Most pathetic military unit ever?

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Given the general political climate of the US in the last several decades, we'd have to add Yankee liberals to that list as well.

It has been only 40 years since conservatives began to rise (so, nowhere near the time limits), and who knows, perhaps in the next few years thy will screw it all up, and liberals will rise once again!

You guys sold out blacks and reconstruction so you could buy a fradulent presidency without controversy (Tilden won ) to keep your patronage jobs. You also got to do plenty of subjugation of blacks, the Irish, Italians (remind me, where were Sacco and Vanzetti?) and other immigrants yourselves.

You didn't shoot our politicians because if you had pruned that crop, a more skilled crop would have been able to rise and give you more hell, and if you'd shot our generals, you wouldn't have had any skilled generals from which to learn. Anybody can win given unlimited manpower, unlimited material, damn near unlimited time, and a straight forward, plow into 'em approach, so don't tell me Sherman and Grant were worth a fair damn.

Sherman was a great general, and Grant a fair one. It wasn't Sherman who attacked at Franklyn. Ohh, and its very easy to loose with a huge advantage (look at McClelan). Back in June 1865 it would have been very easy to round up every Confederate fficer higher than colonel, every member of the Confederate government and legislature and court, try them al for treason, find them guilty (they they self-evidently were), line them up and shoot them, or hold mass hangings. The North didn't, because that is how nice the north is.

[David Floyd]

Your also wrong in another area Floyd, they were not used in divisional level in Italy, only Russia and 5 of them were stationed along the Atlantic wall.

Where did I say division-sized airborne forces were used in Italy? I didn't.

These formations were used mostly on the Russian front, and the idea was scrapped after the uselessness of these formations were realized.

Wrong, again. These units were used up until the end, certainly at Seelow Heights.

Floyd, you have it wrong, there is a difference between Luftwaffe feld divisions and Luftwaffe Fallschirmjäger divisions.

Even though they stopped airborne ops, fallschirmjägers still recieved A/B indoctronation and fought as elite formations.

Luftwaffe feld divisions were formed on orders of Hitler, out of rear-area and surplus Luftwaffe personal.
Goerig refused to let the army train and teach them, as a resut they were poorly equiped, and totally useless.

Of course there is a difference. What I am saying is that some units designated as parachute units really were just Luftwaffe infantry, for the most part.

The example I brought up, 9th Parachute Division, was just that. Yes, there were SOME paratroops in it, and the commander (Bruno Braeuer) led the assault on Heraklion on Crete, BUT the majority of the troops were simply Luftwaffe personnel transferred into it. A few paratroops does not a parachute division make.

My primary source material for this information is "The Fall of Berlin 1945", by Antony Beevor. Great book, read it a couple months ago.

[David Floyd]

The North didn't, because that is how nice the north is.

Yes, the North acted from the kindness of their hearts on every occasion

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Not only that, but the first shots fired were not at Fort Sumter in April, but by Yankee soldiers at Florida civilians at Fort Barrancus on January 8, 1861, three months before Sumter.

Florida hadn't secceeded yet. The civilians were attempting to take the fort from the Federal goverment in a clear act of rebellion. It can't be considered the first shots of the war because Florida hadn't seceeded AND it didn't lead to a general outbreak of fighting in anycase.

The "resupply mission" to allegedly provision Fort Sumter carried 29 naval guns and 1400 men under arms, and was couple with a simultaneous mission for armed reinforcement of the Yankee garrison at Fort Pickens, Florida.

The Federal government had every right to resupply its own men on its own land. Especially considering their food supply had been cut and they were blockaded which happens to be an act of war all on its own.

The Lincoln administration deliberately planned the Sumter / Pickens expedition to provoke armed conflict with the south.

That may be the Southern oppinion but the fact is Ft. Sumter needed resupply or it would have had to be abandoned.

In addition to lying about the composition of the mission, the Yankees used a southern Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court as a back channel messenger to carry a letter to the governor of South Carolina suggesting that the Yankees wanted to negotiate a peaceful transfer of Fort Sumter (and by extension, this would be a model for similar transfers of other forts).

