61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 08:09 am
@Setanta,
Ah gees William.....now it is going to be impossible to get into google for the next three weeks....you've got **** for brains thinking he is an historian .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 08:15 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Grant certainly spent all his time looking over Meade's shoulder and cracking the whip. But that was what was needed, and being willing to pay the butcher's bill was the only way to invade the South, destroy their armies and win the war. What do you propose anyone might have done other than that?


The norther military prove that they was far less then the Southern military leadership and it that would not had been the case the war could had been won years earlier and hundreds of thousands of live sooner.

Come on you have Lee battle plans fall into your damn hands where he had divided his forces and anyone anyone could had used that information to ended that war then and there by destroying the major Southern army.

Let hear you tell us that if Lee had received a similar gift from the war gods he would not had used it unlike McClellan?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 09:25 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Hood was pleased to invade Tennessee, which he did. In December, 1864, George Thomas utterly destroyed Hood's army. Thomas had about 55,000, and Hood had only about 30,000 men left in the Army of Tennessee. Thomas suffered fewer than 4,000 casualties, while inflicting more than 6,000 casualties on Hood's army. He chased Hood's survivors for days, too. Hood's army was scattered, and would never threaten Tennessee again
.

As a totally unimportant footnote, here is an interesting tidbit for you.
My ancestor was a member of a company of Illinois volunteers with Thomas's army.
He wrote in his journal about how he and some other men actually sat down and ate the beakfast that had been prepared for General Hood.
They had apparently forced him to retreat even before he got to eat breakfast.
According to my great, great grandfathers journal, the breakfast was very good.

electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 01:09 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
soon our version of events is all that will remain.
Ah yes, the **** intelligence we'll out breed them strategy.....should work...it is your only hope after all.....

You nailed it! Do you realize what you've accomplished? You got one of them to admit they're all of them fabulists. Making up "versions of events" is what "making up facts" means in plain English.

He's too ignorant or too stupid or too PC to grasp you can only make up "interpretations" of events a.k.a. facts. Not "versions" of events a.k.a. facts. Rewriting facts is what they've been up to all along. At last now they admit it.

He only spoke the truth by mistake but here we are. I posted dates (a.k.a. facts,) but they either don't understand they're facts or they think that facts come in several "versions".

Congrats.

Happy Easter.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 01:24 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

As a totally unimportant footnote, here is an interesting tidbit for you.
My ancestor was a member of a company of Illinois volunteers with Thomas's army.

Anecdotal isn't unimportant.

Go to the Vietnam memorial and look all the little notes and teddy bears and dried flowers and photographs and other small "unimportant" personal belongings people leave at the foot of the wall under the names of the dead.

Those little items grab you in a way that dry statistics never will. Once a week a guard collects them and sorts them out to store in a museum. Happy Easter to you too.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 01:46 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
I posted dates (a.k.a. facts,)
You are as much of a dipshit as ANUS. Youve posted a minimum of anything that hadnt already been posted EXCEPT When you posted "facts" , for example,you stated that the date of seccession for SC was Dec 20 1864, yet you posted the seccession proclamation for the entire CSA which was published 5 MONTHS LATER. What did you think that SC did for those intervening five months. Did they make believe that nothing was happening??

Youre being a revisionist and I wonder why? Wheres your agenda to keep the Confederacy's true story hidden?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:01 pm
@mysteryman,
I find those sorts of things interesting. About ten years ago, i came across the history of the 31st Illinois Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry. That was John Logan's original regiment. He eventually reached the rank of Major General of United States Volunteers. In fact, Grant, who hated Thomas, had sent Logan to supercede him because he wasn't attacking soon enough for Grant. (Grant, who was undisturbed by Sherman marching off and leaving Thomas to deal with Hood; Grant, who had stripped Thomas of all of his transport and 80% of his army to re-inforce Sherman.) Thomas--had been paralyzed by a typical mid-South winter storm, with everything a sheet of ice--launched his attack the first day of the thaw, at which point, Logan had only reached Louisville. I'm not surprised that your ancestor ate Hood's breakfast--Hood was totally unprepared for the event.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:01 pm
@mysteryman,
By the way, Raprap says that his ancestor also served with Thomas.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:04 pm
@BillRM,
As i pointed out before, incompetence on the part of one commander is not evidence of brilliance on the part of his enemy. You've been totally suckered by the Lost Cause bullshit, and can't see past the myth to the man. Learn about the Seven Days sometime, while suspending your hero-worship of Lee. It was a shambles. So, no, i have no reason to assume that if Lee had had McClellan's detailed plans, he and his army wouldn't have managed to **** it up.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:26 pm
@electronicmail,
It gets tedious explaining things over and over again to you. The subject of the thread is not whether or not the North fought to liberate the slaves. It is that the Confederacy was founded to defend the institution of slavery--so the date of the emancipation proclamation is meaningless.

But more than that, your entire thesis is predicated upon the idiot assumption that the North started the war. They didn't. The South started the war, and they got no more than they deserved, and arguably a good deal less. It's a shame, though, that so many decent men from the North had to die to pay that bill.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:42 pm
@Setanta,
All great military leaders had bads days and even bad battles.

