 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
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 cocksucking 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 cocksucking faggot. Fair enough?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:25
|
|
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...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|