| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bhist |
Posted - October 20 2004 : 3:37:47 PM
The History Channel has been running the program, “Command Decisions” since July. The half-hour program covers a different battle, from all time periods and all over the world, each week in a quiz show format. The subjects it covers are more for the novice; so many of you may be bored with its content. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it’s sometimes not too innovative.
This Friday, October 22, they will cover the Little Bighorn. Neil Mangum, former historian and superintendent at LBH, and currently one of my board members of the Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield, will be interviewed along with Ernie Lapointe, great grandson of Sitting Bull. I will also be included.
I’ve been interviewed many times for television, but this one was the most fun. All three of us were interviewed for two hours or more each. They covered all possible subject matter regarding the LBH, both before and after the battle. The first comment I made to them was, “There is no way you’ll be able to cover all this material in a half-hour.” I was right, but it was fun answering the questions.
I’m not sure of the time, but it shows at 7:30 MST.
|
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 07:24:26 AM
Did they play the last post and corus
Did the pipes play the flowers of the forest.
I have come not to bury wILD I
But to praise him
Well done Warlord |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 09:12:11 AM
As in the Bible DC you have kept the best wine till last.A veritable gem of a post with just the perfect blend of folksey philosophy,hindsight and oxymoron.
Exit stage left a suicidal wILD I.
Mumble
Mumble
Mumble
Offstage.....................BANG |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 11:00:39 AM
If Stonewall had survived, the rebels might have actually used the pikes Jackson had had stored and his reputation shattered. There's ample reason to think him mad.
Yes, all the mystical 'what if's' might preclude a Warren from noticing large, empty and high spaces and Chamberlain from being stationed there and the battle lost. But no doubt, there were mystical moments that possibly prevented the North from winning on Day One, when Reynolds was killed. And a zillion other things of which we know nothing or the most memorable thing said was "So there, Fatty!" and was thereby forgot.
No, Wild, I do not say, have never said, that Bull Run was the "decisive" battle of the war. That was probably Vicksburg, if a battle rather than battles in aggregate are decisive. I have only said that in hindsight it's pretty obvious they South was losing the war (even if they won all the battles) from Day One (I chose Bull Run). They couldn't afford the wins much less the losses.
This is annoying to you because you want to think One Great Man and His Moment can change all, but there's always more to it. Custers and Stuarts are a dime a dozen, Lees are rare, Lincoln unique. |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 04 2004 : 07:00:00 AM
I suppose DC that in the pantheon of rhetoric the God of hindsight reigns supreme.It is challenged by neither logic nor reason.It is not art and it is not bound by the rules of science and it does not require intelectual input.It is the refuge of as you say the "Monday morning quarterback, or as we say here the "hurler on the ditch"But it has one redeeming feature and that is honesty.Your elephantine bias has stripped it of that honesty.Your prejudice,selectivity and cherry picking allied to a large measure of Federal micawberism allows you to suggest that Bull Run and not Gettysburg was the decisive battle of the Civil War.
Selective hindsight renders such variables as chance and human nature irrelevant.A generious portion of micawberism will always guarantee the Federals that something will turn up.
Your improved census and finincial figures,Davis's unpopularity,the supply situation etc all failed to militate against a critical situation developing at Gettysburg.If memory serves me correctly it was by pure chance that an engineering officer finding the LRT undefended realised the the importance of it.It was Lee's stubborness which resulted in Picketts failure.If one is to use hindsight honestly chance and human nature must be taken into consideration.
You could go back to Bull Run and fight the whole war over again with the same result 99 times out of a hundred but on that hundredth occasion Lincoln might have been assassinated in May of 1863 and Stonewall might have survived. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 6:37:05 PM
Actually, virtually nothing is repeated. You don't read things that look wearying.
I assume you mean to anyone, and let's just say of the North regarding the South. The difference would be, as all that new information I hadn't posted before says: more accurate and lesser population figures for the South, numbers involved in the Slave Patrol precluding participation in Armies, lack of cohesion and trust between Confederate States, the substantial depth of financial instability, the intense and steadily increasing dislike for Davis when he tried to run a nation, the soft support for the Confederacy in general as opposed to that for the states, inability to feed itself, inability to sustain a long campaign outside own territory, inability to supply sufficient munitions, mounts, men, and equippage and clothing, fear of their own slaves, the shallowness of the rebel officer corps beneath the cream, and the surreal attitudes of Southern civilians when confronted with the end of the war they'd started. "Okay, fine. We'll go back to the way it was, then. Sheesh." |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 5:34:53 PM
DC there is very little new in your post.It appears that you have cut and pasted whole paragraphs from earlier posts.But none the less it is a very impressive polemic.But to bring you back to the point at issue,just let me ask you this question.What information was available to you in 1865 which was not available to you 1861?
