The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Setanta,

Quote:

You really don't know a goddamned thing about the civil war

Did google tell you that ? Who told you that you were knowledgable ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

What is wrong with your brain, apart from a great deal...he says they died in the war and you get all fired up and abusive saying disease killed many of them.....what is the difference turkey ? Were you an abused child ?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
By the way, bright boy, the entire Confederacy was small, weak and

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
By the way, bright boy, the entire Confederacy was small, weak and geograpically indefensible--don't kid yourself. That's why they got their asses kicked.

Let see it took four years of hard fighting and 800,000 deaths or so to defeat this small and and weak and geograpically indefensible nation???????

it was a lost cause feorm the start and everynoduy knew it
my ancestor served on the css shenandoah that didnt surrender until november 1865
there were no slaves on the confederat ships and no need for them the title hereis wrong

Quote:
Upon his death in Annapolis, the legislature recessed its session for the day of his funeral. He died in 1886 and is buried in St. Anne's Cemetery in Annapolis, Maryland. A large marble monument records a brief biography, a carved navy fouled anchor and the Confederate Battle Flag, which has a large star in the crossing.

Quote:
Confederate Navy Day Ceremony in Annapolis, Maryland
at the gravesite of Capt. James I. Waddell, CSN

yo boy snood this comes around onec a year go picket it see what happens
jesus christ

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Genius it was not that the South territory could not be defended it was the lack of enough industry power to build a river force of ironclads powerful enough to be able to stop the North from using the rivers to divide the South in half along with a lack of enough raw manpower to keep an extended fight with the North up for years on end.

Second, Genius and historian no nation that it took over four years and millions of men to destroy is weak.

To sum up, the South was not weak it was just that the North was stronger and that is not one and the same thing.

Once more what the hell are you smoking?????????

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Who controls the high ground? A: The airplanes.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You forgot to highlight this,

Quote:

The first response of US infantry when they are hit from insurgent positions in the hills above them is to call in air power and heavy artillery. This is not always effective as insurgents operate out of well-hidden redoubts – often the same positions used by guerrilla fighters in the war against the Soviets in the 1980s.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So I should highlight even more information that show you do not know what the hell you are talking about?

Can you not read at all they call in air power and the results was not as great as they had hope for!!!!!!!!

Airplanes are the high ground indeed how stupid can you be................

Air power is wonderful when you are on nice level plains and dealing with armor and other large enemies formations or for knocking out supply bases and supply lines.

For dealing with small unit actions in mountains it hit a limit of what it can do for you and the high ground is the high ground not an airplane seat.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

High ground = exposure = danger from air power. If that's stupid, you'll have to prove it. Not with anecdotal tales.

Prove it from current war strategies taught at our military schools.

At one time, Masada was an excellent military stronghold. Today, it's an easy target for air power.

Okay, you can have Masada in a war; I'll take the current air power we have today.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

So the US man and women who are fighting now as in today do not know what the hell they are talking about?????????????

You know far far better then the men and the women who are having rifle bullets going by their ears?

As far as quoting from military books feel free to do so yourself as you are in far more need to read a few basic books on the subject then I or anyone else on this thread!!!!!

0 Replies

Large thread drift alert...........

I always had the idea that if I was in charge of a small nation security and wish to made it too expense for the US to come in and take over I would begin by buying ten thousands or so 50 cal sniper rifles and bringing in a few hundreds trainers.

A lot of mines a hell of a lot of mines both anti-armor and anti personal mines, small mortars by the truck lot and man portable anti-helicopters gunship weapons.

The US could rule the sky all they wish for but my population centers would be death traps.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You start off with an assumption not supported by anyone in our government to "take over any country." All the following assumptions are also wrong; when you start any thesis that is not supported by anyone except yourself, your working on imagination overdrive.

Any extensive use of mines ends up killing and maiming their own people long after the war is won or lost.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

You start off with an assumption not supported by anyone in our government to "take over any country."

You do not read the news at all it would seems!

Let see drum roll......Panama(Bush one) with former head of state in US prison

--------------------------Haiti(Clinton) with former rulers in exile

--------------------------Iraq(Bush two) with former ruler hung and two sons
and one grandson kill in fire fight with US forces

--------------------------Afghanistan(Bush two) with former head of state in
mountains

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

start any thesis that is not supported by anyone except yourself, your working on imagination overdrive.

US getting rid of a head of state they do not care for by way of a puppet government show trial.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Once more what the hell are you smoking?????????

I think he gets high on himself.....he seems to have hormonal imbalances associated with old age . He fires up, abusing everyone, gets beaten and slinks off to find someone else . He does considerable damage to encouraging members, and I for one would like to see him banned . At least if he snuck back in he might be a bit chastened .

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Who controls the high ground? A: The airplanes.

So I changed your mind and you keep going without batting an eye.....should I show you your posts on the matter ?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Prove it from current war strategies taught at our military schools.

Will you be proving they teach NOT to take the high ground ? This should be fun.....

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The stupidity is breath-taking. For Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky to have joined the Confederacy would have been akin to suicide. A look at what happened in Missouri, which did not even secede is instructive. ....So, just because a state was a slave state.... doesn't mean everyone was stupid enough to put their necks in a noose, as you seem to think they would have been obliged to do. You really aren't too swift.

I agree with you that the stupidity is breathtaking.

Let me summarize your argument: "Slavery was not about slavery but the Confederacy was about slavery."

Umm. Fine! Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@electronicmail,

What an idiot. You can't even come up with an argument of your own, you have to borrow it from someone else. When that "argument" is justly ridiculed for its idiocy, your response is to erect yet another straw man. There is nothing in the passage which you quoted which even remotely suggests that i've said that slavery was not about slavery. Failing to come up with any support for your stupid contentions about "states rights" (plenty of documentary evidence has been shown that the Confederate states were acting to protect the institution of slavery), and failing to support any of the feeble arguments you've advanced, your last recourse is simply to lie outright.

Idiot

Liar

Bye, clown . . .

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What an idiot. You can't even come up with an argument of your own, you have to borrow it from someone else. When that "argument" is justly ridiculed for its idiocy, your response is to erect yet another straw man.

Idiot

Liar

Bye, clown . . .

"When that "argument" is justly ridiculed for its idiocy"? I was quoting you....Who's the idiot liar and clown here is clear for all to see...

Bye sounds good to me, you got yourself a deal there Laughing

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

plenty of documentary evidence has been shown that the Confederate states were acting to protect the institution of slavery

So the Confederacy would have been about why they did that....wouldnt it . Answering why, not what will give you the answer to the riddle that has puzzled you for so long......

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know