Sounds good to me. The South should have tried going that route. It would have given them the high moral ground. Of course Seward clearly said there would be no negotiations. Doing so would legitemize the Southern claims of independence so he really had no choice in that.

Lamon apparently made those statements (verbal) on his own. Lincoln disavowed them on April 1 when he heard about them. The South never ceased its prepartion to attack Ft. Sumter.

If you have link for that letter I would like to see it. I can't find mention of it myself. It makes no sense that anyone official would do such a thing since the North simply could not negotiate with the South without making a tacit recognition of the Confederacy.

This transfer was actually suggested by General in Chief Winfield Scott, who was of the opinion that if you didn't wave the Union flag in the hotheads' faces (keep in mind there was only seven seceeded states then), they'd lose interest, and the economic ties to the north would make them change their mind after a few months.

Lincoln would have been happy if the South returned to the fold without a shot being fired.

The Yankee plan was three-fold: Privately suggest, out of official channels, that the Yankees wanted to negotiate, publicly state (Lincoln) that the only desire was an unarmed resupply mission without changing the balance of force, and "open secretly" prepare an armed reinforcement mission to present a threat to the South Carolinians.

Or maybe they just didn't like the idea of the troops at Ft. Sumter being forced to surrender from lack of food.

Despite that, the first salvo from Charleston harbor was by orders well across the bow of the lead Yankee ship, in the traditional armed warning not to approach. The first shots at Sumter fired for effect were fired by the Sumter garrison at the Charleston shore batteries which had fired warning shots only.

No one fired on the Federal resupply ships. Nor even accross their bow. The first shots mortars at Ft. Sumter. If they were ineffective that is mere incompetence since the intent was to take the fort and they had allready told Anderson when they would start the attack. They started late 4:30 instead of 3:20. Anderson did not return fire till 7 am.

Fox's resupply expedition turned back when he saw that Ft. Sumter was under fire. No one had fired on him.

Your timetable seems a bit different from what actually happened. No shot accross the bow. Definitly shots for two and half hours by the South at Ft. Sumter before fire was returned.

Despite this show, the only casualties were one man wounded on each side, the Yankee because his own gun blew up.

Such gunnery the South must have had. Maybe it was intentional since they knew Anderson had to surrender without a resupply. More likely though its just hard to cause a lot of damage on the forts of that time. The first effective shots on a fortress of that quality came when the North began to use rifled cannon.

Hey, JT - don'cha just hate it when we're on the same side of somethin'?

Could be worse. I could be on his side.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Certainly, the Declaration of Independence itself provided a significant legal basis for the South's position.

While the Declaration of Independence is a very important document its not a legal document and has nothing to do with US law except as a matter of influence. It was an attempt to morally justify an illegle action.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap


It has been only 40 years since conservatives began to rise (so, nowhere near the time limits), and who knows, perhaps in the next few years thy will screw it all up, and liberals will rise once again!

And in 100 more years, some of y'all will still be saying that! Y'all will then be welcome to come on down and have barbecue and bourbon and reminisce about your lost cause.

Sherman was a great general,

If Sherman was so damn great, how was it that Joe Johnston was able to hang his Yankee ass up for so long on the road down to Atlanta, with half the manpower?

It wasn't Sherman who attacked at Franklyn.

Nope, but in fairness to John Bell Hood, he didn't want the command, and he was a double amputee stoned on laudenum almost constantly to dull the pain from his wounds at Gettysburg.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Braxton Bragg, but then again, what was Banks' excuse at Grand Ecore, the Shenandoah, and elsewhere? Or Butler's excuse anywhere his lard ass went? Shall we talk about Old Brains, Rosey, and Don Carlos Buell?

Ohh, and its very easy to loose with a huge advantage (look at McClelan).

McClellan didn't lose with a huge advantage, he refused to engage with one.

Back in June 1865 it would have been very easy to round up every Confederate fficer higher than colonel, every member of the Confederate government and legislature and court, try them al for treason, find them guilty (they they self-evidently were), line them up and shoot them, or hold mass hangings.

Would have been kind of tough, seeing as you'd have a former President (Tyler), a former Vice President, and a number of direct descendants of some of the founding fathers.

The North didn't, because that is how nice the north is.

Nope, you wanted your carpetbaggers to come in and get their spoils, and if you'd hanged our generals (you coulda had most of our politicians and we'd have helped you build the gallows ), your carpet baggers would find themselves ducking minie balls and waking up with Arkansas toothpicks prodding their asses.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yes, the North acted from the kindness of their hearts on every occasion

Unfortunatly some idiot decided it would be good to murder the most effective voice of moderation in the North. With Lincoln dead that left the radicals in charge. About the only thing I can say for Reconstruction is that it taught the US that revenge should end with the war. Too bad Wilson couldn't convince the Europeans on that after WWI.

[Ned]

MTG, States have a right to sue directly in the Supreme court. But the problem South Carolina had is that it contended it was no longer a state.

Certainly the presence of Ft. Sumpter created a case or controversy if the issue of whether South Carolina could both secede and sue could have been finessed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Florida hadn't secceeded yet. The civilians were attempting to take the fort from the Federal goverment in a clear act of rebellion. It can't be considered the first shots of the war because Florida hadn't seceeded AND it didn't lead to a general outbreak of fighting in anycase.

The Florida secession meetings were already scheduled, and the outcome was known in advance. It didn't lead to a general outbreak of fighting only because the governor of Florida and the Buchanan administration negotiated in good faith to prevent war, despite the secession two days later.

The Federal government had every right to resupply its own men on its own land. Especially considering their food supply had been cut and they were blockaded which happens to be an act of war all on its own.

"Its own land" doesn't hold water. The State of South Carolina preceded the existence of the United States, and the land for Fort Sumter was never ceded as Federal land. The Yankees were originally there by consent of the state, as part of the agreed upon duties of the United States government (formed by the States, not the other way around) to provide for mutual defense of the States. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Yankees additional rights or duties to act as interlopers to subjugate sovereign states to the United States.

That may be the Southern oppinion but the fact is Ft. Sumter needed resupply or it would have had to be abandoned.

No need to abandon it - once the sovereign state of South Carolina no longer requested Federal troops to serve their limited mutual defense role, it could have been turned over to South Carolinian authorities. We could have even given Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday and their men a parade and a formal sendoff, had a nice transfer ceremony, and done things all friendly-like.

Sounds good to me. The South should have tried going that route. It would have given them the high moral ground. Of course Seward clearly said there would be no negotiations. Doing so would legitemize the Southern claims of independence so he really had no choice in that.

Lamon apparently made those statements (verbal) on his own. Lincoln disavowed them on April 1 when he heard about them. The South never ceased its prepartion to attack Ft. Sumter.

I've never seen anything convincing that Ward Lamon did anything without Lincoln's knowledge. Lincoln's denial is about as meaningful as Reagan and Bush Sr.'s denials of knowing what Ollie North is up to. Politicians do that sort of thing all the time. As for southern preparations, what preparations? The batteries and ammo were already there.

If you have link for that letter I would like to see it. I can't find mention of it myself. It makes no sense that anyone official would do such a thing since the North simply could not negotiate with the South without making a tacit recognition of the Confederacy.

There would never be a negotiation with the Confederate government, hell no. The professed intent (as had already been done by the Buchanan administration), was to quietly negotiate with the State of South Carolina, without any acknowledgement of a Confederate States of America.

Lincoln would have been happy if the South returned to the fold without a shot being fired.

Abject surrender and capitulation to a dictator is always nice from the dictator's perspective. I'm sure George III had the same thoughts about his upstart rabble in the colonies. What Abe forgot was that this country was not founded on a principle of sovereign states paying homage and subordinating themselves to a central authority. It was founded on a principle of sovereign states agreeing to certain mutual undertakings, and creating a limited common government for those limited purposes, such government generally controlled by the states and the people thereof, not the other way around.

Or maybe they just didn't like the idea of the troops at Ft. Sumter being forced to surrender from lack of food.