Apologies for the briefness of my contribution,perhaps we could discuss your opinions on the enrichment of the nation on another thread. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 1:50:09 PM
With complete knowledge of both sides' capabilities we could of course know the outcome in 1861, I don't agree at all. But few did.
Only those who'd lived in the South had any clue how many people and fighting men there were. Not huge numbers. Of those, not all thrilled at the prospect. Also, they had to do the planting as well, and few dared leave women alone with slaves.
In retrospect it's very clear the South was losing from Bull Run on. The South could not sustain its population (birth rate)from war losses, had no immigration to speak of and that of the sort not likely to sign up. As we've said, the South couldn't afford major victories, much less defeats. To Winfield Scott, it was clear as a bell and to others.
Conversely, the North population was growing hugely (remember me saying you could read all the economic and population figures and be forgiven for not knowing the North was fighting any war during these years, much less this one?) by birth AND immigration.
The South inflated the census because they wanted more pull in the House of Representatives, which was the reason they insisted that slaves count as something, just not complete people. They had no real clue what their population really was. That's not political trivia, that's the meat on the table here.
Like all the bombast and myths they told about themselves, starting with martial superiority, they were the only ones who believed it totally.
A great deal of the hoopla then and now about the North's lack of backbone and desire for war was wrong then and now. It wasn't like news travelled all that fast, and it wasn't like most people in the north were big city, and it wasn't like there wasn't a media elite (like Horace Greely)whose grand pronouncements about what the country felt and would do throughout the war were 100% consistently incorrect. Lincoln had a connection to the people that evaded the understanding of this elite, for the most part, but because they felt thus and so they said the country felt that way. Wrong.
Look at all the false myths of this Civil War. Per capita, it was Lee, not Grant, who had higher casualty rates (using utterly unreliable data, though). It was the South that collapsed with riots. It was the South whose troops refused to fight early on. It was the South who secretly sued for peace and tried to find honest brokers (no takers...go figure), and it was the South that was revealed as a sham of a civilization. After Appomatox, all those tearful stories of soldiers lovingly folding flags and saluting Lee - no mention that two thirds or three fourths had skipped out on him. Grant had a clue how many men Lee had when he offered to feed them (Lee hadn't been able to for a while and probably had not been told how many had left him)and allowed men to keep their horses (not like the South figured it should breed horses, the states did it and then wouldn't share)and while Lee stomped off, Grant fed and served both armies. That's organization.
You shine on facts like Grant having to cut back on all the artillery he had because he had no need of it, and stationing all these troops because he couldn't use them and wondering if he should feed the south ( he could do it) or let it starve (he did)and building bridges and railroads almost faster than Forrest and others could destroy them, or his color coded wagon quartermaster corps whose biggest problem was having food go bad before it was eaten. Problems the South would have considered blessings. But the South couldn't feed itself anyway, even in peacetime. It imported food. Cotton ruined the soil for anything else. And they simply weren't organized enough to distribute what they had.
You keep talking about the North's screwups. What were they, by the way, given the vast overall enrichment of the nation?
If Stuart and Custer, Meade and Bragg, Grant and Lee had never existed, the war would have shaken out the same, Wild. The north had too many for the south, and better educated, and fecund, and just as good soldiers better fed and trained and supplied. Further, the South had Davis and the North Lincoln. Davis inspired nobody and wasn't liked. After he was re-elected, Lincoln was untouchable and had no serious or competent enemies, and this had been building for the four previous years.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 08:40:22 AM
So actually? It's hard to see how the South could ever have won
Which is why I kept saying "in retrospect" it's hard to see how the South could win,You omit the word everfrom your second post which changes the emphasis.
We have kicked this about a fair amount DC.We have stated the pros and cons,the strenghts and weaknesses of both sides and I think I can safely say that we are agreed that on the 21st July 1861 even though complete with full knowledge of both sides capibilities we cannot forecast the outcome.
However on 10th April 1865 armed with hindsight you can say the South was losing from Bull Run and in fact never stood a chance.Now hindsight must have given you some understanding of the war which you did not have from the 1861 perspective.Can you explain what that understanding is?And please don't insult our intelligence by saying "because it happened" |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 7:14:53 PM
by para
1. No, there could not. Lee wished. Slave Patrol took anywhere from 5 to 25% of the men depending who you believe over what period. Governors didn't shirk from holding back men to protect themselves.
2. Worked well in Iraq, has it? You occupy states unsure of allegiance, you justify their animosity by heavy military occupation more often than suppress it, and its a surety when the occupied are Americans, which Lincoln knew. America was built to get away from military occupation. In any case, it wasn't Lincoln's call to up the military; he needed Congress.
3. There was the Federal Army and the states had their own militias, and some were and some weren't incorporated into the federal army by Bull Run, three months after Ft. Sumter, seven after Lincoln took office, nine after his election.
