Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ? - Page 4

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'd like to, because I'm interested in the strategy aspects of different battles, and I also know there are several others here with interest and knowledge.

Don't turn this into a pissing contest, please.

I find the battles at Gettysburg and Vicksburg interesting.
Both show why cities come under siege.
Cities are generally located in locations of strategic importance.

Vicksburg was situated on the Mississippi, and allowed supplies to remain flowing, even after New Orleans was captured.

Gettysburg, also considered by many to be the turning point in the war, was situated at the juncture of 9 roads.

Supplies and roads are essential.

As I said Boris, it wasn't all about slaves.
It was about people like you.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:14

Porter was the only Naval name I could recall handily.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 15:18

This was a guy who turned his back on his home and family. Told his wife to go north or south. Could care less. Maybe not born in the north but a born Yankee nonetheless.

I wish we had had him and a fleet of 50 ironclads to boot.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:25

Tom "Stonewall" Jackson's Foot Cavalry were pretty amazing too.

Jackson was pretty interesting all by himself, what with "letting his vitals hang right" and all.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 15:25

Boris, I want to tell you one thing that may calm you mind. I will never get over the war. My grandfather died still pissed over the war. My dad, who is 82 and in the next room singing hymns would stop and start cussing if I mentioned any of the thousands of words he associates with the war.

I would drag my tired old arse up in a saddle if the war would start up again and I would gleefully kill as many Yankees as I could. I will go to my grave hating. And for an eternity spit north in Hell, if I can summon any spittle.

But in the end you win, because my son and his generation don't give a hoot.

Damn all Yankees and Yankee communists o hell.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 15:29

I am lookiing forward to how they portray Jackson in the upcoming Gods and Generals.

I was pretty pissed off that in Gettysburg they had Longstreet saying "we should have freed the slaves and then declared", because I don't believe he ever said such a thing.

Jackson is so clouded in myth and legend.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Ok, time to put up or shut up, Sloww. Quote me on a "cracker" comment. I never said any such thing in this thread and you know it. Until then, I will consider attributing such a quote to me inaccurately is a personal insult and hope suitable action is taken.

Honestly, this southern persecution complex is really irritating. I promise you that were you to come here to NYC, you'd be treated with the same hospitality and charm as anyone else, you ****ing ****!

1) I didn't say "in this thread"
2) No, I don't feel inclined to go retrieve every post you've made with this, and other, insults.
3) Take it as a personal insult if you'd like, because that's certainly how it was intended.
4) I can only assume that "hospitality" is all relative; as from my view, your comments are what I would expect in real-life.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:43

Ok. "white Southern cracker", written by...someone else, who I won't name, because I promised Ming to let it go, as well as promising clear skies the same.

So you're off the hook on the specific terminology involving "cracker".
Lord knows there are enough other examples, in this thread.

Chris 62 · February 10, 2003, 15:50

Airforce, talk some more about the battles, I know quite a bit about it, get yourself back into it.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

You assume everyone that dares to smear the good name of the northern name is apologizing for slavery. I for one am glad I was born in the United States instead of the CSA. It's the attitude that northerners have about a war in which they had nothing to do with that gets to me. We wont apologize for slavery as long as northerners admit that black people weren't that big a deal to them either. John Brown was more of a black hero than Lincoln ever could be. At least John Brown didnt use them as political capital.

The post was a troll response to jimmytrick's equally trolling statement. Don't take it for more than it was.

Funny how in one sentence you talk about not classifying Southerners all the same (which I never did), but then turn around and make a blanket generalization about Northerners. In my experience, Northerners have been far more the recipients of sweeping, disdainful generalizations than Northerners. And I've lived in the South most of my life. Southerners often make it a sport of mocking "Yankees." We could care less about in that regard, except when you start in with the Southern glorification.

And I certainly would say John Brown is quite the hero, despite revionist attempts to paint him as a bloodthirsty madman. But the demonization of Lincoln and the second-guessing of his motives is patently disgusting. I don't ascribe to the notion that he was perfect by any means, but he wasn't a monster nor was he acting out of malice or evil. He did what he thought was right in order to preserve the country he loved, the United States of America. Funny how the uberpatriots of this board seem to not like that notion.

jimmytrick: That's really sad. And pathetic. It was 140 years ago, and you hold such hate over it? I hope you are exaggerating, because if not, I've reached a new level of pity for you.

