answersLogoWhite

0

No, General Grant actually was showing disrespect. Grant was very drunk during Lee's act of surrendering. While Lee was sitting on top of a horse very proud, although he did result in the losing position, he was the better general at that time No, General Grant actually was showing disrespect. Grant was very drunk during Lee's act of surrendering. While Lee was sitting on top of a horse very proud, although he did result in the losing position, he was the better general at that time Grant was not drunk. He was suffering from a migrane, not from a hang over. The story we were taught in school was that Grant wanted to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent further loss of life on both sides, and he placed this priority higher than a dress uniform and a shiny pair of boots. I have never heard of any implied disrespect to Lee before reading this question and the first answer to it.

User Avatar

Wiki User

17y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about Military History

Can you wear your military ring on your middle finger?

NO! If you did you are not showing respect to this nation.


Is the role of the drummer boy as crucial as the general says?

Yes, the drummer boy's role is crucial to the general's army as he empowers the soldiers, keeps the organization of the battle, and represents the army all while showing the army's booming intimidation.


What do you think the artist means by showing hilter doing carving?

What do you think the artist means by showing hilter doing carving?


How does the video seek to make the atom bomb seem less threatening?

by showing people successfully surviving an atom bomb attack while on a picnic


Why didn't Truman allow the Japanese to make a conditional surrender with the terms that they could keep their Emperorknowing that this would have allowed the war to end in June 1945?

Who says he wouldn't have? In June 1945 the Japanese were bitterly defending Okinawa, engaging in mass Kamikaze attacks on the American fleet, and showing not the slightest sign of any inclination to surrender on any terms. The Japanese still had millions of undefeated troops in China. The war had been lost to the Japanese since Midway, in June 1942, to all of them who were able to face the facts unemotionally. So why did they wait more than three years, and endure two atomic bombings before they voiced a desire to end it? There is a school of revisionist "historians" that have tried to claim in recent years that Japan WANTED to surrender, had made the decision TO surrender, and, instead of directly informing the US of this decision, were trying to go through the Russians or the Swedes or some other intermediary to get the word through. I do not think the historical evidence supports any of these propositions, but even so, assuming that they are true, if the Japanese wanted to surrender, shouldn't they have let the US know that simple fact? There is no doubt whatsoever that the US had no information at all of any intention to end the war by Japan. The US was actively involved in planning and preparing for the next two invasions, which were to be in the Home Islands, in November 1945 and March 1946. In July 1945, while at the Potsdam Conference, Truman issued the "Potsdam Declaration" to the Japanese, after he had been informed of the successful test of the atomic bomb. Truman called on Japan for immediate surrender, or promised they would face "prompt and utter destruction", "the like of which the world has never seen". The Japanese made no reply at all. None. Zero, Nada, Zip. Zilch.