Cold Harbor come to mind in relationship to Grant for example and the throwing away of good men for no possible gain.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 02:53 pm
@BillRM,
Grant was not the tactical commander of the Army of the Potomac; certainly, though, he drove Meade on to that attack. He glosses over Cold Harbor in his memoirs. However, you continue to ignore that evidence of incompetence on the part of a commander is not evidence of brilliance on the part of his enemy. Lee consistently failed to control his general officers--letting Stuart have discretionary orders, given his love of riding off into the blue on adventures, on June 22, 1863 was grossly irresponsible on Lee's part. For a week, he didn't even take notice of Stuart's absence. It didn't bother him until he ran into Meade's army and had no intelligence about that army and its movements.

Lee consistently failed to do basic staff work--this is evident for the Seven Days, this is evident for the campaign leading to Cedar Mountain, this is evident in his decisions at Gettysburg. On the second day, McLaws and Hood did not attack until late afternoon, because Lee's staff had not found a route for the approach march of the First Corps, and Longstreet's staff had to do that before his troops could move into position to attack. Lee consistently squandered the lives of his men. This is evident in his failure to coordinate the attacks of A. P. Hill with Longstreet and D. H. Hill in the Seven Days--at Beaver Dam, Boatswain's Swamp, Gaines' Mills, Savage Station and Malvern Hill. As i've already pointed out, D. H. Hill said of Malvern Hill: "It wasn't war, it was murder." It is evident at Second Manassas when Jackson was pleading for Longstreet to come in, but Longstreet didn't feel like it, and Lee did nothing while A. P. Hill's men were reduced to throwing rocks at the Yankees and launching bayonet attacks because they had no cartridges.

The only thing that made Lee such a reputation was that he faced so many incompetent commanders. If he had been facing Thomas, he'd have been in a prisoner of war camp by early 1863, if not sooner.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:11 pm
A detailed criticism of Lee (by me) can be found in this post. In particular, it looks at his performance during the Seven Days.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:24 pm
@Setanta,
My position had been that the southern generals were far superior to their counterparts in the North on the whole.

I can not see how anyone could take an issue with that point as time after time Northern military leadership did not used their resources and opportunities to anywhere to near to full advantages and on the other hands the South had a must better records in that regard.

Off hand I can name any numbers of times where the civil war could had been ended if the North had press the issue using their overwhelming advantages and they fail to do so.

Hell if Lee had taken command of the Northern forces the civil war would had in my opinion been shorter by years.

In the end there was no elegance in the North winning the civil war just the grinding down of a far weaker enemy and it took forever to get a man in placed that was able and willing to do that.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:28 pm
Here's a list of the ten best generals of the Civil War. The best general was Grant; he won the war. The list is 50/50 between the US and CS for best generals.

http://blueandgraytrail.com/features/bestgenerals.html
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Grant was not the best general even if he was the first and only one placed in command of the Northern forces who knew his asshole from a hole in the ground.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:38 pm
@BillRM,
You are incredibly ignorant. Thomas was highly competent, and a good argument can be made that he was the most competent general serving on either side. You know too damned little to be setting up for some kind of expert.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:41 pm
@BillRM,
If that's the case, please refute the claims made on the link about U Grant.

Quote:
Ulysses S. Grant [US]

It was Grant's understated brilliance that won The Civil War. With the Mississippi River heavily fortified, Grant sidestepped the Rebels by travelling up the Tennessee and Cumberland River, capturing Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, the first major Union victory. His stubborn defense at the Battle of Shiloh turned defeat into victory. After freeing the Mississippi River of Confederates at Vicksburg, he rescued the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga before continuing east to assume the role of General-in-Chief, U. S. Army. His orders to his subordinates were simple:pursue the Rebels wherever they went and destroy them. He engaged the Confederates repeatedly, fighting a war of attrition (The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg) with Lee until the end of the war.


For someone who "didn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground," he seems to have won more victories than the CS generals. His tactic to
Quote:
pursue the Rebels wherever they went and destroy them
won the war.

I wish we had more generals in all subsequent wars who "didn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground." That must be the requirement for winning wars.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 03:44 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
hMy position had been that the southern generals were far superior to their counterparts in the North on the whole.


And i'm saying you're wrong, and that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You ignore the incompetence of Floyd, Goring, Whiting, Bragg, Beauregard, Hood, Ewell--any number of officers in Confederate Service who were given high command. You also ignore the many fine, competent officers in Federal service, and you apparently are completely unaware of how the Confederacy staggered from one disaster to the next in the western theater. I don't give Grant credit for commanding the Army of the Tennessee in its operations against Vicksburg--i do give him credit for selecting the officers who destroyed Pemberton's army and took the city.

I don't know what the hell that "elegance" bullshit is about. War, and expecially war with large caliber muskets, is never elegant. You must live in La-la Land. There's nothing elegant about war, and your criticisms are silly, and display a profound ignorance.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2011 04:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
For someone who "didn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground," he seems to have won more victories than the CS generals. His tactic to


Read my comment concerning Grant below once more as you seem not to had read it correctly!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------
he was the first and only one placed in command of the Northern forces who knew his asshole from a hole in the ground.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the plan of dividing the South in half using the rivers with special note of the Mississippi was put forward by Scott before Grant rejoin the army and Lee let the army for the south.

I also see nothing special about using the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers assuming you can read a map.

Quote:
He engaged the Confederates repeatedly, fighting a war of attrition


A war of attrition when you have the manpower and resources to do so will win a war however it is the hard way of doing so and very very hard on the troops.

He was in the end losing more troops in battle when Lee had facing him and yes he won by throwing more bodies at Lee then anyone could deal with.




 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 10:47:27