4. Russia expended relatively little in Finland, and Finland was an industrial country. "Campaign" has not appeared before in this discussion. We were talking about how the South fell apart literally trying to fight the Union, how it was in rebellion against itself for the last year, couldn't feed itself, couldn't police itself, and the Confederate Army collapsed. The British Imperial military units in Singapore surrendered because Percival couldn't see any upside to continuing the fight, being far away from supplies and help. In any case, Japan was an industrial nation as well. The British Army didn't surrender in the sense the German Army surrendered in toto or the Confederates surrendered in large sections. They only surrendered their immediate forces at that time and, of course, they won the war.
Wild, your inability to see the importance of what you call "political detail" is just jaw dropping.
I don't say the Union squandered it. They lost a lot of battles they should not have, they retreated in order - often pointlessly - and kept unit coherence and were ready to fight again often before the victorious South's units. It was the Army command that was deficient till Meade, and even he passed up a great chance.
If you're referring to textile export, that was temporary once the Black Market kicked in and it wasn't 60% and in any case affected the South more. I'm sure the Big Book Of Spiffy Uniforms has detailed explanations of what exports were curtailed. The North, unlike the South, could have survived with essentially no foreign trade. The South was totally dependent upon selling cotton to England, for the most part.
No, I could not forecast it. Which is why I kept saying "in retrospect" it's hard to see how the South could win, or could ever think it could win. But Scott and Lincoln and Grant and others did see how the South could not win. General Butler was early on telling Sherman and Lee the South would have a lot of trouble with manpower, and they did. The North's job was far harder than the South's, but they handled it better. Although that isn't saying much. |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 5:44:38 PM
we can believe their stats with somewhat more surety.
I did not question the book keeping of the Federals.You cast doubts on the numbers of confederates in Lee's army and if we accept that then there could have been 100000.
4. Okay, you've walked into the Idiot Closet, Wild. First, you seem to think an army could/would prevent a rebellion.
Well they can certainly cure one why can they not prevent one?
A competant army of the size required to protect 30 million in a vast country with a million mile coast line would have stopped a rebellion dead in its tracks.A soverign state the size of the US with such a diverse population with such a puny military establishment was asking for trouble.[We have nearly 16000 in our defence forces and you know the size and population of Ireland]
if you think that Lincoln could between January and April resolve all this by means of a better and larger Army. You know, he wasn't a King, and there was that minor thing called Congress
He put 35000 in the field at Bull Run.
You give examples of individual battles in other wars.
No.Entire campaigns with a decisive outcome.The total defeat of the British,Italian,South Vietnamese/US and the humiliation of the Russians in Finland.
The units there were surrendered. You don't read much beyond glowing descriptions of uniforms and tactics, but you ought to read up on Percival and the surrender of Singapore. It isn't pretty, but the Army did not fall apart anyway.
Leadership is an intrical part of an army.Poor leadership is usually the reason for the collapse of armies.What was the US's excuse in Vietnam?
So what? True, and not many of them. Somehow, the Anzac military was intact and on the winning side aboard the Missouri. Huh.
Oh I see what you ment was the collaspe of an nation.Well why did you say army?
Much of the rest of your post wanders off into political detail which really has no bearing on this discussion.All very illuminating though.
Money in the bank isn't potential.
Its potential until you use it and as you say the Federal leadership squandered it.It should also be noted that the North lost 60% of it's exports at the outset of the war.
As I and others say, once the Union attained mere command competence they began to win.
But you see you could not forecast that at Bull Run.It might never have been attained.Even with everything going for them the Federals still took nearly 2 more years to finish off the South |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 12:17:25 PM
Wild, by paragraph. You're trying to retain the myth of the Man on Horseback - Custer and friends - as rescuers in the hour of need, the main reason the north started to win. Nonsense. That's the sort of thought that can only occur to people sitting next to paintings like the startling efforts for sale at LBHA. "Thoughts of Libby" encapsulates pretty much all my theories of the Custer Crush held without critique by the Custerphile. Apparently it sells. Enough said.
1. Yes. The Big Book of Spiffy Uniforms, wasn't it? By what means was all that compiled? Utter guesses all along the line after actions. Same with the Union, but because they kept records of their confusion, and the rebels did not or lost them, we can believe their stats with somewhat more surety. Not much, but some. Also, this is filtered through the "winners" needs after the war, and rebel numbers were inflated. Read Grant's autobio and see the footnotes that show his figures turned out to be way wrong.
2. And they often did under McClellan. Also, people lie.
3. They had an Army, uniforms, the whole deal. The Army Lincoln inherited, small as it was, provided much of the command for the Grand Treason. You seem very unclear on the time lines, the political situation, American history in general - to say no more - if you think that Lincoln could between January and April resolve all this by means of a better and larger Army. You know, he wasn't a King, and there was that minor thing called Congress.....
