User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 95

  1. #21
    respect the brick C.J.Woolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Instigator!
    No, liberator!

    Free the threads!

  2. #22
    Senior Member Oso Mocoso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    Had they worked on a different principle (that is, our old principle up through WWII), they would have completely dominated and taken control of the land of their enemy. If they had just done this, they would have crushed the north.
    Wow. That's so unrealistic as to be delusional. Control the land of the enemy? There wasn't really a point where this would have been feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No. The north had way more people, a stronger economy, and was ultimately more likely to get foreign support.
    Right. The North just had way more of every resource that's important when a country is trying to go to war. Not to mention that they were able to encircle the South early on.

  3. #23
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    Good grief. I believe Wolf lives in a bizarro parallel universe but somehow he can post in this one.
    DH0-DH1

    Fun fact: Confederate General Patrick Cleburne proposed arming slaves to address the CSA's manpower disadvantage vs. the Union. Clearly he did not get that slavery was the CSA's raison d'etre and that arming slaves would ultimately make secession pointless. His proposal was quickly rejected.
    Since when was that the reason for the Confederate States?

    They won battle after battle, and would have beheaded the US, but they pushed, then retreated. Not because they had to (nothing was standing in their way, they basically had DC), but because they genuinely didn't want to. The US was just playing by different rules, doing things like pushing new immigrants to the front lines... It wasn't a popular war in the US. Lest you forget: There were conscription riots in the US during the WoNA, and the war was as loved by most US citizens as the Iraq War is today.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  4. #24
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    With maybe the exception of slavery, I kind of like the southern states. More so than the north. This is kind of common for us europeans I think (maybe?). The southern states kind of have a mythical status to many, especially those into Rockabilly, blues or country & western music.

    I do believe that two separate countries would have been the best. If I have a son, I might throw in a Jackson or Longstreet in the middle names Nah, just kidding. But I do find many of the southern leaders to have been very interesting people.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  5. #25
    Senior Member Oso Mocoso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    They won battle after battle, and would have beheaded the US, but they pushed, then retreated. Not because they had to (nothing was standing in their way, they basically had DC), but because they genuinely didn't want to.
    LOL! In your parallel universe that might be true. In the one that you're posting in, however the CSA's only invasion of the north was a catastrophic failure. The military strength of the South was destroyed between the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg. The North suffered great losses too, but they had the reserves of manpower to sustain the casualties and still have a functioning military.

    The only sense in which they "basically had DC" is if you mean they left huge piles of human corpses somewhere sort of near it.

  6. #26
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oso Mocoso View Post
    LOL! In your parallel universe that might be true. In the one that you're posting in, however the CSA's only invasion of the north was a catastrophic failure. The military strength of the South was destroyed between the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg. The North suffered great losses too, but they had the reserves of manpower to sustain the casualties and still have a functioning military.

    The only sense in which they "basically had DC" is if you mean they left huge piles of human corpses somewhere sort of near it.
    You need to re-read history, and not from a biased northern textbook.

    Jonathan Yardley - How Washington, D.C. almost fell to the Confederacy. - washingtonpost.com
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  7. #27
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oso Mocoso View Post
    LOL! In your parallel universe that might be true. In the one that you're posting in, however the CSA's only invasion of the north was a catastrophic failure. The military strength of the South was destroyed between the battles of Antietam and Gettysburg. The North suffered great losses too, but they had the reserves of manpower to sustain the casualties and still have a functioning military.

    The only sense in which they "basically had DC" is if you mean they left huge piles of human corpses somewhere sort of near it.
    To add to this post: Even in some of their other "big victories" the confederates in the Virginia fighting lost a higher proportion of people than the union military did.

    Also, this ignores the other sections of the war, where the only overall confederate success was in Texas not being captured. Otherwise, their invasion of the New Mexico failed, in Tennessee and Kentucky they won a few battles but overall never were able to capture too much land (Confederates did try to capture Kentucky and Missouri, but Kentucky didn't work out, and Missouri just turned into a bloody area.). The Union was also able to capture more and more ports, rivers, etc. as the war went on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    You need to re-read history, and not from a biased northern textbook.

    Jonathan Yardley - How Washington, D.C. almost fell to the Confederacy. - washingtonpost.com
    The confederates "almost" lost Richmond quite a number of times, and "almost" lost their army a number of times, so this doesn't really say anything about your point.

  8. #28
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    You need to re-read history, and not from a biased northern textbook.
    Am I the only person who had this image immediately pop into their head?


  9. #29
    Senior Member Oso Mocoso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    You need to re-read history, and not from a biased northern textbook.

    Jonathan Yardley - How Washington, D.C. almost fell to the Confederacy. - washingtonpost.com
    Do you realize how utterly ludicrous the link you posted is in the context that you are citing it?

    You are saying that because a historian came up with a three-deep chain of "what if" events that could have resulted in Jubal Early's troops looting Washington D.C., that means they "basically had it". Also, the historian that you cite even acknowledges that while they *might* have been able to loot D.C., there is no way they could have actually occupied it, and the entire exercise would have been very costly for them in terms of casualties.

    I apologize if I'm bringing Northern propaganda into this like logic and facts. That's probably hard for you to deal with.

  10. #30
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    Am I the only person who had this image immediately pop into their head?

    Well, Wolf is right that the Confederacy had made major inroads into Maryland early in the War, but I am not nearly as sanguine on their prospects for outright victory. I am more interested in the secession question. I guess that the Supreme Court could decline to hear a secession case, but I think that the meaning of the Constitution in regards to participation in the federal government is certainly within their jurisdiction, if they wanted to take it on. It's one of the core elements of a republican (small-r) government.

    And I still have to disagree with MacGuffin on Lincoln. It sounded facetious to me, but I knew better. Lincoln may be the most overrated POTUS of all, but there is quite the battle for that title.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. civil war is coming to America
    By draon9 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-17-2016, 05:33 AM
  2. Captain America Civil War characters
    By bilbotook in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 09:23 PM
  3. Suicide bombers kill 137 in Yemen mosque attacks; country on brink of civil war
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-21-2015, 04:07 PM
  4. civil war
    By WALMART in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 02:04 PM
  5. American Civil War era figures and type
    By onemoretime in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 01:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO