You are welcome..happy to assist.

All kinds of ifs in the last two replies and that is not what happened. Whether Grant wanted to be a butcher isn't in question, the fact is, he was one, While it did lead to victory, it does not absolve him. As I said, he and almost all of the Union were out generaled by the South. Yes there were moments of brilliance and some competent leaders but with the numbers involved and the type of war being fought, the outcome were lackluster at best.    So, what If Grant were in the East in 61, what if he handled Gettrysburg or Antietam, or the Peninsula etc.... It would have meant that someone else would have been at Vicksburg or maybe Jackson wouldn't have been killed and none of that matters as it didn't happen and we will never know.   As for Patton, once again, look at North Africa and Sicily, yes he was generally better supplied but he was also stymied by his own command and even in Normandy his fuel was low and he was limited in what he could do. It was his planning and brilliance where he stood out in those early days, He took the fight to the enemy where he could and he produced results, but while he had more than the Germans in most supplies, he had less than Grant and his authority was never that of Grants. He was leashed by Ike, Bradley, and the British almost constantly.         I would put forth an if scenario on behalf of Grant though it doesn't matter in the least. If he had the depth of Division and Brigade commanders that Lee, Johnston, and Bragg had, then he may have shown true brilliance versus butchery. Bragg was awful, but he had good officers which helped with the successes he had...  Scott    

Your flag came before the "thimbles" and is consistent with an older flag. Washing a flag in bad shape can leave you with a pile of muck. I only do it by hand with a small amount of Woolite. Air dry.  

If Grant had been at Antietam, Lee and the Amry of N. Virginia would have been crushed.  Lee being allowed to move his tattered army away from the battlefield without being pounced and destroyed was a big missed opportunity for the Union.  McClellan even had Lee's battle plans.    Lee and Jackson were good generals and their exploits are legendary.  But when assessing their generalship, you have to take into account who they were facing.  During the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan was convinced that the South had an army twice his size and would not attack despite overwhelming superiority in men and material.  (One of my favorite stories of the war is how General MacGruder (i think that's name) marched his men in circles while in defensive lines outside Richmond to give the impression that great numbers of troops were arriving)    The same goes for the other Union generals who committed blunders that Lee took advantage of but should not have been committed by better generals.      As far as the siege of Vicksburg, Robert E. Lee would have done the same thing.   To think that Lee's brilliance could led to the capture of Vicksburg without a siege or at an earlier time gives him too much credit.  As for Patton, American troops received 8 pounds of supply for every one pound dedicated to the German soldier.   I believe it accurate to say that Patton had greater resources than his German opponents, especially given that 80 to 90 percent of Germany's military resources were dedicated to fighting the Soviet Union which was the main theater of war in Europe. 

Thank you very much! I really appreciate your help. I’m trying to identify the exact history and use of this tag, so your information about it being a Canadian Navy item is very helpful. Thanks again!

Air Force Staff Sgt. Ivan Sauer poses with an Army Air Assault School flag at Sepulveda Air National Guard Station, Van Nuys, California. (Frederick Chung/U.S. Air Force)  *badge above his Air Assault Badge is the Senior Security Forces Careerfield Badge. 

https://www.wgal.com/article/world-war-ii-medal-returned-veteran-family-lost-years/71889122

Hello, would you be willing to grant permission for us to use one of these photographs in an exhibit for Hampton National Historic Site? Eugene Humphrey (1895-1961) lived here and served in this unit during WWI, but we don’t have a photo of him.  Thank you for your consideration!

I think I have the British MECo belt to this set

From first to last, Grant was a brilliant strategist, perhaps the best of the war. I don’t think for a minute that it was ever his intention to win the war at the cost of so much Union flesh and blood. But I think he understood that when it came to it, more casualties now, followed by a victory would have a cheaper price in the long run than not.  If McClellan had Grant’s  attitude on the Peninsula or even Antietam, the war may very well have been much shorter and the final butcher’s bill far less. As Grant said to Lincoln, the thing had to be pressed. Where Grant was weaker was on the tactical, battlefield level. Time and again during the 1864 campaign he tried to win by outflanking but was frustrated by a quicker moving opponent.  As a Grant man myself, I think the portrayal of him as a bloody butcher is unfortunate. Considering the record of his contemporaries, no Union general could have done as good or better than Grant.  mikie