Do you think that a general's win- loss record on the battlefield is the best gauge of measuring greatness as a military leader? why or why not?

A general's win-loss record is only one thing to ponder upon. There are other factors. One is the competency of the opposition. So a lackluster general may fight an even worse general and end up looking good by winning. Weather may be a factor. A good general with a good plan may still lose because of bad weather. Good generals with good plans may be defeated may be defeated by an army with better weapons. There's also reputation to consider. Grant fought and won more than he lost. Other generals still complained to Lincoln about him saying he drank. Lincoln stayed with him saying he was needed because he fought. Lee may have been a better general than Grant but he did not have as many men and his men were poorly fed and supplies were inadequate.

Plessy Vs Ferguson was a Supreme Court case in 1896 that upheld the constitutionality of segregation under the 'separate but equal' doctrine. Homer Plessy said that his rights were violated because he was forced to sit in a Jim Crow car, but the court ruled that the state rule did not interfere with the 13th or 14th Amendment. This states that while the colored people were bound as equal, societal standards said they were still separate. Brown Vs Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 1954 that began desegregating schools. Although children were supposedly 'equal', colored kids were still refused to attend white schools, and the African American schools had low funding and barely enough space, these schools also were usually not close to the homes of the kids who attended them. Brown Vs Board of Education helped mix schools and children, which further extended Plessy Vs Ferguson to literally making everyone equal.