4. Okay, you've walked into the Idiot Closet, Wild. First, you seem to think an army could/would prevent a rebellion. That's both childish and stupid, given millennia of history proving the opposite. Even under Tsars, that didn't work, did it? As President he reaped the fruit of eighty odd years of pretend by the states. In any case, he couldn't forge a new army in months without creating the war he was trying to avoid. Congress wouldn't have voted it. Republics are messy like that.
5. And many northerners thought just that. The South got walloped.
6. No, Wild. We were talking about the Union and the Confederacy over the course of a four year war. You give examples of individual battles in other wars. The British Army did not collapse at Singapore. The units there were surrendered. You don't read much beyond glowing descriptions of uniforms and tactics, but you ought to read up on Percival and the surrender of Singapore. It isn't pretty, but the Army did not fall apart anyway.
7. So what? True, and not many of them. Somehow, the Anzac military was intact and on the winning side aboard the Missouri. Huh.
8. In single battles. The British Army was intact and on the winning side at the end of the war.
9. Money in the bank isn't potential. It's called cash, and the South had none along with no credit. The north was awash with both. If that were true about Lee's men better things would have happened for Lee. It wasn't true, the AOP was just badly led till Gettysburg. Lee's men were short shoes, food, and clothing. They had to stop the artillery barrage before Pickett charged because they were running out of shot and powder. Significant numbers of that heroic charge apparently did not participate. You have no basis but myth for this 'the South was more than a match' garbage. Lee and his forces didn't and couldn't do much without the assistence of the lousy commanding Union generals who were there before Meade. As I and others say, once the Union attained mere command competence they began to win. And a large part of that was not retreating en masse after a bad day bolstered by fictitious numbers of rebels facing them.
10. So? He knew of nobody better at that point. And of course, just like FDR had to prop up Republican MacArthur despite that worthy's fiasco the day after Pearl Harbor and make him a hero, the Republican Lincoln had to handle Democrat McClellan carefully and respectfully. (In any case, McClellan was a good trainer and organizer over the winters when nobody fought anyway, so there was a plus side.) But when called to his attention he promoted competence. Davis protected friends Bragg and Hood and thought himself a great military mind and was a major impediment to supplying the Army: the South prided itself on a paper government that didn't have the power to provide for itself, and was at the mercy of state governments. Lincoln essentially rewrote the Constitution and gave the US a strong executive branch and assured the primacy of the Federal over the states evermore. Lincoln was just light years ahead of his contemporaries.
Viewed by the elite as a namby pamby half educated western moron, Lincoln had his enemies asking 'how high?' after he'd run over them by superior and comprehensive mastery of government, the media, and the language. He was always pretty popular: look at the election returns. |
| wILD I |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 10:43:03 AM
It's to be doubted Lee ever had 70k,
I gave a source DC.If you want to refute it let's have your source.
and the fact is he never really knew what he had.
Well if Lee did not know the Federals did not know so let's say they thought he had 100000.
3. Your point, an error, was that the North did not have an army at the outset.
A military establishment that failed in its fundamental duty of protecting the Union.It was less than useless.
4. Major miscalculation no. It was his job to prevent a war if possible.
As president he failed to establish an army capable of preventing a rebellion.
Suffice to say if he had won he would have had to retreat from all the casualties of the first two days
What first two days?It is early morning 1st of July 1863 Lee has massed an army of "100000" on the North's doorstep.Anything can happen.
First, these are lost battles, not collapsing militaries,
You asked----Perhaps you could give one example of a great army supported by industrial might collapsing like a house of cardsI gave you 4 and you dismiss them with the likes of this--but they didn't collapse like a house of cards, Percival did.That's pure unadulterated crap
and most of the forces were not British but third world, not industrial giants. The Australians and New Zealanders will not thank you for that.
In any case, none of these armies fell apart like a house of cards.
Put it whateverway you like they were all humiliating defeated by greatly inferior forces.
The South was losing the war from day one because every day their treasury was smaller (the north grew), every battle killed people and lost stuff they could not replace, their "cause" didn't stand much study.
It is not the potential that matters,it is what you have on a given day that counts and up to Gettysburg the South were always more than a match for the North.Lee's forces on a given day could have rendered all of the Norths potential irrelevant.
It was McClellan who didn't attack works defended by logs posing as cannon. Don't get your point, here.The point is Lincoln reinstated him after he had run from logs. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 5:12:05 PM
Wild,
By paragraph to BJ
1. It's to be doubted Lee ever had 70k, and the fact is he never really knew what he had.
2. Okay. My error.
3. Your point, an error, was that the North did not have an army at the outset. DC says all armies are bureaucracies (they have to keep track of how many men they have to feed) not just the Federal. That's a falsification. They had an army of, you said, 16k.
4. Major miscalculation no. It was his job to prevent a war if possible. The South made the major miscalculation.
5. This requires a lengthy soft shoe and you can't fake it. Suffice to say if he had won he would have had to retreat from all the casualties of the first two days and with neither rest nor surcease from AOP. At best, and even if all the men charged who pretended they had with Pickett, he couldn't have afforded all the casualties of the third day if the AOP had run. Attack Washington with 40k exhausted men, supply lines he couldn't defend?
"The British imperial forces in Malaya. 120000 surrendering to a force of 50000 Japaneese. Russian forces in Finland. Italian Army in Albania and of course South Vietnam." First, these are lost battles, not collapsing militaries, or lost wars. British Imperial forces were surrendered by a noted drunk, and most of the forces were not British but third world, not industrial giants. They were at the end of the receiving line for goods. It comes close, but they didn't collapse like a house of cards, Percival did. The Italians were walloped, is all. They retained as an army. Finland was at least as industrially advanced as Russia, which to this day is mostly third world. In any case, none of these armies fell apart like a house of cards. They lost and retreated. Vietnam as well. US military fell apart? Hardly. I am surprised you didn't try to use Germany and Japan. I was ready for those.
The South was losing the war from day one because every day their treasury was smaller (the north grew), every battle killed people and lost stuff they could not replace, their "cause" didn't stand much study.
What if? The South could have won more or less and not much changes. Lee at Antietam conceivably could have kept heading north after an iffy victory by the Feds had he what Grant had heading south two years later. Lee never had the stuff to defend his supply lines, the wherewithal to invade.
Okay, give you that.
It was McClellan who didn't attack works defended by logs posing as cannon. Don't get your point, here.
Crab:
Waiting for who, for what? Field Commanders? ? Korea, Clark and Ridgeway before they were elevated; Vietnam, I don't recall if they were generals then, but Patton, Jr., Haig, Powell, Clark, Adm. Zumwalt was on the ground for a while directing the river campaigns, Iraq was Franks and the Marine guy I can never recall (Zitti?), Iraq2 I don't recall top of my head although I saw the 7th Cav guy interviewed a lot. Didn't last long. I'm not sure 'field general' means so much anymore since the guys micromanaging target and response are apparently in Tampa. What's the point, though? I expect points for NOT looking stuff up on the net. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 4:02:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
FIELD commanders. Commanders in the field. Name the generals who commanded brigades and divisions in the field. Not the commanding generals running the entire show.
Still waiting. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 12:59:53 PM
quote:
Peninsula and Waterloo campaigns.
Sorry JB Napoloen never faced Wellington other that at Waterloo.
It was Marshal Soult who Wellington defeated.
*groan*
You are so right! Nice "trick" question!
Billy |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 11:07:40 AM
Please join us JB you're more than welcome.More cannon fodder.
Seventy seven thousand? Is that an accurate number?
77518 v 93500 Great Battles of the Civil War John McDonald.
Peninsula and Waterloo campaigns.
Sorry JB Napoloen never faced Wellington other that at Waterloo.
It was Marshal Soult who Wellington defeated.
Wild, as a "clerk" you should know that bureaucracy makes the army go around
The point was that the North did not have an army at the outset.DC said they had a bureauracy.But a bureaucracy without an army is just that.
The North could not do that for political reasons, i.e., no rebellion. Doing so could have precipitated what Lincoln was so desperately trying to stave off.
Major miscalculation then?
DC
Lee could not survive Gettysburg if he'd won.
This requires a lenghty answer but I just don't have the time.Suffice to say if he had won he would have been like a fox in a henhouse.
Perhaps you could give one example of a great army supported by industrial might collapsing like a house of cards from among the litter?
The British imperial forces in Malaya.120000 surrendering to a force of 50000 Japaneese.Russian forces in Finland.Italian Army in Albania and of course South Vietnam.
You don't know, and can't know, what won Gettysburg.
There are two key actions which lost the battle.The defence of the Little Round Top and Pickett's attack.Gettysburg was a set piece battle.All the actions and reactions of the various units are known.There were independent observers from European armies.The battle field is still intact.If we cannot state what the deciding actions were in this battle there is not another battle that we can make reasonable observations on.I'm surprised that a man who categorically states that the war was lost from day one now says that we cannot know how Gettysburg was won/lost.
3. Wild, there was much more going on then that, which is
trivial.
Taking the Union armouries was trivial?What if Lee,longstreet,Jackson,Hill,Early,Beauregard had been interned?
Spain, Waterloo
Wrong DC wrong.
When there was, Lincoln acted.Now who was that giant who ran from logs [and old men and boys]who Lincoln reinstated after the peninsular debacle? |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 09:48:58 AM
Wild and DC, I normally stay out of this one since you two are having a nice volley ongoing but...
1) quote:
The North allowed a situation to develop whereby a seemingly invincible army of 77000 arrived on it's doorstep.Now if the forces defending Washington and its industrial heartland were insufficient and suffered a catastropic defeat all the potential in the world would not have saved the Union.What prevented that catastrophy?Not your hyped manpower/industrial potential but a handful of brave men on the Little Round Top.
Seventy seven thousand? Is that an accurate number? I thought it more along the lines of fifty to fifty-five thousand. Wild, don't neglect counting the large forces that Congress forced the Army to use to defend Washington D.C.
2) quote:
Wellington, who got Napoleon twice,
Once.
Peninsula and Waterloo campaigns. Wellington was in overall charge thus gets the credit for Waterloo although the arrival of the Germans likely saved the day for the British force.
3) quote:
An administration system does not make an army.The primary duty of this bureaucracy was to defend the Union against internal or external threats.It failed totally to prevent the rebellion.It allowed it's arsenals to fall into the hands of the rebels.Failed to destroy armaments machinery which the rebels moved south and could not even defend it's own fortifications. It even failed to arrest those of it's officer corps who were sympatatic to the Southern cause.And even acting as a bureaucracy was 6 months behind the confederacy in it's efforts to procure arms from Europe.
Wild, as a "clerk" you should know that bureaucracy makes the army go around (sorry, could resist that one!). Regarding the arsenals, arresting officers, etc. The North could not do that for political reasons, i.e., no rebellion. Doing so could have precipitated what Lincoln was so desperately trying to stave off.
4) quote:
Lincoln learned, admitted error, and always looked for better men even if it made himself look bad
Because of Lincoln's interfering the AOP never had a settled command until the arrival of Grant.And Lincoln was so good at spotting good soldiers he actually fired Grant first time around.
Actually, I don't believe Lincoln fired Grant at any time, it was just that Halleck was not a Grant fan and was actively scheming to replace him (source: Williamson Murray, "What Took the South So Long", pg. 66-67; With My Face to the Enemy: Perspectives on the Civil War edited by Robert Cowley). Actually, he was not relieved of command, just not given the promotion he had earned with the victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Also, a key Grant supporter was Lincoln's political friend from Illinois.
Regarding the conversation about Lee's sainthood. I am still miffed about Malvern Hill and Gettysburg. At Malvern, while we did come close, it should have been decided days earlier in the initial battle of the Seven Days campaign, if only Stonewall had shown more aggression and maps had been better. But, if a bullfrog had wings, it wouldn't bump its butt every time it landed. Oh, for what it is worth, I had kin killed at Malvern and Gettysburg on the Confederate side. My Union ancestors (including great-granddad) were in the Western theater.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 09:02:18 AM
by paragraph:
1. Cliche and incorrect and based on a lot of "ifs". You again miss the point. Lee could not survive Gettysburg if he'd won. Perhaps you could give one example of a great army supported by industrial might collapsing like a house of cards from among the litter? One. Forrest and about two millennia of generals. You don't know, and can't know, what won Gettysburg. Possibly the comparatively unlimited supply of powder and shot the Union had but not the Rebs; possibly the unused reserves the Union had throughout the battle; perhaps all those brave determined rebels hiding on their faces by the Chambersville road and not participating in Pickett's Charge as they'd been ordered. (That HAS to be true: science figured out what the dead would be at Pickett's Charge if all those soldiers actually charged, and it was way higher than the reality....)
2. Till the arrival of Meade, and it wasn't Lincoln's "interfering" that was the problem. It was incompetent and timid generals, qualities that didn't appear till combat. I never said, and he never claimed, Lincoln was intuitively sharp about picking generals; quite the opposite. He tried people and fired them if they didn't work out at great loss to his own prestige and at the end had probably the best army of that century. He admitted error and corrected it. Davis couldn't and didn't.
3. Wild, there was much more going on then that, which is trivial. The Union was never without weapons and could make them anyway, was trying to prevent states from leaving the Union, and you're just pulling stuff out of thin air. In any case, so what? Bureaucracy moves slow. It was the South that failed to provide. Please don't trot out Halleck's trying to hide Grant as LIncoln "firing" him. Horsehockey. Lincoln never fired him. What are you talking about?
4. Spain, Waterloo
4. Because West Point didn't use SAT's. Because there was nothing upon which to judge who'd be a good general. When there was, Lincoln acted. All they had was rep from the Mexican War. You're distorting what I said about Lincoln so you can pretend to find fault. |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 06:32:12 AM
1. Yes Wild, that's true. Which is why the fact that the North NEVER harnessed anything even CLOSE to its full potential during all four years must sting you at reflective present, given I've been doing everything short of buying radio time to get you to understand that.
The North allowed a situation to develop whereby a seemingly invincible army of 77000 arrived on it's doorstep.Now if the forces defending Washington and its industrial heartland were insufficient and suffered a catastropic defeat all the potential in the world would not have saved the Union.What prevented that catastrophy?Not your hyped manpower/industrial potential but a handful of brave men on the Little Round Top.
History is littered with instances of great armies supported by industrial might collasping like a house of cards when confronted by a better led more determined force.Was it Bedford Forrest who said that the key to victory was getting there the fasted with the mostest.At Gettysburg Lee very nearly achieved this.
Lincoln learned, admitted error, and always looked for better men even if it made himself look bad
Because of Lincon's interfering the AOP never had a settled command until the arrival of Grant.And Lincoln was so good at spotting good soldiers he actually fired Grant first time around.
News to Custer, Sherman, Crook, and Sheridan. An army IS a world class political bureaucracy, just one that fights periodically. That's why people who said Eisenhower was sheltered in the Army and didn't understand politics were idiots. You don't get four or five stars without being one of the world's reigning politicos.
An administration system does not make an army.The primary duty of this bureaucracy was to defend the Union against internal or external threats.It failed totally to prevent the rebellion.It allowed it's arsnals to fall into the hands of the rebels.Failed to destroy armaments machinery which the rebels moved south and could not even defend it's own fortifications. It even failed to arrest those of it's officer corps who were sympatatic to the Southern cause.And even acting as a bureaucracy was 6 months behind the confederacy in it's efforts to procure arms from Europe.
Wellington, who got Napoleon twice,
Once.
Lee's rep was built on flummoxing giants like, who? Pope? McDowell? Hooker? Burnside? McClellan who ran from logs as cannon
How could the Federal officer corps produce such a run of duds.How could Lincoln have been such a bad judge of Generals? |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 8:42:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I doubt anyone had trouble with that, Crab, although the fact you do is suprising.
FIELD commanders. Commanders in the field. Name the generals who commanded brigades and divisions in the field. Not the commanding generals running the entire show. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 7:00:31 PM
I doubt anyone had trouble with that, Crab, although the fact you do is suprising. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 6:58:05 PM
frackenszoid.....mumble...
By paragraph:
1. Yes Wild, that's true. Which is why the fact that the North NEVER harnessed anything even CLOSE to its full potential during all four years must sting you at reflective present, given I've been doing everything short of buying radio time to get you to understand that. Again: it took about six months for the Monitor to be designed, built, fight....and sink, I guess. Think about what was involved, and it wasn't even a blip on the economic map for the north.
2. Which I ascribe again to crappy Union command, a theory pretty much born out by history. It's not like the AOP was hugely better equipped in 1864 than 1862. Just somewhat better commanders. It was never on the ropes, in danger of breaking up. It retreated too soon for all that. Lee couldn't afford to follow up tactical victories, meaning they were often strategic defeats as well. Yes, federals had idiots, vain and otherwise, so what? But not at the top like Davis in the South. Lincoln learned, admitted error, and always looked for better men even if it made himself look bad (rehiring McClellan). He put together a pretty damned impressive military on the fly and never claimed what credit he deserved.
News to Custer, Sherman, Crook, and Sheridan. An army IS a world class political bureaucracy, just one that fights periodically. That's why people who said Eisenhower was sheltered in the Army and didn't understand politics were idiots. You don't get four or five stars without being one of the world's reigning politicos.
Exactly the same: none.
Recall my premise of enemy rep inflation. Since you beat him, the praise increases because of success and modesty. Wellington, who got Napoleon twice, always puffed the Corsican. Grant said at the time and later in his memoirs that Lee wasn't all that, and on calm reflection he was proven right. Lee's rep was built on flummoxing giants like, who? Pope? McDowell? Hooker? Burnside? McClellan who ran from logs as cannon...... Grant called things as they were, for the most part. Had difficulty admitting some decisions were errors when they led to huge losses, although he didn't deny it. Given the possibly incapacitating guilt that would go with that, it's understandable.
Most recent, I should have said. They're always about. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 6:34:52 PM
Quick: Name US field commanders from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, etc. |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 5:39:22 PM
2. No, Wild, I don't have to do that. You've missed the whole thing: that whole 'war is more than fighting' thing.
You really don't get it DC.Fighting takes primacy.In a war for survival the entire potential of the state is harnessed for the sole purpose of outfighting the enemy.
The South had no industry to speak of, no Navy to speak of, no cash to compensate, would not submit petty differences to federal authority of a central government, could not feed itself without import, certainly could not sustain food and supply to the large armies in the field, could not replace casualties,
But in spite of these handicaps it outfought the better supplied and equipted Federals and even after 2 years of hard campaigning with the odds stacked it the Confederacy could still place an army of 77000 troops to the North of Washington.Victory at Gettysburg would have severed the Union army from Washington.Threatened all the major cities on the East coast and left the industrial and farming heartland Of Pennsylvania/New Jersey open to JEB's maurading cavalry.It would have been an enormous psychological blow.Lee's army of Nothern Virginia would have appeared invincible.Under that sort of threat would the fault lines in the Union have become yawning chasms.
You fail to grasp that the Confederacy did have the potential to land a knockout blow.That the slavish adherance to outmoded tactics by the Federals was playing into the hands of the weaker Confederate army.