They didn't have to surrender. Hell, they could have had a parade and a nice transfer of command ceremony, maybe even a cotillion so's the officers could dance with Charleston's ladies before they headed back to their homes.

No one fired on the Federal resupply ships. Nor even accross their bow. The first shots mortars at Ft. Sumter. If they were ineffective that is mere incompetence since the intent was to take the fort and they had allready told Anderson when they would start the attack. They started late 4:30 instead of 3:20. Anderson did not return fire till 7 am.

Fox's resupply expedition turned back when he saw that Ft. Sumter was under fire. No one had fired on him.

Your timetable seems a bit different from what actually happened. No shot accross the bow. Definitly shots for two and half hours by the South at Ft. Sumter before fire was returned.

Damn, you're not s'posed to get all literal on me - my story sounds so much better. Leave it to one guy on every thread to notice the obvious trollery and respond to it.

Such gunnery the South must have had. Maybe it was intentional since they knew Anderson had to surrender without a resupply. More likely though its just hard to cause a lot of damage on the forts of that time. The first effective shots on a fortress of that quality came when the North began to use rifled cannon.

Hell, the Yankee return fire only wounded one man, and they were the alleged professionals. It was all a big show, with ladies present and all. Nobody was supposed to get hurt, you might get a war started that way.

Could be worse. I could be on his side.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG, States have a right to sue directly in the Supreme court. But the problem South Carolina had is that it contended it was no longer a state.

Certainly the presence of Ft. Sumpter created a case or controversy if the issue of whether South Carolina could both secede and sue could have been finessed.

Trouble is (since SCOTUS would certainly have heard for South Carolina) that all that would be necessary would be an act of Congress removing questions of secession by individual states from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, by establishing a special court for that purpose, and then packing it with Unionists.

From time to time (especially during the Warren court era) political flacks in Congress have threatened to remove certain issues from Supreme Court jurisdiction, but it's never been done. The power, however, is there.

[Ned]

Ah, but MTG, Congress has no say over the clause granting original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. The power of Congress to regulate is limited to cases when the Supreme Court does not have original jurisidction. Art. III, Section 2, Second Clause:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

[GePap]

Might made right. The north won, so the north was right. and if you southeners try it again, we will be right a second time.

Why not return to the thread topic at hand, and hold this southern group therapy session in a different thread?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Florida secession meetings were already scheduled, and the outcome was known in advance. It didn't lead to a general outbreak of fighting only because the governor of Florida and the Buchanan administration negotiated in good faith to prevent war, despite the secession two days later.

Is that the same Buchanan admin that kept Ft. Sumter and tried to send supplies? The fort in Florida stayed in Federal hands throughout the war. So I think its safe to say that any negotiations were bound to result in disapointment for Florida.

"Its own land" doesn't hold water. The State of South Carolina preceded the existence of the United States, and the land for Fort Sumter was never ceded as Federal land.

Didn't have to be. It was LITERALY Northern land. Artificial and built from sea shells and NORTHERN rocks. By the way it had to be Federal land in anycase or it can't have a federal fort on it.

Link on Ft. Sumter and it artificial nature

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Sumter.html

The Yankees were originally there by consent of the state, as part of the agreed upon duties of the United States government (formed by the States, not the other way around) to provide for mutual defense of the States.

Your constant reference to "Yankees" even when reffering to a Federal officer from the South like Anderson shows a mind that is not exactly open on this issue.

Nothing in the Constitution gave the Yankees additional rights or duties to act as interlopers to subjugate sovereign states to the United States.

They JOINED the United States. There were no sovereign states after that no matter what fantasies some states had about it. True South Carolina was sovereign for a short while. From the time Great Britain recognized the rebellion to the time the South Carolina joined the United States. Maybe even during the time of the Articles of Confederation you could call it a sovereingn state. Not after the US Constitution though. They gave up control of all things interstate and much intrastate which is giving up sovereignty.

No need to abandon it - once the sovereign state of South Carolina no longer requested Federal troops to serve their limited mutual defense role, it could have been turned over to South Carolinian authorities.

