Question: Many Europeans criticizes northern and southern generals for the way in which they fought the Civil War. Evaluate the military leadership, strategies, and tactics of either the North or the South.
             The civil war took place from 1861 to 1865. It was a bloody war between the North and the South. Even though the south didn't win, they had good military leadership, strategies, and tactics.
             The South had good military leadership. They had good generals such as Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewallâ€" Jackson, and Jeb Stuart. They had better skills in forming battle tactics, military knowledge, and good decision making under pressure, Lee and Jackson had graduated from West Point Academy, and had fought in the Mexican War. This fact that they had experience gave them an advantage over the North.
             In terms of strategies, the South's main one was "offensive-defensive."" It was one of defending all resources, stockpiling supplies and taking the offensive when the supply went down or the opportunity was provided by the enemy. The South ended up fighting a mainly defensive war. They just had to defend their capital of Richmond, Virginia from the North, while the North had to go down there to fight. They also used "interior linesâ€" to move forces from quiet fronts through the interior to threatened fronts more quickly than the enemy could move around the military border.
             In tactics, infantry was mainly used. Corp commanders handled "grand tacticsâ€", the art of maneuvering large forces just outside of the battlefield and bringing them onto that field. Calvary also played a role in tactics.
             In the civil war, the south had good military leadership, strategies and tactics. Through generals like Lee and Jackson, and defensive strategies and tactics, they put up a good fight, although it still wasn't good enough to win the war.
             ...