You defend your position with colourful little penpictures of Confederate leaders ---a vainglorious President who couldn't fire peopleHow about McClennan who rejoiced in the title of Little Napoleon.And when defeated in seven days refused to move his army back to protect Washington.Kept an entire army bottled up in the peninsula and gloated at the defeat of his fellow general Pope.Vainglory resided just as much with the Federals.
Still, however, an actual Army. Military academy, pay stubbs, department heads, generals.
That's a bureaucracy not an army.
you tried to imply this was a common, and/or meaningful term.
Is Technology giving you the same trouble as syllogism?
We do it with Lee (although the always honest Grant did not; Grant always thought Lee had undeserved acclaim),
Lee and Grant were contenders for man of the match.I don't think Grant to going to any favours for Lee.
they couldn't afford to recover from serious wins,
Nice.One to you.
Lee's greatest moment was when he acknowledged, and made the South acknowledge, that they had lost, and lost by the will of God. He said that, accepted total responsibility, and encouraged his men and the people to work for lasting peace.
Agreed and he made it a point never to march in step again.
Arafat being the last
Hmmmm might have a little trouble with that but he is noway the last.There's a whole new crop of them. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 11:59:01 AM
Wild, by paragraph (in your last post, and not referring to the numbers you pointlessly include):
1. Okay. Just call me your Daddy.
2. No, Wild, I don't have to do that. You've missed the whole thing: that whole 'war is more than fighting' thing. The South could have won more or less battles, but the facts are (in hyperbolic generalization that's still compellingly true)they could probably could not have won the war, and for reasons known at and before Bull Run. The South had no industry to speak of, no Navy to speak of, no cash to compensate, would not submit petty differences to federal authority of a central government, could not feed itself without import, certainly could not sustain food and supply to the large armies in the field, could not replace casualties, had a government legislature composed almost entirely of drunks by popular story, had a vainglorious President who couldn't fire people and thought himself the military mind of the times, and a plantation population that was scared beyond ken of a slave uprising and had to keep people ready to take care of that. Lee's letters to the government asking for food and supply and horses - anything, something - are pretty damning. Again, by 1862 one of the reasons (not the only reason) Lee went north was to pillage.
3. Yes-it-does-Wild. In 1876, with far more territory and people, it was only 25k. Still, however, an actual Army. Military academy, pay stubbs, department heads, generals. Just like real men in Europe......
4. No Wild. You're stretching, and as usual trying to take something I wrote out of not only context but sense.
5. No credit. Balderdash. Not technology, for the most part anyway. Further, you tried to imply this was a common, and/or meaningful term.
6. Agreed. Very common in British and American history to inflate the reputation of the enemy because it makes us (the winners) look so good. As proof, virtually nobody can name the Chinese, North Korean, or Vietnamese Generals who fought us and didn't lose their war. You'd think we'd spend time learning about who didn't lose to us, wouldn't you?
Yamamoto is a good example. Monty did this with Rommel, who it turns out wasn't even there for the British push upon which Monty built his rep. We do it with Lee (although the always honest Grant did not; Grant always thought Lee had undeserved acclaim), although I want to emphasize that Lee was good by common agreement. Just inflated rep.
7. No. Even in pre-war peace, the South had to import a lot of common items, and could never build up a treasury in the states because it was always in debt. There was no infrastructure because they couldn't afford it. And as the war showed, they couldn't afford to recover from serious wins, either.
8. Lee's greatest moment was when he acknowledged, and made the South acknowledge, that they had lost, and lost by the will of God. He said that, accepted total responsibility, and encouraged his men and the people to work for lasting peace. If he had not, God only knows what would have happened in the anger over Lincoln's death. Look at the strutting poseurs and losers today fighting to the last and leaving a nation and people shredded for their own personal rep if not riches, Arafat being the last but including Kaiserine Germany. The Kaiser's Army knew they were hammered and had lost and couldn't keep going, but they knew the public didn't know that - not a surrender, you see, an armistice, and the noble army on the verge of victory was betrayed!! By them!!!- and played that card till Hitler's genius left little doubt who now had lost two huge wars.
Lee's a hero in my book for that, and Washington, an often terrible commander on the field, who was given complete military command four times (revolution, 2 terms CIC, Shays' Rebellion), always obeyed his master (Congress, the people), and four times with no hesitation or feeling around for coup support he gave the keys to the military ignition back to the people. Even today, that's so startling (we'd have kept him dictator for life by popular vote) and totally unique you find yourself searching for the angle he was playing. In his day, Europe was absolutely befuddled. A French minister writing about Washington focussed on that. "...he gave it back..." Then, with some awe: "Nothing more need be said." And really, given nobody else in the same relative position has ever done it, except in a Roman myth of longed for ideal, that's true and all we need to honor about him, although there is more.
I'm not sure prolonged hero worship of false idols helps anyone. Besides, the truth is impressive enough. |
|
|