That is utterly bogus. The federal troops were there for the protecion of the United States. Mutual defense was not involved. There is no way Fedeal property should have been turned over to a state simply because it demanded it. Especially considering the state authorities were engaging in acts of rebellion.

We could have even given Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday and their men a parade and a formal sendoff, had a nice transfer ceremony, and done things all friendly-like.

The South had its chance to try and do things friendly like but they chose to use violence. Thus starting the war.

I've never seen anything convincing that Ward Lamon did anything without Lincoln's knowledge. Lincoln's denial is about as meaningful as Reagan and Bush Sr.'s denials of knowing what Ollie North is up to.

Lincoln's publicaly refuted the offer. Thats pretty meaningfull.

Politicians do that sort of thing all the time. As for southern preparations, what preparations? The batteries and ammo were already there.

Moving in men. Aiming the guns at a Federal facility. Moving in gunpowder which is normally kept in a safe facility. Little things like that.

There would never be a negotiation with the Confederate government, hell no. The professed intent (as had already been done by the Buchanan administration), was to quietly negotiate with the State of South Carolina, without any acknowledgement of a Confederate States of America.

Buchanan never negotiated on Ft. Sumter. In fact he tried to reinforce it.

Abject surrender and capitulation to a dictator is always nice from the dictator's perspective.

I am sure it is. Fortunatly the closest the US has come to a dicatator was Andrew Jackson.

I'm sure George III had the same thoughts about his upstart rabble in the colonies. What Abe forgot was that this country was not founded on a principle of sovereign states paying homage and subordinating themselves to a central authority.

I don't think Abe had anything of that nature to forget. There were no sovereign states. The states were PART of the US and were not paying homage to it. They DID subordinate themselves to a federal authority when they agreed to the Constitution.

It was founded on a principle of sovereign states agreeing to certain mutual undertakings, and creating a limited common government for those limited purposes, such government generally controlled by the states and the people thereof, not the other way around.

That sounds like the Articles of Confederation. The word soveign isn't even in the Constitution. The concept of sovereign states is a delusion promulgated by people that can't deal with the idea that the South lost a war it had no business starting.

They didn't have to surrender. Hell, they could have had a parade and a nice transfer of command ceremony, maybe even a cotillion so's the officers could dance with Charleston's ladies before they headed back to their homes.

Not without violating their oaths. Federal employees have no business giving away federal property. Especially to people engaging in acts of rebellion.

Damn, you're not s'posed to get all literal on me - my story sounds so much better. Leave it to one guy on every thread to notice the obvious trollery and respond to it.

I even respond to blatant trolls as if they were serious. Its the easiest way to deal with things considering lots of people are actually serious and not trolling. Especially on this issue where half the people in the South are in denial still after 130 years. Besides I get lots of practice with religion threads were its impossible to tell if someone is parodying or they actualy believe the fertilizer they are selling.

Hell, the Yankee return fire only wounded one man, and they were the alleged professionals. It was all a big show, with ladies present and all. Nobody was supposed to get hurt, you might get a war started that way.

Well not with the Yankee return fire. The war had allready started at that point. Silly spectators didn't get the idea that war tends to get people killed, even non-combatants, till after Bull Run(or do I have to say First Mannassas for you know what battle I am talking about). I just don't have the background to comprehend war as a spectator sport. I understand that people did it but its so STUPID. Even then there was explosive shot from the mortors and every once in while the things would go off while still in the mortar which is why they were so thick walled.

[XarXo]

Just take a random unit from the spanish militar forces from 1955 til' now. Is pretty easy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Ehhh..... Just read any of the speeches proposing secession given by secessionists in the various southern state houses in 1860 and 1861. They made it very clear that the real issue was the protection of their "right" to own slaves. One South Carolinian speaking to the Virginia house had the audacity to suggest that only the original northern states had the right to bannish slavery and therefore the other free states were not legal. It is plain from the language of these speeches that virtually the entire leadership of the Confederacy consisted of drunken madmen.