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

[Q9]

Quote:
You are completely aware that you're proving my point, right?

 

[Dunkopf]

 

[Matthew3590]

I thought states had to get a certain amount of citizens and certain amount of towns to apply to be come part of the USA. So if they had to apply shouldn't they have they right to leave when they want to?

 

[mom'sfolly]

As for statehood, check the most recent states; Alaska and Hawaii for their battles for statehood.

They were already part of the country and couldn't opt out. To get representation, and to be fully part of the country Alaska fought for at least 50 years. Puerto Rico, and Guam aren't allowed to opt out either, and they are not states.

 

[gamebirdboy]

Quote:
You'd think so, but according to many people and Lincoln they had no right... I think they had every right to, but Lincoln had to enforce his rule upon them...

 

[FarmerJamie]

Quote:
So Fort Sumter was getting ready to invade Charleston? I've been there quite a few times, would have been a long swim for the yankees to sneek into anybody's bedroom.

Steve

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.

 

[gamebirdboy]

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.

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...

 

[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.

 

[gamebirdboy]

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.

Confederate armies were already in the west, they didn't invade... How can you waste a ton of men in a defensive war? Can I see an article or something on those battles?​

 

[mom'sfolly]

You didn't say invade, you said "two battles on Northern Territory"

A couple of sources, with varied degrees of reliability:

http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bystate.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles