Just an observation

Just an observation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> Just an observation (9/9/2014 1:31:56 PM)
You don't seem to have any/many threads on here about the American Civil War. A pivotal episode in your history. Much more about WW2 on here. Surprising really.

mnottertail -> RE: Just an observation (9/9/2014 2:23:24 PM)
We don't often see Agincourt, nor the First English Civil War. There isn't a great deal to tell, the issue of the war was one of a state trying to confiscate a Federal Reservation, and that touched the match, we were living with slavery and their succession fairly well at the time. We had a war, the Brits helped the South till they got caught (see your man Ayers) and we burned the south, and they have been red state welfare patients as regards the Federal milieu ever since.

NorthernGent -> RE: Just an observation (9/9/2014 2:32:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail We don't often see Agincourt, nor the First English Civil War. There isn't a great deal to tell, the issue of the war was one of a state trying to confiscate a Federal Reservation, and that touched the match, we were living with slavery and their succession fairly well at the time. We had a war, the Brits helped the South till they got caught (see your man Ayers) and we burned the south, and they have been red state welfare patients as regards the Federal milieu ever since. Just an observation, Ron. The British didn't help the South but were close to recognising the South as an independent nation state, along with France and one or two others. And that would have meant a problem for the North. Anyway, didn't they wipe the floor with the North for a couple of years, Ron, but sheer weight of numbers meant they couldn't keep it up?

mnottertail -> RE: Just an observation (9/9/2014 2:41:30 PM)
Jefferson Davis used to be the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, (early 1850s, but aint gonna go into Henry Clay and the many slave compromises) and moved the Armories to the south ......... they were planning on this war for a while..... And they fundamentally had the weaponry and the guns and the ships and powder and the active encampments and so on. That was their early success, and we were mostly left with the poncy bearuecrats (damn I can never spell that) in the north whos enthusiastic martial bearing was more than their skill.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Just an observation (9/9/2014 7:05:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You don't seem to have any/many threads on here about the American Civil War. A pivotal episode in your history. Much more about WW2 on here. Surprising really. Part of that might be that few of us might have had actual contact with people who fought in WWI or earlier wars. My oldest relative that I knew was born before WWI, but she was still just a child then, and as I grew up, her memories of long ago faded. Some on here (and I am one) don't have ancestors who were involved in the Civil War (my ancestors came over in the late 1800's, after the Civil War) It's not that it wasn't a transformational time in US history. It's just that there may not be as many direct links to that event as there are to WWII.

TheHeretic -> RE: Just an observation (9/9/2014 7:16:28 PM)
If we did get a Civil War thread, my hunch is it would very quickly come down to a small number of participants trading esoterica, and going on for pages (and they'd probably enjoy the hell out of it).

NorthernGent -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 12:32:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic If we did get a Civil War thread, my hunch is it would very quickly come down to a small number of participants trading esoterica, and going on for pages (and they'd probably enjoy the hell out of it). Well Rich, I was in the US a couple of year back. Went to Franklin and Shiloh, and it was an interesting experience. Brought a couple of books back read them a couple of times and to me it is far more interesting than WW2. The reason I'm surprised is that in England WW1 was much more of a pivotal event in our history. It didn't just shake the foundations; it changed everything forever. By comparison, WW2 was a mere skirmish. I'm surprised more effort isn't put into the US civil war as it seems to me of much more importance to the US than WW2 - but could be wrong with an uneducated eye.

NorthernGent -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 12:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Jefferson Davis used to be the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, (early 1850s, but aint gonna go into Henry Clay and the many slave compromises) and moved the Armories to the south ......... they were planning on this war for a while..... And they fundamentally had the weaponry and the guns and the ships and powder and the active encampments and so on. That was their early success, and we were mostly left with the poncy bearuecrats (damn I can never spell that) in the north whos enthusiastic martial bearing was more than their skill. I could be wrong here as it's been a while since I read about this, but wasn't General Lee not particularly keen on a war but felt when push came to shove his loyalty was to the South? Can't remember which state he came from - Virginia? (one of 'em) And Grant by comparison was not in the same league and had a problem with the booze?

subrob1967 -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 12:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Jefferson Davis used to be the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, (early 1850s, but aint gonna go into Henry Clay and the many slave compromises) and moved the Armories to the south ......... they were planning on this war for a while..... And they fundamentally had the weaponry and the guns and the ships and powder and the active encampments and so on. That was their early success, and we were mostly left with the poncy bearuecrats (damn I can never spell that) in the north whos enthusiastic martial bearing was more than their skill. I could be wrong here as it's been a while since I read about this, but wasn't General Lee not particularly keen on a war but felt when push came to shove his loyalty was to the South? Can't remember which state he came from - Virginia? (one of 'em) And Grant by comparison was not in the same league and had a problem with the booze? Lee was the best General in the US at the time and he did want to avoid war. He was offered command of the US army but declined the position. When Virginia voted to secede Lee was given command of the Army of Virginia. Grant was an alcoholic turned teetotaler, and a almost bottom of his class student at West Point,(that distinction goes to George Custer I believe) but Grant was a helluva horseman, and Calvary Officer.

mnottertail -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 12:44:14 PM)
Lee did not want to go to war, he was offered command of the Union, but could not fight his own people of Virginia. I think Grant was a heavy drinker,when he drank, but as Lincoln said, after each of his victories, send him a case of whatever hes drinking, in fact, send all my generals a case of what he's drinking. But his being a drunkard all together I think was catcalling from his detractors when the war wasn't going so well for him at first. Bloody 'ell, guv, Washington would have been your man had you raised him from a colonel to a brigadier, but when you didn't do that (scotsmen involved I suppose, and couldn't part with the sixpence and two), we made him a Major General, and you eventually lost India.

