generic North/south confederate thread

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Don't forget the warrior Tom Jackson.
Mustn't leave out the only general with a better mind for strategy and tactics than Bob Lee, James Longstreet.

Naaah, Longstreet had an overabundance of caution and didn't operate well in independent command as a result. He was a hell of a Corps commander, however.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by PLATO


Perhaps not, but I can show you bloodstains where blacks were murdered by northerners because they did not want to leave their homes and then I can take you to their graves. Or maybe you would like to view the gravesites of the women who were group raped and killed. Maybe you would like to see the smoke damage from where they burned buildings in towns that had no military value. We could even go to where one family hid their valuables in a column on their porch because the northerners were looting everything. But most of all, we should go and sit at the feet of my 97 year oldaunt and hear her relate the tales as told to her by her grandmother who was there. Biased? Maybe...but perhaps it is your history that needs to look at its objectivity.

Well duh -- I'm well aware that racism is not regional.

In fact, about a year ago on Apolyton, I asked a question about the violent protest against residential integration in a northern suburb when MLK Jr. organized a pro-integration protest. A number of white northerners threw rocks at MLK Jr.

Don't patronize me by pointing out something I already know.

[MrFun]

I also noticed that Slowwhand was not interested in responding to my post on top of the second page.

[SlowwHand]

I'm through with you, MrFun. Period.

Michael, you're wrong. Usually you have good points.
Look no further than Gettysburg to see I'm right.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm well aware of the mythical "go around the south" idea. Which Longstreet developed without having any means to scout the ground.

I know the Gettysburg terrain like the back of my hand - as it is now, and as it was then.

Longtreet was completely unaware of the location of the AoP VI Corps (in reserve) and of the AoP Artillery reserve, both of which could have repositioned well before Longstreet got into place.

There was inadequate water around the south, there were no roads, so roads would have had to be cut to move artillery and trains.

More importantly, there was no way to unhinge Ewell's Corps and Hill's Corps and move them around the Yankee position, without them going about three times the distance the Yankee troops would have to move, and without them further burdening a water supply that couldn't support a division, let alone a corps, let alone three corps.

Moving to the south would also have required Lee to either stretch his line to a far beyond unacceptably thin degree, to break his line and leave gaps (inconceivably absurd), or to abandon the Gettysburg road junction and lose clear access to his secured lines of communication and retreat, back towards Hagerstown and South Mountain.

The opportunity to win was squandered on the 1st by Rodes, Ewell and Early, then again on the 2nd by Anderson, and to some extent, Longstreet and Hill themselves, for letting the bad blood between the two of them get in the way of coordinating.

Oh, and you can throw in Hood, too for that little adventure in the Devil's Den and Round Top.

[SlowwHand]

Let me make some points here, ok ?

Ewell was a dumbass, and on top of that was handicapped by as big a dumbass, Jubal Early.

Longstreet told Lee over and over to not launch an attack.
Lee insisted, 3 times.

Virtually every colonel was killed during those 3 days, on the Confederate side.
Pickett was decimated.

Lee noted after the fact that it was a poor decision.
Even offered his resignation.
As a matter of fact, so did Longstreet, as he could read the signs, and didn't think the Confederate army could overcome the losses.
Which they couldn't.

Why fight Gettysburg at all?
Especially once hesitation prevented the high ground from being taken, before the fact.

Vicksburg, I understand.
Gettysburg? Never.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'm through with you, MrFun. Period.

Michael, you're wrong. Usually you have good points.
Look no further than Gettysburg to see I'm right.

I pointed out some areas where you were right in some sense, and then expanded upon your points to show how it was more complicated than you stated.

For this you are angry?

You can't be angry for any extreme bias I have -- no where I have I stated that all white Southerners are/were racist.

No where have I placed the blame on the South's historical problems entirely on the South -- unlike some white Southerners who place the blame of their region's historical problems entirely on Northerners.

So I guess I don't understand where your anger is coming from.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I suspect we Northerners were never told the whole story of the Union Army in the South.

Sherman gets a lot of the blame for what was done by the retreating Confederate Army. This is not to say that the Union did no damage, but the South tried a scorched earth policy to starve the advancing union army, including burning at least one city (in N.C.).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Let me make some points here, ok ?

Ewell was a dumbass, and on top of that was handicapped by as big a dumbass, Jubal Early.

Early proved useful in '64 in the Shenandoah, but not before then. Baldy Ewell was also handicapped by Mrs. Ewell, who must have been something, as she had Baldy and his entire staff pussywhipped.

Longstreet told Lee over and over to not launch an attack.
Lee insisted, 3 times.

Hence my point about an overabundance of caution. Longstreet never met an attack he liked. Lee had no choice - to retreat without a fight was unthinkable, the army couldn't forage in the face of a concentrated enemy force, so that left precisely one option.

