any one else want to -- mr. roth. >> putting your men in battle you have trust in them that they will come through and win. but like shy away, general doesn't want to fight this battle because he doesn't think he can win this one f. that happens over and over. >> you guys are giving the very good institutional response. it's perfectly defensible. let me push back a little. john bell hood. okay. incredibly aggressive. men quite fond of him. what happens? destroys his own army. by attacking. i forget his name. my good friend and colleague at chapel hill -- it's in sherman's army, he has a story about i can't remember which one, a core commander. who is very effective, aggressive, but somewhat disliked because he is seen as a bit too aggressive. a bit too ambitious. so there is a fine line between -- yes, troops want to win and troops understand they have to do certain things to do that. but when do you have an officer who may be wants that glory a little too much. >> you also have to think about the different dyna

you've got to -- mr. roth, why don't you elaborate. >> like a line in the book that said we had more people at the peak of our -- the union military than the confederates had in general. >> some other -- >> a lot more industrialized in the southwest. >> so how much credit do we give generals for having bigger resources? here's another issue. we haven't talked about this even with lee. who does grant fight in the west where he makes his career is this the best confederates have to offer? no. none of you can probably remember these folks, like, well, wigley likes joe johnston a lot. people like braxton bragg, pemberton, this rogue's gallery. how could one use the same argument that great generals require sort of inept opponents, in lee's case? this is the same issue in evaluating lee. who does he heat? >> burnside. >> joe hooker. the army of the potomac in general. arguably the army of tennessee is perhaps an even worse army. the confederate army of tennessee, than the union army from the potomac. when i sa

what mr. roth said. in this case you can associate it with guerrilla warfare. in this case it's wearing down your opponent. that's the overland campaign with fighting. high casualty count. mr. goodwin you're probably -- did you mention vicksburg? >> not this time, sir. >> that's an example where grant doesn't wear down his opponent through a heavy casualty sort of grinding away. what does he do instead. >> figured out the siege. but originally when he started at vicksburg he launched two or three assaults and failed at that. one could argue he tried to anile late this confederate army in vicksburg, too. >> he does. in the end he does win, right. the assaults don't work but how does the siege conclude? where else does grant achieve maneuver, decisions by siege? >> petersburg. >> that's another thou i

but it also doesn't recognize -- mr. roth. >> he didn't win battles so if lee would have done the same thing lee would have been sacked too probably. >> yes. and why is this important? >> he wanted to win it. >> yes, it's cultural -- mr mr. conners. >> that's why you fight spoiling battles. that's why you -- like washington too was dependent on public opinion which is why he did raids and he attacked small detachments when he could pick up a win and say look at all of these guys i beat. >> that's a good point. this is something -- >> it has to do with their relationship with davis. to say that he would have been sacked just because he wasn't doing anything is kind of a far stretch. up north lincoln didn't fire half of his generals simply because of political reasons who were not doing as well. >> he had to wait a while. mccullin is a good example. lincoln doesn't like mcclelland early on but eventually -- takes a while. between the confederacy -- now i expect you to remember a little about the jacksonnian -- in washingto

it also doesn't recognize -- mr. roth. johnson he got fired because he didn't win battles against sherman. if lee would have done the same thing he would have been sacked too probably. >> why is this important? >> it is culture. mr. conners. >> that's why you like spoiling battles. that's why you like washington, too, is dependent on public opinion which is why he did raids and he attacked small detachments when he could pick up and win and say look at all of these guys i beat. >> that's a good point. this is something -- >> has to do with their relationship with davis because to say that he would have been sacked just because he wasn't doing anything is kind of a far stretch. for example, north lincoln didn't fire half of his generals simply because of political reasons who were not doing as well. >> wait awhile. sometimes he did. mcclellan is a good example of that. lincoln doesn't like mcclellan early on and eventually gets rid of him and takes him awhile. what's different about american political culture between the co

mr. mcdermott is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is a very important hearing to have to talk about and i agree, we probably come at the same concern over having people's security. but i fly back and forth from seattle where united airlines has its largest and oldest base. most of the flight attendants are about 55 to 60 years old. one of them told me a story and i'd like you guys to respond and ladies to respond to this. her husband worked for washington mutual and one day they closed the bank and he lost his entire 401(k). boom. gone. all gone because it was invested in the bank, right? because he was required to invest it in the bank. now she flies for united airlines. they've gone into bankruptcy twice and each time they go into bankruptcy the first thing the bankruptcy judge does and responds to the companies' pleadings is to scrape off the retirement. so this woman who has flown for united airlines for 29 years now has a guarantee of $231 a month from the pbgc on top of her social security. now, here are middle class

mr. roth. elaborate on that. >> there's a line in the book that said we had more people at the peak of the union military than the confederates had in the general. >> it's a lot more inindustrialized than the south was. >> and so much credit do we give generals for having bigger resources, right? here's the other issue. and we haven't talked about this even with lee. who does grant fight in the west where he makes his career? is this the best the confederates have to offer? none of you can remember these folks. well, widely likes joe johnson a lot. but people like braxton bragg, you know, this is a rogue gallery. how can one produce the same argument that great generals require opponents. in lee's case. who does lee fight? >> collin, burnside. >> right. the army of the potomac in general. but arguably the army of the tennessee is perhaps a worse army. the confederate army of the tennessee is a worse army than the union army of the potomac. all right. so, and when i say that, i mean things in te

but it also doesn't recognize -- mr. roth? >> johnson got fired because he didn't win battles in sherman. if lee would have done the same thing, lee would have been sacked too probably. >> yes. >> and why is this important? >> that's why you fight spoiling battles. that's why you, like washington too, is depend upon public opinion. km is why he did raids and he attacked small detachments when he could pick up a win and say look. >> that's a good point. >> -- the relationship with davis. to say he would have been sacked because he wasn't doing anything is kind of a far stretch. like, for example, lincoln didn't fire half of his generals because of political reasons who were not doing as well. >> sometimes he does. mcen is a good -- mccullen is a good example of that. what's different about american political culture between the confederacy. i mean, now i'm expecting you to remember it's a little bit of american history, in the jacksonian period. democracy. in washington's era public opinion is not as important. in the early ame