This day, a century and a half later

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:33 pm

WTN10 wrote:
Mississippi takes far more money from the federal government then they send.


Fact.

If they had recovered, one would expect them to give more than they take. I'm quite interested to see what point you were fumbling to make when you failed to think that one through.

That imaginary country would be much, much worse than anything you could say about the United States of America today.


Evidence?

Yeah, they're called "Slaveowners."


From the conservative rag Wikipedia:

This [letter from Lee] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington, the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best, and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionists or the effect of their agitation.


According to the same source, Jackson owned 6 slaves, all of which were gone by the time the Civil War began.

Graciously correcting your ignorance,

WTN10



You just proved my point.

They were Slaveowners
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am


Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby WTN10 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:13 pm

They were once slave owners.

I don't think that means what you want it to mean.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby boney fingers » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:34 pm

Will be spending the weekend at Gettysburg, hopefully the kids will get a lot out of it. Ive been there many times, but never when it is busy.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby cartervj » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:03 pm

just who started the slave trade in America chllidawg?


http://cofcc.org/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

America’s first slave owner was a black man.

Actual drawing of Anthony Johnson, the first slave owner in the colonies.
According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

Sources:
John Casor
Anthony Johnson
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby cartervj » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:04 pm

glad to see you still kickin it BDD2 :thumbsup:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:57 am

WTN10 wrote:
Yeah, they're called "Slaveowners."


From the conservative rag Wikipedia:

This [letter from Lee] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee's class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled.


Hmmm justifying an evil action based on religious beliefs. That sounds like something they do in the Middle East today.

At Arlington, the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master.


Calling them servants does not change the fact that they were slaves OWNED by Robert E Lee.

Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best, and he judged it accordingly.



So basically, you are making the argument: "slavery wasn't all bad. Lee was a good slave owner."

Seriously?

I mean it, seriously?

According to the same source, Jackson owned 6 slaves, all of which were gone by the time the Civil War began.


So, in other words, as I said, he was a slave owner. Thank you for admitting that.
What happened to them? Did he sell them? (Making him a slave trader as well as a slave owner)
Or did he just work them all to death?

Graciously correcting your ignorance,

WTN10


Ungraciously pointing out the incipient racism of your post.
Dawg
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:08 am

WTN10 wrote:They were once slave owners.

I don't think that means what you want it to mean.


What part of "owning slaves = Slaveowners" don't you understand?

No amount of mealy mouthy weasel words on your part can change that
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:16 am

cartervj wrote:just who started the slave trade in America chllidawg?


http://cofcc.org/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/

America’s first slave owner was a black man.


Oh, well then I guess that justifies it all then. {\snark}

Seriously?

Is that really your point, that it was justified because the first slave owner was black?

Do you have any idea just how racist that argument is?
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:34 am

The reading comprehension problems are astounding. I'm impressed you were able to read the directions to register for this website.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:40 am

WTN10 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Spinner......It's a Family Thang
What does that mean? If you had family running Auschwitz would it be close to you? That's the part I don't get. It wouldn't make you or your family any different. It's like the silly statements about Obama not being authentic because he doesn't have slave blood. Or the royal bloodline. Or whatever a family thang is.


I would imagine someone with family in Auschwitz would feel a certain closeness with it.

My family has been in the South since the 1700's or earlier. I have Confederate soldiers on both sides of my family and list Nathan Bedford Forrest as an ancestor. Confederate Park is 300 yards away from me as I sit. Shiloh is a couple hours drive from me. BDD2 is a history-loving dude, so I can understand his affinity for it. In the South, we are surrounded by memorials to Confederate soldiers and battles. We still feel the effects of Reconstruction (Mississippi still hasn't recovered). Racial tension still exists in areas. And many people still take pride in the fact that we told the Federal government to go screw itself. Had England or France provided support, and if we hadn't of lost Stonewall, I'd probably be in a different country right now. People hold Stonewall and Lee in very high regard, really as the last of a gentile class of man that no longer exists.



Very wishful thinking.

England could never have put enough soldiers in the field to affect the outcome. The Federals would've built its navy even larger than it came to be if England would've entered the war threatening their dominance of the seas. England didn't enter the war because the English aren't fools.

The South could've had twn Stonewalls and 20 Lee's. They never would've won. They lacked the manpower and the industrial strength.

Mississippi still hasn't recovered from Reconstruction? Every other state in the south has. Germany and Japan have since recovered from almost complete devastation. South Korea has recovered from devastation. I'm supposed to believe Mississippi has not been able to recover from Reconstruction? Come on! Mississippi's problems are that people from Mississippi live there.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:45 am

WTN10 wrote:People hold Stonewall and Lee in very high regard, really as the last of a gentile class of man that no longer exists.


Just a quick aside, I think the word you are looking for is "genteel."

Unless, of course, you were just pointing out that both men were not Jewish. :wink:
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:48 am

boney fingers wrote:Will be spending the weekend at Gettysburg, hopefully the kids will get a lot out of it. Ive been there many times, but never when it is busy.


Finally back on topic.

At least that stupid tower is gone, and you don't have to climb those stairs.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:18 am

vincentpa wrote:
The South could've had twn Stonewalls and 20 Lee's. They never would've won. They lacked the manpower and the industrial strength.



The South didn't have to "win" in the sense you are thinking. They was never any goal of "conquering" the north. Had Stonewall been alive at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been very different. And had the Army of the Potomac been sent running back into Maryland, the many voices int he north who wanted to sue for peace would have most likely been heard. Whether Lincoln would have listened is another story altogether. But the fact is, there was a large portion of the population, including those in Congress, who wanted the war to end. A Southern victory at Gettysburg would have drastically changed the volume of those voices.

Saying "they lacked the manpower and industrial strength" to win a war would most likely make some Minutemen, Viet Cong, and Mujahideen shake their heads and laugh out loud at your statement. Matter of fact, saying that manpower and industrial strength are prerequisites for winning a war is pretty dumb.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:28 am

WTN10 wrote:The reading comprehension problems are astounding. I'm impressed you were able to read the directions to register for this website.


Rather than flinging poo, why don't you address the issue that I raised.

You posted your admiration for Jackson and Lee as examples of a "genteel" class of man that no longer exists today.

I pointed out that both these men were slaveowners. (Maybe I should have been more explicit. Part of the reason that these men were able to live in such a genteel manor was a direct result of the ownership of slaves. It's easy to be genteel when someone else takes care of all your menial, day to day chores for you.)
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:33 am

WTN10, if it makes you feel better, i'll gladly admit that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner as well.

Whatever other positive qualities these men may have had, you have to acknowledge that they also participated in one of the most egregiously inhumane instituions in human history.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby ohioboy » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:45 am

Chilidawg wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Will be spending the weekend at Gettysburg, hopefully the kids will get a lot out of it. Ive been there many times, but never when it is busy.


Finally back on topic.

At least that stupid tower is gone, and you don't have to climb those stairs.


what? when did that go?
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:47 am

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
The South could've had twn Stonewalls and 20 Lee's. They never would've won. They lacked the manpower and the industrial strength.



The South didn't have to "win" in the sense you are thinking. They was never any goal of "conquering" the north. Had Stonewall been alive at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been very different. And had the Army of the Potomac been sent running back into Maryland, the many voices int he north who wanted to sue for peace would have most likely been heard. Whether Lincoln would have listened is another story altogether. But the fact is, there was a large portion of the population, including those in Congress, who wanted the war to end. A Southern victory at Gettysburg would have drastically changed the volume of those voices.

Saying "they lacked the manpower and industrial strength" to win a war would most likely make some Minutemen, Viet Cong, and Mujahideen shake their heads and laugh out loud at your statement. Matter of fact, saying that manpower and industrial strength are prerequisites for winning a war is pretty dumb.


A victory at Getysburg would not have changed the fact that the Mississippi was in union hands.

The South was isolated and cut in half.

It is wistful thinking to assume that the north would ever let the south go.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby ohioboy » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:48 am

Chilidawg wrote:WTN10, if it makes you feel better, i'll gladly admit that Thomas Jefferson was a slaveowner as well.

Whatever other positive qualities these men may have had, you have to acknowledge that they also participated in one of the most egregiously inhumane instituions in human history.


inhumane, but the world would not be what it is today without it. and as other threads have addressed, it still goes on today.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:54 am

ohioboy wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Will be spending the weekend at Gettysburg, hopefully the kids will get a lot out of it. Ive been there many times, but never when it is busy.


Finally back on topic.

At least that stupid tower is gone, and you don't have to climb those stairs.


what? when did that go?

13 years ago, today as a matter of fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnHQ1PU2zGw
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby vincentpa » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:10 am

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
The South could've had twn Stonewalls and 20 Lee's. They never would've won. They lacked the manpower and the industrial strength.



