Civil War

[rsr]

Another counterfactual conundrum.

The South (well, the Fire Eaters, anyway), patently "started" the war by firing on Fort Sumter. What if P.G.T. Beauregard hadn't insisted upon taking the fort?

A new kettle of fish.

And Jeff is right that there were atrocities on both sides. Enough to go around many times.

But I don't think Grant is the dufus he's considered to be in the South. He had overwhelming force and, given that death by disease caused more deaths than battle, made a calculated choice to pursue battle -- which would end the war more quickly, and thus reduce overall suffering on his troops -- than to sit and wait.

Lee was a tactical genius; whether his plan to take to the war to the North was inspired is another question. Seems to me that if he had hunkered down (and he was quite good at doing that; just ask the folks at Petersburg) he might have forced the Union to ask for terms.

But the past is as it was; Lee was a master of mobility and a huge gambler. If Grant was known as a "butcher," we must ask why Lee's command in most cases had higher relative losses.

 

[rsr]

Another counterfactual conundrum:

What if P.G.T. Beauregard had been given command of the Army of the Tennesee? Would Grant have taken Vicksburg and been propelled to ultimate Union command?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by rsr:
The South (well, the Fire Eaters, anyway), patently "started" the war by firing on Fort Sumter.

A battle in which there were no casualties. Also, if the Yankees had desired they would have been allowed to leave peacefully. Remember, they were on CSA soil.

 

[rsr]

No, the fort was the property of the government of the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. That's the point.

 

[KenH]

Regardless, if the Yankees had not invaded the South and simply let things lie for a while, the war could have been avoided. I feel rather confident that the two sides would have reached a rapprochement in a few decades.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Daniel David:
I would have fought for the Union. I would have enjoyed taking part in the mass beat down of the south.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would have fought for the CSA. But unlike you, I will not say I would have enjoyed killing you.

For once I agree with KenH.

DD you are one sick very twisted individual. Obviously you have never been in combat. Take my word for it, it ain't no fun, and there is nothing enjoyably about it.

 

[Daniel David]

I would not have taken pleasure in the killings people. I would have taken pleasure in knowing that justice was served to all the southerners who died though.

The south picked a fight with the United States of America. That is terrorism. That is starting a war. That is something that REQUIRED immediate justice.

The south lived under the delusion that each state was a free country who happened to border other states.

They weren't free countries. They were interdependent within the whole. Don't forget that it was VIRGINIA (a southern state) that made sure the Constitution was ratified by the rest of the states. The governor is not equal to the President people.

U.S. troops gave their lives to preserve a union threatened by drunks.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
U.S. troops gave their lives to preserve a union threatened by drunks.

I guess there weren't drunks on your side, eh?

You are incorrigible, Daniel.

 

[Daniel David]

Ken, I realize you lack that ability to answer the points I made. Ignorance is apparently a virtue in some places. It really doesn't surprise me to see the people on here who actually think the South was right about all this.

GRANT! GRANT! GRANT! GRANT! GRANT! GRANT!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ken, I realize you lack that ability to answer the points I made. Ignorance is apparently a virtue in some places.

What points? There were some points among all of those slurs you were tossing about?

 

[rsr]

I guess this discussion is over ...

 

[The Galatian]

But the past is as it was; Lee was a master of mobility and a huge gambler. If Grant was known as a "butcher," we must ask why Lee's command in most cases had higher relative losses.

He had a much more formidable opponent than Grant.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Galatian.

??. Explain, s'il vous plait.

Jeff

 

[Dr. Bob]

Agree that war could have been avoided if Lincoln had not acted so radically (even ORDERING a ship to Charleston, KNOWING this invasion of sovereign territory would provoke a response) even after the fall of Sumter.

Each state WAS sovereign and sadly that was lost as a result of the northern aggression. We all LOST that war.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by rsr:
I guess this discussion is over ...

It was over when Daniel David joined the thread, I have noticed that civil discussions seem to end when he joins most threads.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Okay, no shots at DD or anyone - just stick to the discussion. I love the subject (northern tyranny and its evils that forced the South into secession) so it ain't over 'til the fat man (with the bow tie) sings!

 

[Jailminister]

Bro. Bob, You mention something in another thread about Texas. Did you know that every other year when the Texas egislature meets, the very first vote is whether to remain in the union or not?

It is really something after reading these post that the Cicil War has been over for 140 years and not one person is still alive today that was alive then, but we are still arguing over it. The South had some very good reasons for saying enough is enough and the North had good cause to say that they wanted to hold the Union together. What took place after the war leads us into the understanding that the South was right in their assessment of the North. As i commented in another thread, if the South had had Pepto-Bismol, they would have won the war.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
Lee was a scumbag.

You, Daniel, are a man without honor. Again, you are one sick puppy.

</font>[/QUOTE]Um, how is that worse than "yankeescum"? Just curious.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Yankeescum is one word, an historic term used by valiant Suthrans to speak of the unspeakable horor of aggression - of a race of people of their own nation who were guilty of invading, killing and subjugating its own citizens.

I do not think one can find "scumbag" in the vernacular of 1860 and if so, to apply it to a great Christian gentleman and general to whom total command of the Federales army was proffered is repugnant.

Grant the "butcher"? Sure
Bragg the "incomparable imcompetent"? Right on

But Lee the "scumbag"? Someone needs to get out more.

 

[Daisy]

Oh, so if DD had used a term of the times, and there must be plenty of them with the approximate meaning, he would not have been yelled at?

I'm tempted to find some, but it seems like work, and it might be educational.