Sloww: Fine. From now on, whenever you disagree with me, I will assume you are really calling me a ********ing faggot. That's how that line of maturity goes, after all. Now excuse me while I go tell everyone on the board how you called me a ********ing faggot. Fair enough?

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 15:56

I'd like to point out the difference in Chris and Boris.

What about The Wilderness? Tough country.

Pretty good site.
http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/tvii.htm

"Today, more than one-third of all principal Civil War battlefields are either lost or are hanging onto existence by the slenderest of threads. It is not too late to protect the remaining battlefields if the nation acts swiftly. If it does not act now, however, within 10 years we may lose fully two-thirds of the principal battlefields."

Now that's a bad damned deal.

Virginia had the vast majority of battles with 123, followed by Tennessee with 38 and Georgia with 31.
Missouri had 27, mostly among themselves.

Texas had 5.

Chris 62 · February 10, 2003, 16:04

The wilderness was a very rough battle.

It was said that Grant broke down and cried in his tent when he got the Union casualty totals, but kept attacking, because it was his duty.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'd like to point out the difference in Chris and Boris.

Finally, I get a compliment out of you.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:07

Shoot yeah The Wilderness was rough.
Grant was ok. I imagine I'm risking fire and brimstone over that one.

Boris, I'm ignoring you, boy. Comprende ?

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 16:07

Now that this thread has been thoroughly trashed let me make something resembling a rational contribution.

One of the ironies of the war was the fact that commanders on both sides were painfully slow to learn how rifled muskets had changed the nature of war. In earlier wars the musket had been much less effective and had far less effective range. The tactics used in the early and middle war years reflected the past and not the present state of the art of war. Jackson, for all his brilliance, and Lee too, failed to grasp the fact that offensive losses in even the most overwhelming victory were so great as to prevent a follow up coup de grace.

As a result, even though the ANV whipped the yankees decisively time and time again there was never an oportunity to actually end the war by victory on open ground.

It was only in the last years of the war when both sides understood that trench warfare trumped that the issue was decided, and that by attrition.

If the South had followed the lead of forethinking generals like Longstreet, and fought defensively it is highly unlikely that the south could have lost as it would have taken ten years or more to whittle down southern forces.

On the other hand, if Lincoln had understood how little chance any southern army actually had of taking Washington, he could have emptied northern garrisons and swamped the south early in the war. During the first half of the war about 50% of Federal troops were in garrisons rather than in the field, a terrible mistake.

Great generals fought the war using the tactics of previous wars, a recurring theme throughout history.

When you look through history at great conquest you often see how the conquerer managed to avoid this mistake. Examples are the Mongols and the Nazis, both of whom brought state of the art death to their enemies in a time when the pendulum of history had swung to the offensive.

Lee lost because he fought wrong. Longstreet was right.

Chris 62 · February 10, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Shoot yeah The Wilderness was rough.
Grant was ok. I imagine I'm risking fire and brimstone over that one.

The nature of the terrain, plus a heavy fog caused major problems for the attacking Union forces Airforce.

Lee was shocked when his scouts reported the federals didn't retreat after the pasting they took, Lee realized that Grant wasn't Little Mac, and that the war was probaly lost.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:13

I agree about Longstreet, as you and I have discussed in the past.
The South was being attacked, and had the advantage of a defensive posture.

A far as the actual "Why's" of the North having advantage , manpower and manufacturing.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:16

Yeah. If they'd only left McClellan in.

He was a camper. Liked to sit.

Chris 62 · February 10, 2003, 16:20

Little Mac could raise, organize, and equip a hundred thousand men, and not know how to use them.

He had Lee's battle plan at Antietam, and STILL lost.

His lollygaging in Yorktown doomed the Penninsular campaign to failure, as did his faith in Pinkerton, who insisted the South had 300,000 men in Lee's army.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 16:31

Burnside was the worst. I'll never understand why you would cross a river with part of your force and charge piecemeal into prepared positions and leave your reserves idle. What the heck?

What was it with the Federals and their piecemeal attacks?

At least Hooker fought. Meade was a wussy too. The lack of a counterattack after Pickett was repulsed was criminal. Hancock or Reynolds, had they been in command would have crushed Lee before he could have gotten away. Lincoln's choice in commanders was worse than you could have gotten by blind lot.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:35

Hooker was good.

All told, I imagine the closest thing to Linclon as far as getting a crap job, was LBJ, followed by Bush.

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 16:36

Another silly thing about the Federals was their war councils. The commanding fool of the day would call in the generals and they would have a vote. Attack, defend, or withdraw. Geez.

Can you imagine Lee calling for a vote?

I don't remember Grant calling for war councils either.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

And I certainly would say John Brown is quite the hero, despite revionist attempts to paint him as a bloodthirsty madman.

But Brown was a bloodthirsty madman. May have fought for good goals, but that doesn't explain away his love for slaughter.

Quote:

If the South had followed the lead of forethinking generals like Longstreet, and fought defensively it is highly unlikely that the south could have lost as it would have taken ten years or more to whittle down southern forces.

The one thing you are forgetting is that Scott's Anaconda plan would have led to devestating effects on the South after a while.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Little Mac could raise, organize, and equip a hundred thousand men, and not know how to use them.

He had Lee's battle plan at Antietam, and STILL lost.

His lollygaging in Yorktown doomed the Penninsular campaign to failure, as did his faith in Pinkerton, who insisted the South had 300,000 men in Lee's army.

Ah, the old "let's send the same troops in circles around 'em and make 'em think we've got more!" manuever

The false cannons at Yorktown were a beaut, too.

One of my favorite quotes from the war is when Lincoln asked McClellan if he might borrow his army to fight the war...

Chris 62 · February 10, 2003, 16:39

Hooker never recovered from that kick in the head he got.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
At least Hooker fought. Meade was a wussy too. The lack of a counterattack after Pickett was repulsed was criminal. Hancock or Reynolds, had they been in command would have crushed Lee before he could have gotten away. Lincoln's choice in commanders was worse than you could have gotten by blind lot.

Lincoln had to contend with politics that Davis did not. Naming a head commander for the entire army isn't simply a matter of choosing--one has to consider seniority and political standing. He couldn't afford to be riling his own generals.

His choice of McClellan was very smart from an organizational standpoint. Who was to know the man wouldn't fight? Then Lincoln was stuck with him until after the elections, because to remove him would have seemed like an attempt to undermine McClellan's presidential campaign. So once the Great Northern Turtle was no longer a political threat, his butt was on the curb.

SlowwHand · February 10, 2003, 16:43

To lose Jackson to "friendly fire", that sucked.

If you got wounded in this war, it was grim.
Massive numbers of amputations, gangrene, and other good things.

Boris Godunov · February 10, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hooker never recovered from that kick in the head he got.

Is that literal or figurative? In knew about his confidence being shattered because of Chancellorsville, but was unaware if there was an actual physical thing...

Capt Dizle · February 10, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The one thing you are forgetting is that Scott's Anaconda plan would have led to devestating effects on the South after a while.

Not at all. Scott'slan was scrapped and then picked back up by default after more direct attempts at quelling the rebellion failed.

I am saying that the South should have fought defensively instead of wasting troops and armaments on offensive operations and used the savings instead to save the Mississippi. I think it could have been done if the commanders understood the extent to which they could have held off the Federals in Virginia with deft maneuver and use of fortified positions.

The Anaconda Plan, while a good one, also did not take into consideration the extent to which defensive warfare had taken command of the battlefield. Eventually the north could have worn the south down, but politically there was no way that the north would have supported the ten or twelve years it would have taken.

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Hooker was good.

Untill he was in charge. 'Fighting Hooker' turned into mush in Chancellorsville. At the very lest, Jackson was killed in that battle, though not of Union doing.