ExiledTyrant -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 12:53:06 PM)
Why don't we have revolutionary war threads? Jus wunderin

BamaD -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 1:01:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Jefferson Davis used to be the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, (early 1850s, but aint gonna go into Henry Clay and the many slave compromises) and moved the Armories to the south ......... they were planning on this war for a while..... And they fundamentally had the weaponry and the guns and the ships and powder and the active encampments and so on. That was their early success, and we were mostly left with the poncy bearuecrats (damn I can never spell that) in the north whos enthusiastic martial bearing was more than their skill. I could be wrong here as it's been a while since I read about this, but wasn't General Lee not particularly keen on a war but felt when push came to shove his loyalty was to the South? Can't remember which state he came from - Virginia? (one of 'em) And Grant by comparison was not in the same league and had a problem with the booze? Lee agree to command the Northern Armies, unless Virginia left the Union. He had freed his slaves before the war. Grant never won a battle against Lee. He drank because he had a phobia of blood. Grants strength was he was willing to lose until Lee ran out of men.

BamaD -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 1:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Jefferson Davis used to be the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, (early 1850s, but aint gonna go into Henry Clay and the many slave compromises) and moved the Armories to the south ......... they were planning on this war for a while..... And they fundamentally had the weaponry and the guns and the ships and powder and the active encampments and so on. That was their early success, and we were mostly left with the poncy bearuecrats (damn I can never spell that) in the north whos enthusiastic martial bearing was more than their skill. I could be wrong here as it's been a while since I read about this, but wasn't General Lee not particularly keen on a war but felt when push came to shove his loyalty was to the South? Can't remember which state he came from - Virginia? (one of 'em) And Grant by comparison was not in the same league and had a problem with the booze? Lee was the best General in the US at the time and he did want to avoid war. He was offered command of the US army but declined the position. When Virginia voted to secede Lee was given command of the Army of Virginia. Grant was an alcoholic turned teetotaler, and a almost bottom of his class student at West Point,(that distinction goes to George Custer I believe) but Grant was a helluva horseman, and Calvary Officer. Yes Custer was last in his class.

BamaD -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 1:03:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Why don't we have revolutionary war threads? Jus wunderin We have had numerous gun threads derailed with revolutionary war discussions.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 1:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Why don't we have revolutionary war threads? Jus wunderin Cuz they're b-o-r-i-n-g???

mnottertail -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 1:22:32 PM)
Lee agree to command the Northern Armies, unless Virginia left the Union. (true) He had freed his slaves before the war. No, he did not. He did free his father-in-laws slaves after using the shit out of them, as executor of his father-in-laws will. http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm Grant never won a battle against Lee. Of course he did, or black people would still be slaves, Grant never lost a battle he was in direct command of, not so Lee. He drank because he had a phobia of blood. More rebel asswipe. A Duke study said he had a phobia of blood, but there is no credible citation that it is so, and he drank even when there was no blood. It is pure horseshit, not red cells. Grants strength was he was willing to lose until Lee ran out of men. It was slightly more than that, but yes, as everybody got the swing of the war, men were more plentiful in the north than the south. And the emancipation helped it auger into a war of attrition quickly.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 2:40:57 PM)
Anyone seriously interested in the Civil War can do no great wrong to check out Bruce Catton's epic documentary trilogy: Glory Road Mister Lincoln's Army A Stillness At Appomatox Catton was the long time editor of American Heritage, and was known as 'the poet lauriate of the civil war'. He combined solid research with lively, vivid writing which brings the period to life. A must read. [sm=fight.gif]

joether -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 4:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant Why don't we have revolutionary war threads? Jus wunderin There has been one or two already in the past couple of months....

joether -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 4:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Anyone seriously interested in the Civil War can do no great wrong to check out Bruce Catton's epic documentary trilogy: Glory Road Mister Lincoln's Army A Stillness At Appomatox Catton was the long time editor of American Heritage, and was known as 'the poet lauriate of the civil war'. He combined solid research with lively, vivid writing which brings the period to life. A must read. [sm=fight.gif] I can do a lot better.... Boston Public Library. Or any of the big university libraries located in and around the city. I'm not limiting myself to just three books by one author. But to many viewpoints, on that time frame. Both those that wrote about events and ideas at the time, and those that came after them.

Aylee -> RE: Just an observation (9/10/2014 4:16:11 PM)
Stonewall in the Valley: Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign, Spring 1862 Robert G. Tanner (one of my favorites, but I liked Stonewall Jackson.)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875