The South didn't have to "win" in the sense you are thinking. They was never any goal of "conquering" the north. Had Stonewall been alive at Gettysburg, the outcome would have been very different. And had the Army of the Potomac been sent running back into Maryland, the many voices int he north who wanted to sue for peace would have most likely been heard. Whether Lincoln would have listened is another story altogether. But the fact is, there was a large portion of the population, including those in Congress, who wanted the war to end. A Southern victory at Gettysburg would have drastically changed the volume of those voices.

Saying "they lacked the manpower and industrial strength" to win a war would most likely make some Minutemen, Viet Cong, and Mujahideen shake their heads and laugh out loud at your statement. Matter of fact, saying that manpower and industrial strength are prerequisites for winning a war is pretty dumb.


The only dumb statement was comparing the Viet Cong and Mujahadeen to 19th century Southerners fighting with 19th century weapons. Industrial strength and manpower were indeed necessary to win a war in that era. You need weapons and ammunition to fight a war. The south was low on both. Were they to fight with bows and arrows, spears, maybe atlatls when the powder and ball ran out? You need an economy to fund a war. The South's was collapsing. Without the ability to fund a war and supply an army, an outside benefactor is needed. None could be found, for good reason. Nobody supports a sure loser because then they would have to eventually confront the winner; in this case was an emergent industrial powerhouse with unlimited potential to grow. By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the north had already isolated the South, which had already started to feel the sting of that isolation. They were finished. It was only a matter of time. Gettysburg only served to be a spectacular representation of the South's destiny.

Dumb statement number two was comparing the Minutemen to the Southerners. In reality, you were comparing the colonies to England. This is a poor comparison. The English were never able to provide an overwhelming military presence in North America that could've decisively ended the war. The English were also unable to fund a large enough expeditionary force to maintain a long protracted campaign. The English also lacked the will to do so. The North was in the exact opposite circumstance and conviction than England on every point.

Dumb statement number three was assuming Stonewall would've made a difference. The North held the high ground, period. The North outnumbered the South, period. There is no reason to believe anyone short of God himself would've made a difference in that battle. Gettysburg was a hopeless cause for the South. It was a desperate gamble because Lee knew the entire war was a desperate gamble. That's why he fought and offensive campaign with at time reckless abandon (bold moves that if you win, you are genius, if you lose you are a fool). Lee knew his only hope was to decisively beat the north in enough battles that the North would lose the will to fight and settle for peace. 80 years later Japan thought the same thing. Both Lee and Yamamoto both knew that was a long shot at best.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7726
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby ohioboy » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:12 am

Chilidawg wrote:
ohioboy wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
boney fingers wrote:Will be spending the weekend at Gettysburg, hopefully the kids will get a lot out of it. Ive been there many times, but never when it is busy.


Finally back on topic.

At least that stupid tower is gone, and you don't have to climb those stairs.


what? when did that go?

13 years ago, today as a matter of fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnHQ1PU2zGw


I was thinking the Eisenhower tower. Never saw that one.
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:34 am

Chilidawg wrote:
WTN10 wrote:The reading comprehension problems are astounding. I'm impressed you were able to read the directions to register for this website.


Rather than flinging poo, why don't you address the issue that I raised.

You posted your admiration for Jackson and Lee as examples of a "genteel" class of man that no longer exists today.

I pointed out that both these men were slaveowners. (Maybe I should have been more explicit. Part of the reason that these men were able to live in such a genteel manor was a direct result of the ownership of slaves. It's easy to be genteel when someone else takes care of all your menial, day to day chores for you.)


You didn't raise an issue. You pointed to one aspect of their character as their only defining characteristic and then attempted to interpret that characteristic in its most extreme manner. You engaged in hyperbole, and I embarrassed you with it, and then you doubled down on it.

Sorry, but thems the facts, kiddo.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:39 am

vincentpa wrote:
The only dumb statement was comparing the Viet Cong and Mujahadeen to 19th century Southerners fighting with 19th century weapons. Industrial strength and manpower were indeed necessary to win a war in that era. You need weapons and ammunition to fight a war. The south was low on both. Were they to fight with bows and arrows, spears, maybe atlatls when the powder and ball ran out? You need an economy to fund a war. The South's was collapsing. Without the ability to fund a war and supply an army, an outside benefactor is needed. None could be found, for good reason. Nobody supports a sure loser because then they would have to eventually confront the winner; in this case was an emergent industrial powerhouse with unlimited potential to grow. By the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, the north had already isolated the South, which had already started to feel the sting of that isolation. They were finished. It was only a matter of time. Gettysburg only served to be a spectacular representation of the South's destiny.

