Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

[Steve_of_sandspoultry]

Quote:
I've been following this thread. It and this analogy really has my head spinning. The fort was federal property, I do believe, not in South Carolina. I think the analogy that's more appropriate, is the the neighbor's house is close by, sitting a little higher than yours. You announce he must leave his house, because you don't want him being able to see in your yard. Just because he doesn't comply, doesn't give you the right to open fire on him.

Q9, I respect your opinions, but your bias does slip through that dilutes your arguments, such as the "butcher" Grant comment. Grant did the raw calculus, as unchivalrous as it may be, numbers and material were on his side. If I recall correctly, Gen Lee also sent his boys forward in a number of reckless assaults in several battles that caused his command to take excessive, unneeded losses.

I'm also curious about the Longstreet "traitorous" comment regarding Gettysburg, too.

Interesting discussion here, I'm trying to be respectful.

Grant and Burnside threw waves of men at the Confederates and got them all killed. Lee didn't have men to waste for the last 2 years of the war. Oh, and the Confederacy only fought 2 battles in northern territory...

Picketts charge was one of the biggest wastes of men. Lee also knew how to throw men into a battle that couldn't be won or didn't he read that battlefield? Have you ever been to Gettysburgh and seen the battlefield, and walked the field that Pickett charged? Uphill, outnumbered against a dug position? Lee thought his "boys" couldn't loose. Grant was a leader of a bigger army and could afford to loose men in sometimes great numbers. It's actually classic military tactics............ D day, Tarawa right a bell? there are many many more. Once again the point is who wins. The south had no chance from day one and to continue to debate woulda coulda shoulda is a waste of time.

Steve

Steve

 

[Q9]

Quote:
There's another thing - Charleston was one of the Confederacy's most important seaports. The guns it already had would allow it to effectively blockade Charleston, and the guns the ships were carrying would have easily allowed a bombardment of Charleston itself. I've been to Charleston many times, and it's NOT a long flight for a cannonball.

Also, TM, that analogy was brilliant. I didn't know you were interested in this kind of stuff.

I've been following this thread. It and this analogy really has my head spinning. The fort was federal property, I do believe, not in South Carolina. I think the analogy that's more appropriate, is the the neighbor's house is close by, sitting a little higher than yours. You announce he must leave his house, because you don't want him being able to see in your yard. Just because he doesn't comply, doesn't give you the right to open fire on him.

Q9, I respect your opinions, but your bias does slip through that dilutes your arguments, such as the "butcher" Grant comment. Grant did the raw calculus, as unchivalrous as it may be, numbers and material were on his side. If I recall correctly, Gen Lee also sent his boys forward in a number of reckless assaults in several battles that caused his command to take excessive, unneeded losses.

I'm also curious about the Longstreet "traitorous" comment regarding Gettysburg, too.

Interesting discussion here, I'm trying to be respectful.

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. Fort Sumter was a military fort WELL within South Carolina - if you don't think it was a real, immediate threat, you clearly have never been to Charleston. I've stood on the Battery on the Charleston Peninsula, seen Sumter, and I can assure you that the fort could have easily blockaded Charleston's harbor if it had been left to the Yankees.

The "butcher" comment was totally justified - the man earned that nickname among UNION commanders during the war for his "tactics." Ever heard of the Battle of Cold Harbor? One of the more notorious instances.

As for Longstreet, there's a long story behind that. General Lee ordered him to charge the hill early in the morning, but Longstreet wanted to use a different plan. This went on for a while, and Lee finally directly ordered Longstreet to charge his men. Longstreet didn't. That afternoon, well after the Federals had reinforced the position, Longstreet finally decided to charge, despite being begged not to by his officers. His response? "General Lee's orders." Never mind that the tactical situation had changed dramatically by that point, and he could have justifiably countermanded Lee's orders.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Grant and Burnside threw waves of men at the Confederates and got them all killed. Lee didn't have men to waste for the last 2 years of the war. Oh, and the Confederacy only fought 2 battles in northern territory...

Picketts charge was one of the biggest wastes of men. Lee also knew how to throw men into a battle that couldn't be won or didn't he read that battlefield? Have you ever been to Gettysburgh and seen the battlefield, and walked the field that Pickett charged? Uphill, outnumbered against a dug position? Lee thought his "boys" couldn't loose. Grant was a leader of a bigger army and could afford to loose men in sometimes great numbers. It's actually classic military tactics............ D day, Tarawa right a bell? there are many many more. Once again the point is who wins. The south had no chance from day one and to continue to debate woulda coulda shoulda is a waste of time.

Steve

Steve

Read my post above and get some context, buddy.

 

[Q9]

mom'sfolly :

Only two battles fought on Northern Territory?

Depends on your definitions. There was a battle in DC, and at least one in Indiana (a raid?), a couple in Ohio and in New Mexico, all clearly Northern. There were many battles in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and West Virginia, all disputed territory. Kentucky and Missouri never formally seceded, and had representatives in both the Union and the Confederate governments.

Indiana? Ohio? I'm pretty sure all the ones in those areas were unsanctioned raids by Confederate irregulars. Don't know about New Mexico - the Western theatre isn't my strong point. West Virginia is actually illegal - the creation of another state without the consent of the "parent" state is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. It's also really funny to look at people's faces when you say that.

In other words, at that point it was basically Virginia.

Missouri was definitely an odd case, and had by far the worst of the guerrilla warfare, with the possible exception of the Appalachians. I thought Kentucky DID secede, along with Arkansas, my home state, and Virginia.

Were you meaning Maryland? Don't get me started on the deal with Maryland.​

 

[Matthew3590]

I thought DC was in the south? The union and confederacy decided at the end of the war to move the capitol to the south which is where DC is at.

 

[schellie69]

I think this thread is funny to see people get really worked up over a war over land that they took away from the Native American's who also had wanted to have their own state within a state. The south had no problem with the government when it helped them kick the Indians off of their land. The civil war started many years before. There is so much more history leading up to the war. I also remember in history class that one of the most bloody battles happened here in Kansas. I love history, there is so much we can learn. I do believe that before going or starting a war there better be some really good reason's I think Lincoln had a great reason to keep the country together. The south I think was upset and rebelled. I just hope people remember the lesson's and we don't have another war.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:

 

[TM Chickens]

Quote:
Guess why a significant majority of the Indians threw in their lot with the CSA? By a democratic vote, I might add. In fact, the very last confederate general to surrender in the war was a Cherokee Indian, General Stand Watie.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
Guess why a significant majority of the Indians threw in their lot with the CSA? By a democratic vote, I might add. In fact, the very last confederate general to surrender in the war was a Cherokee Indian, General Stand Watie.

that is complicated. first a majority of them did not join any side, many of the thousands of tribes were still westward fighting for what little they had, only the tribes that lived among the official states joined sides, and only some of them.

(there are far more tribes than Cherokee and Iroquois, they were just the tribes that assimilated well enough at the time to get the most attention in civil war history.)

the ones that did join, the majority of them joined the south because they knew if the south succeeded the whole country would be unstable and they would have half a chance to get their lands back. (though that is only an oversimplified version of the tip of the complexed reasoning for why certain Native groups joined the war

 

[gamebirdboy]

He had no right to keep them together...