Virtually every colonel was killed during those 3 days, on the Confederate side.
Pickett was decimated.

It weren't quite that bad, but that's why you had majors. In terms of command, the Yankees got it worse, although loss of Sickles was undoutedly an improvement. The Yankee command was cut up badly enough that I and III Corps were disbanded, and XI and XII Corps were merged. If you look at the number and quality of Yankee regimental, brigade, division and corps commanders lost, it's staggering.

Lee noted after the fat that it was a poor decision.

That became obvious after the fact, but before the fact, you have to go with the information you have at hand. Which wasn't much thanks to ol' Stuart and his damned mule train.

Why fight Gettysburg at all?

'cause Hill didn't listen to Pettigrew because he wasn't a "professional" and 'cause Heth couldn't control the overexuberance of Jim Archer's and Joe Davis's boys?

Especially once hesitation prevented the high ground from being taken, before the fact.

That high ground was fully takeable on the first - you think had ol' Blue Lightning been there, or any commander with similar balls, that Howard's Kraut farmer corps, fresh from memory of Chancellorsville, would have held Cemetery Hill on the 1st? Or that Slocum's XII Corps would have gotten up to Culp's Hill in the face of ANV artillery enfilading fire from the north and defilading fire from Cemetery Hill? A corps commander with balls would have finished it on the 1st.

[SlowwHand]

I'm not going to debate every point redundantly.
Once the initial mistake was made on not taking the high ground was made, that should have ended it.
Longstreet's "caution" as you call it, was correct, and way, way ahead of it's time.
Attacking a heavily fortified defense was not his idea of a good time.
BEING the heavily fortified defense was his thing.

And as I said, Lee admitted the mistake.

Another thing Longstreet was correct about, Stuart should have been court martialed.

Now, all this is not said in distain or disrespect for Bobby Lee.
But he made a mistake. That's historic fact.

[chequita guevara]

Slavery still makes economic sense today, which is why it is still practiced worldwide, even in manufacturing. Ever hear of sweatshops? While most sweatshops do at least pay a wage and let their employees leave after their shift, there are some, even here in the US, even in NYC, that chain their employees to their work sites and leave them locked up at night. This is down largely to illegal immigrants in the garment industry.

In the American territories of the Marianas, specifically Saipan, legal migrant workers are virtual slaves. They have their passports taken from them and they are locked within a compound and cannot get out. The treaty that the US and the Marianas have for the annexation of the Marianas stated that US labor law shall not apply there for a period of ten years (so that should be phased out already).

Within the South, up until about 50-60 years ago, state-sponsored slavery still existed. A company woud tell the state they needed x-amount of convict laborers, and sheriffs would go out and arrest people (generally Blacks or poor whites) for such crimes as vagrancy or loittering (even if they were residents of he community) and sentenced for a term about as long as the company needed labor. That could easily be reinstitued, and a few states have already brought back the chain-gang system.

[SlowwHand]

Edit.
Never mind, Che. Giving up on you, too.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You know Che, I'm finally getting tired of listening to your ongoing gripe sessions, too.

So put me on ignore and be done with me.

BTW, do you have a specific criticism of what I wrote or are you just being ornery?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Slavery still makes economic sense today, which is why it is still practiced worldwide, even in manufacturing. Ever hear of sweatshops? While most sweatshops do at least pay a wage and let their employees leave after their shift, there are some, even here in the US, even in NYC, that chain their employees to their work sites and leave them locked up at night. This is down largely to illegal immigrants in the garment industry.

In the American territories of the Marianas, specifically Saipan, legal migrant workers are virtual slaves. They have their passports taken from them and they are locked within a compound and cannot get out. The treaty that the US and the Marianas have for the annexation of the Marianas stated that US labor law shall not apply there for a period of ten years (so that should be phased out already).

Within the South, up until about 50-60 years ago, state-sponsored slavery still existed. A company woud tell the state they needed x-amount of convict laborers, and sheriffs would go out and arrest people (generally Blacks or poor whites) for such crimes as vagrancy or loittering (even if they were residents of he community) and sentenced for a term about as long as the company needed labor. That could easily be reinstitued, and a few states have already brought back the chain-gang system.

Chegitz, any thoughts on my statements on top of page two.

I figured if Slowwhand is not interested in engaging in discussion with us, I would like to know what you think of my thoughts.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Slavery still makes economic sense today, which is why it is still practiced worldwide, even in manufacturing.

In manufacturing yes in farming no. It doesnt make sense to maintain hundreds or thousands of field slaves on large plantations who will only work a short time (given tractors etc). From an economic/efficiency perspective its better to temporarily hire migrant workers, especially illegal ones