffic into and out of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy wasted 1861 as far as exporting its most valuable commodity--cotton. Jefferson Davis announced a boycott of cotton to Europe in an attempt to force Britain and France to recognize the CSA and to provide military aid. It didn't work, because 1860 had seen a bumper cotton crop, so the British cotton mills had a lot of raw cotton left over. That was typical of the CSA's maladroit diplomacy.

Britain also found Egypt could grow cotton pretty well ....

Lee was best at the tactical and operational levels of war. When it came to strategy, he wasn't so great. His focus on the Richmond-Washington area left everything west of the Smokies under-resourced.

He did send Longstreet's corps to Georgia in 1863 when Virginia was in a lull.  There was talk of sending him to Vicksburg before Gettysburg, but Lee of course figured a victory in the north would seal it.  Lee really benefitted from having indecisive Northern commanders like Hooker, who figured the battle was won, no need to do anything else.

I tend to think "historical opinions" of military leaders gets overblown, usually, one way or the other, then over corrected, the over over corrected.

I've been reading more about Hannibal and Alexander and Caesar and Martel, and a few others.  They are either reported as being incredibly fantastic or really not all that.