Why was lincoln forced to keep replacing his generals during the early years of the civil war?
a. none of the leaders seemed to be able to beat lee.
b. the generals kept being killed in the field of battle.
c. lincoln could not make up his mind which one he liked.
d. they continued being much too aggressive in battle.

Hey there!
The answer is A. because As promising as the Union outlook was at the beginning of the year, there would be many problems before 1863 ended. Lincoln would be forced to deal with numerous commanders who failed to understand that the main objective/idea of the Union military machine should be defeating the Confederate armies, not merely occupying enemy territory. Lincoln often had to beg his commanders to take action, or relieve and replace a general when he failed to prosecute the war in an aggressive manner.|||None of his Generals were of qualityor at least of the same quality that the Confederates had. The Union lost many of it's battles that were led by small time Generals. One General even asked Lincoln not to promote him to General because he knew he would failhe failed. When Sherman and Grant became the lead Generals, the war starts to turn. Sherman and Grant were the most aggressive of his Generals as well. Grant was known as the "Butcher" because so many men died under his command. However, he made a promise to Lincoln that he would not falter in his victory of the Southno matter what the cost. It's for that reason that Lincoln kept him.|||There really isn't a bad answer in the bunch. I don't understand why there are so many thumbs down. Of course the answer is A. Lee was a genius. Possibly the best general that has ever commanded American troops. Grant wasn't a genius, just stubborn with (virtually) unlimited resources at his command.|||A. They were very timid against the rebel army. Lincoln forgave U.S. Grant almost everything including his alcoholism, when Grant rose to prominence, "because he fights", as Lincoln put it.|||E) "Nothing succeeds like success." Successful generals win battle after battle.

It developed as a reaction to the impact of european colonialism in africa on peoples of african descent. in the  mid-20th century, activists in africa adopted pan-africanism as a rallying cry for independence from colonial rule. some african pan-africanists sought to unite the continent as one independenthope it was useful