- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 34,159
- Reaction score
- 37,643
- Location
- With Yo Mama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Killing men is not the goal of war, but to Lee that was all he appeared to be interested in. There is numerous accounts where he fought battles in ignorant and resource hogging ways or examples where he would go out of his path to go to battle with an enemy that played no strategic advantage for him to fight. He ignored that war is about the mind, that war is meant to be fought with as little resources as possible, not to throw men at the enemy like they are fodder waiting for something to change. A great strategy for him would of been to take out soft targets at the same time in different sides of the field to avoid battles to move his enemy to his advantage and keep them off balance, not knowing where exactly he is, but he instead keep them knowing right where he is with his head on approach, that could make sense if you have had greater numbers than your enemy or weren't at all interested in men. All of this is seen in the best example of his ignorance when he was managing how to deal with Gettysburg. He was in the process of actually doing almost what I just said, going to a soft target, but when he heard news of an army going across the land, he decided to abandon this and run over to fight them for no reason what so ever. Then when he got there he decided to fight the enemy uphill sending men up the hill to be killed. He could of just avoided the fight, or when he got there killed them quickly by surprise to his advantage, but no, he fought them head on, when they had higher ground. I have no respect for a man that uses men like fodder, sorry.
The fort was federal property, but they didn't' attack it. You need to watch your terms that you use.
You know, since you always harp on it, I see no reason to not do so here. D:
Yes, they are.
Just because the decision differs from your position doesn't make it invalid.
Yeah, it did. Read it again.
That is a rather uninformed response. I'm trying to be nice when I say that. ANY student of the war would never make such a ignorant statement. I would ask you to document your position or to remain quiet and informed and objective people continue the discussion.
Back it up! Trot out your truth. You do not know what you are talking about. Show us. Give us many examples.
No, attacking a fort is hardly the same.
That isn't what I said. What I said is that it was more than a hundred years after 1861, and the people on the court would of never sided with secession. Its meaningless to bring it up.
No, I explained what he was doing, but you took it as if to say he meant something he didn't.
To answer your question: both sides were right. The South was fighting to protect it's rights. The North was fighting to preserve the Union.
It seems odd to me too, which is why I don't buy your theory. If the Union was that concerned about getting its property back, it wouldn't have destroyed the forts when it was more convenient to do so.
Oh so, when I say Lee was horrible general, you have a problem with it. I see. Well, I have moved on from that, but feel free to look at his strategies on your own.
Even if I was southern, I would've defected to the north.
Not for any honorable reasons, but simply because the south never had a chance in hell of winning that war.
No, Lincoln didn't abandon it because it was Federal property. He also ordered all of the forts and arsenals that were seized in the seceeding states to be retaken.
Killing men is not the goal of war, but to Lee that was all he appeared to be interested in. There is numerous accounts where he fought battles in ignorant and resource hogging ways or examples where he would go out of his path to go to battle with an enemy that played no strategic advantage for him to fight. He ignored that war is about the mind, that war is meant to be fought with as little resources as possible, not to throw men at the enemy like they are fodder waiting for something to change. A great strategy for him would of been to take out soft targets at the same time in different sides of the field to avoid battles to move his enemy to his advantage and keep them off balance, not knowing where exactly he is, but he instead keep them knowing right where he is with his head on approach, that could make sense if you have had greater numbers than your enemy or weren't at all interested in men. All of this is seen in the best example of his ignorance when he was managing how to deal with Gettysburg. He was in the process of actually doing almost what I just said, going to a soft target, but when he heard news of an army going across the land, he decided to abandon this and run over to fight them for no reason what so ever. Then when he got there he decided to fight the enemy uphill sending men up the hill to be killed. He could of just avoided the fight, or when he got there killed them quickly by surprise to his advantage, but no, he fought them head on, when they had higher ground. I have no respect for a man that uses men like fodder, sorry.
The north was right, and it's a good thing that they had won the war.
Even if I was southern, I would've defected to the north.
Not for any honorable reasons, but simply because the south never had a chance in hell of winning that war.
What part is uniformed again?
Killing men is not the goal of war, but to Lee that was all he appeared to be interested in. There is numerous accounts where he fought battles in ignorant and resource hogging ways or examples where he would go out of his path to go to battle with an enemy that played no strategic advantage for him to fight. He ignored that war is about the mind, that war is meant to be fought with as little resources as possible, not to throw men at the enemy like they are fodder waiting for something to change. A great strategy for him would of been to take out soft targets at the same time in different sides of the field to avoid battles to move his enemy to his advantage and keep them off balance, not knowing where exactly he is, but he instead keep them knowing right where he is with his head on approach, that could make sense if you have had greater numbers than your enemy or weren't at all interested in men. All of this is seen in the best example of his ignorance when he was managing how to deal with Gettysburg. He was in the process of actually doing almost what I just said, going to a soft target, but when he heard news of an army going across the land, he decided to abandon this and run over to fight them for no reason what so ever. Then when he got there he decided to fight the enemy uphill sending men up the hill to be killed. He could of just avoided the fight, or when he got there killed them quickly by surprise to his advantage, but no, he fought them head on, when they had higher ground. I have no respect for a man that uses men like fodder, sorry.
The south was fighting for the right to own human beings. How on earth could you side with that?
Actually, they did. No doubt know what we know now, Jeff Davis, Lee and his generals would have changed decisions made early on. In the early stages the South could have won the war. There were great generals on both sides, but the South had the great number of brilliant military strategists. I don't know that anyone has argued otherwise successfully. The South had little chance in a protracted war, even though it had the heart for it.
Beyond all that it wasn't about being on the winning side. The fact that the war lasted as long as it did is a testament to that.
For the last time, Lincoln ordered the arsenals and forts in secceeding states abandoned. They were never, "taken", by the Confederates, so therefore no order was issued to, "retake", them prior to the attack on Fort Sumpter.
Had Jackson not been killed, the Federals would have been forced into a cease fire deal after Gettysburg.
Essentially correct. If I am not mistaken Anderson moved troops from Moultrie to Sumter because he had jack squat to defend the harbor. Anderson, a valiant man, and a Southerner, had little to defend the harbor with. (I know preposition, end of sentence) There is no way Anderson could have defended Sumter. He had 2 companies that comprised of less than 90 men, as I remember. In addition, he knew the fit was about to hit the shan.
Lincoln was in position that made sending reinforcements a direct provocation.
Absolutely. Lee said that he lost his right hand when Jackson died, and he did. Jackson was often the brash warrior and more than a few times, but not always, he convinced Lee to allow him to take the bold approach.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?