Again, you assume that the conditions for "victory" for the South was a subjugation of the north. That simply sin't the case. They were not seekign to acquire territory, conquer a nation, or really anything of the sort. A cessation of hostilities WAS a victory for the South, and that most certainly does not require any of the things you mentioned. It simply requires that the enemy lose the will to fight. And that was closer than you care to think. Particularly had Lee won at Gettysburg. Sure, Mississippi was in Union hands, but do you really think that would have been close to the same to having D.C. surrounded and Confederate cavalry rampaging through Pennsylvania with nothing to stop them? Please. People would have been howling for it to just stop, and let the South have what they want.


vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number two was comparing the Minutemen to the Southerners. In reality, you were comparing the colonies to England. This is a poor comparison. The English were never able to provide an overwhelming military presence in North America that could've decisively ended the war. The English were also unable to fund a large enough expeditionary force to maintain a long protracted campaign. The English also lacked the will to do so. The North was in the exact opposite circumstance and conviction than England on every point.

You're insane. I know of NO situation where the colonies enjoyed a military advantage over the British. In every campaign, it was the colonials who backed off because they couldn't "afford a long protracted campaign". You better read your history again.

vincentpa wrote:Dumb statement number three was assuming Stonewall would've made a difference. The North held the high ground, period. The North outnumbered the South, period. There is no reason to believe anyone short of God himself would've made a difference in that battle. Gettysburg was a hopeless cause for the South. It was a desperate gamble because Lee knew the entire war was a desperate gamble. That's why he fought and offensive campaign with at time reckless abandon (bold moves that if you win, you are genius, if you lose you are a fool). Lee knew his only hope was to decisively beat the north in enough battles that the North would lose the will to fight and settle for peace. 80 years later Japan thought the same thing. Both Lee and Yamamoto both knew that was a long shot at best.

You don't really have a grasp on the tactics at Gettysburg, I suspect. Stonewall Jackson was the closest confidant that Lee had. He trusted what Jackson said, and listened to him. The same is not true for other generals. Both Longstreet and Hill, two of Lee's three corps commanders, did NOT want to fight at Gettysburg for the exact reasons you said. But he didn't listen to them. In his journals, he repeatedly bemoans the lack of advice from Jackson. Stonewall Jackson had proved that he knew when and where to fight (as was the case at Chancellorsville, where they were drastically outnumbered, but used maneuver to make the Union Army of the Potomac look foolish), and that Lee listened to him. But without him, Lee was hesitant, and almost resigned to fight at Gettysburg just to "get it over with"

You presume that the battle had to be fought that day, at an advantage to the Union. Nothing could be further from the truth. Had Jackson been there, he would have agreed with Longstreet, that a frontal attack was stupid, and that they would be far better served by marching right past them and heading toward Baltimore, forcing the Union to fight them on ground of their choosing. But Lee had no such advice, and didn't trust Longstreet and Hill as he trusted Jackson. So they fought that day, and they lost. But to say "it wouldn't have mattered" is really just to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what actually happened, and what the goals really were.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:03 am

assateague wrote:Saying "they lacked the manpower and industrial strength" to win a war would most likely make some Minutemen (with the support of the French), Viet Cong (with the support of the Chinese), and Mujahideen (with the support of the Americans) shake their heads and laugh out loud at your statement. Matter of fact, saying that manpower and industrial strength are prerequisites for winning a war is pretty dumb.

Were not all of these examples backed to some degree by countries with significant industrial strength? :huh: I don't study this stuff, but that is my recollection.

ohioboy wrote:inhumane, but the world would not be what it is today without it. and as other threads have addressed, it still goes on today.
You could say this about German hatred and persecution of the Jews. Not like the desire to exterminate them doesn't still exist. The same for the horrible destruction brought upon by the knuckleheads that think they are smart enough to centrally plan an economy without doing great harm. This doesn't seem like an argument for anything but an irrelevant fact.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16221
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: This day, a century and a half later

Postby assateague » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:26 am

Yes, they were very much backed by other nations. But the statement that a country "lacking manpower and an industrial base will lose" is most assuredly wrong.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests