| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - November 19 2004 : 11:01:11 PM
|
I did, Wilde, out of deep concern. I'm used to it, myself.
You can win EVERY battle and lose the war, Crab. The South was defeating world class, letter sweater crappy leaders on the Union side in battle early on, as I have said, rather than exhibiting that much of their own. But they were already losing the war from Bull Run on. They couldn't beat the blockade; they couldn't move England; they still had sizeable portions of their men on Slave Patrol, they went to mandatory service (a draft) way before the Union, they had units in revolt early on, and they knew or feared as soon as the slaves figured out that there sure were fewer white men patrolling, the fate of the women and children and plantations left behind would not be pretty; they couldn't supply the armies efficiently. Some states had way extra uniforms but wouldn't share. Same with weapons, horses, other stuff. What they had wasn't even used well or, sometimes, at all.
All the Union had to do, in retrospect, was keep an "Army in Being" which Lee would have to perpetually confront because the Union could afford it and the south could not. Even with no fighting.
They were never on "even terms" in any sense, nor suddenly became so. The average northerner was no more bothered by the war than we are with the Iraq War. With all the men in the army, colleges were full, western migration increased hand over fist, and no huge food rationing or anything close, like there was in the South. The north was always so much better equipped and probably trained (having extra shot and powder for practice) that when merely competent - not necessarily great - officers elbowed their way forward, the northern forces - including cavalry - started to win all the time. And better kept coming forward all the time.
It was the reverse in the South. They couldn't replace their losses when they were winning battles and certainly not later. Their men and officers peaked at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg where they met the first mildly competent Commanding General of the AOP. The Union Army had better and more people every year. And their utterly impressive system of supply totally pissed off the South, who couldn't come close to duplication even in their home states. Even in peace time, they couldn't do it.
To set that up they had to have central authority with power to enforce itself. Which is to say, they had to cease being the Confederacy and everything it thought it stood for to survive, much less beat the North.
So actually? It's hard to see how the South could ever have won. Shelby Foote said the North fought the entire war with one arm (at least) behind its back. Yes, on objective reflection, they shouldn't have resorted to treason and violence, and they got what they deserved. Some feel not enough of it.
It is true the physical quality of the southern troops started a decline about the time Lincoln finally started to get the right people in place, which he did by firing folks for non-accomplishment, something Davis had trouble doing (Bragg, Hood, etc...). Look at the photos of those three rebels captured at Gettysburg. Hungry. Bad shape. Great attitude and all, but that's only compensation to a point.
As to insults, you must be referring to my dead-on characterizations of "liar" for Wiggs and "Custer Crush" for you and others. You're at a loss as to how to deal with my not serving. Of course, you don't know if it's true, one, and you don't know if was by choice or physical defect, two. And it isn't relevant, three.
Calling out people who pretend to have served, or served and pretend to have been in combat, is a duty, I'd think. More important, you don't leave historical interpretation to those sorts, who favor any story that can be used to inflate themselves on the reputations of others or sometimes thrill in dissing the memory of others. Custerland is full of these. Same attitudes applied to them causes hissy fits.
All websites are self-indulgent by definition, including AAO's which humbly purports to deal with the shaping of the American Character. Thank you for visiting mine, but you could just listen to the radio show anonymously and not give me all the hits, which can be used to my benefit. It does pretty well, thank you, and has now been up for six years. I certainly get wrung through the ringer often enough. I don't believe I whine. I don't use words alien to me, and I face you all with my own identity and generally alone. Some of you backchannel and gossip like schoolgirls and don't dare go to battle without an army at your back for support.
I haven't pined for anyone since I last breakdanced, thank you.
When you announce you're a "pretty good artist" you should expect honest criticism: you apparently cannot draw hands, and your offerings are suspiciously like tracings from existing work. You can find as good in any high school. And you have a crush on Custer. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 1:54:13 PM
|
Like Wiggs, Warlord, you shouldn't try to be clever. You aren't. And you shouldn't shout using exclamation points instead of periods. It's rude, and is the stigmata of the insecure and the bully.
My views of the Civil War - if you read anything outside gun magazines and Soldier of Fortune you'd know - is actually rather common these days. Some people might indeed imagine the things you wish I had in your post, and some psychologist's might indeed conclude the things you suggest, but it wouldn't be about me after reading the contents of this forum.
Again, Warlord, my contempt is for you and all posturing frauds, not the military. Too many beloved relatives who served and serve automatically preclude your contention, although there is much else. For you to conclude that any laughter at your pretentions and expense is laughter at everyone who ever wore a uniform is the height of both stupidity and vanity.
You might also want to re-read some of your posts addressed not only to me but others and consider how disgusting they are, and how it reflects on the uniform you pretend to respect so much. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 10:24:50 PM
|
Guys, with no respect intended whatsoever, CUT THE CRAP and GET BACK ON TOPIC. Neither of your psychological problems are our concerns, UNTIL, they infringe upon our rights to enjoy a board which stays mostly on topic. At that point, they cease to be mere distractions but turn into irritants, which, well you see how I reply to irritants (and I am in a good mood!).
If you cannot find anything good to say about one another, please for the love of whatever deity you hold dear, conduct your name-calling exercise in private messages and leave the remainder of us to enjoy our interest without superfluous distractions.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 20 2004 : 11:14:48 PM
|
Good, Warlord. Nothing I could write could provide a better illustrative example of my position with your well reasoned, adult approach.
And Markland, there's nothing in my posts you couldn't read aloud to your children. Others cannot say that, and I don't accept being lumped in with Warlord, if that was your intent. Inaccurate, that.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 12:00:57 PM
|
Actually, Warlord, I'm not upset at all, hardly sputtering. Now that you've invested yourself with imaginary learned friends, as Wiggs did with his imaginary neighborhood children, you're stuck with them.
It's all here on the forum for anyone to read, so I'm puzzled why you have to show just "some" of my posts to anyone. Can't a psychologist afford his own computer and broadband? Then he could read the entire threads, your posts as well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 4:47:16 PM
|
Warlord-
It's rather silly to talk about doing "something" about anybody on an internet message board. You're quite powerless, I shouldn't have to remind you. Nobody appointed you to conduct keyboard commando raids either. It's Rich's board. If he wants somebody to leave he can make them.
As for Dark Cloud, he's one of the few posters here who's actually contributed anything of worth to the board, not just in one post, but many. I enjoy his posts. He writes well, has read widely, and treats others honestly. That's rare here. It shouldn't be, but there it is. I can say the same about Markland, and your attack on him is even sillier than your flailings at Dark Cloud.
If you disageee with someone about facts or interpretation, by all means marshal your evidence and show him wrong. It's all fair. But this personal **** is cowardly.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 6:42:42 PM
|
And who says the anonymous Mr. larsen isn't dc's lapdog?quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Warlord-
It's rather silly to talk about doing "something" about anybody on an internet message board. You're quite powerless, I shouldn't have to remind you. Nobody appointed you to conduct keyboard commando raids either. It's Rich's board. If he wants somebody to leave he can make them.
As for Dark Cloud, he's one of the few posters here who's actually contributed anything of worth to the board, not just in one post, but many. I enjoy his posts. He writes well, has read widely, and treats others honestly. That's rare here. It shouldn't be, but there it is. I can say the same about Markland, and your attack on him is even sillier than your flailings at Dark Cloud.
If you disageee with someone about facts or interpretation, by all means marshal your evidence and show him wrong. It's all fair. But this personal **** is cowardly.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 7:33:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
And who says the anonymous Mr. larsen isn't dc's lapdog?
Probably not anybody who's too scared to talk about anything actually related to what the board's about.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
frankboddn
Major
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 9:29:33 PM
|
And the previous 8-10 posts have what to do with bhist on tv? Adios.quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
And who says the anonymous Mr. larsen isn't dc's lapdog?
Probably not anybody who's too scared to talk about anything actually related to what the board's about.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 06:39:20 AM
|
You know, many, many years ago I learned a valuable lesson. It came about by reading a particularly idiotic email at work and answering, reply all, immediately. The response was scathing, leaving the sender cornered. Not that I was wrong, it was just the presentation that suffered. So, I learned that day after several ass-chewings by various managers, directors and one particularly unimpressed VP to write, save, then walk away for a few hours before sending a gut-response.
Thus, when I read this, quote:
He is not just nasty, he is malevolent! BJ, with my new found no respect for you here also, if you are not willing to standup to villains or in this case the vile then shut up and get the out of the way!!!
my immediate and visceral response was to sink down to the level of the antagonists and blow them away, but, with age comes not necessarily wisdom but at least patience.
The first two paragraphs will be sent to you along with more in private mail so as not to clog up the board.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 1:31:35 PM
|
You see, Warlord, I have heard about the draft riots, and didn't need to see Gangs of New York to learn about them, as you apparently did since you learned about how 19th century Britain's army (and not just, by the way) fought from Zulu. And by the by, are you saying that was markedly different from how the US Army was trained for a period? If you went to Square, variations of that form of advance under fire was pretty boilerplate. A soldier you say?
I only said that the South went to the draft early. The North? Not until the war was halfway done. That's high school. We were talking about how the South had logistics problems from day one, and their lack of men by inclination or desertion was a problem right off. That was "evidence" for my position on that specific point, see?
In any case, it doesn't subtract from the other evidence the North wasn't anywhere near as affected by the Civil War as the South. The economy grew despite increased taxation, agriculture grew, population grew, industry grew. What are you disputing? If anything, argue with the slew of historians who say the same thing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 4:46:15 PM
|
the North wasn't anywhere near as affected by the Civil War as the South.Perhaps in one respect they were.The North suffered 650000 casualties from all causes while the South suffered 350000.
The economy grew despite increased taxation, agriculture grew, population grew, industry grew.
That may be true DC but the civil war could be compaired to a game of chess.You might appear to be far weaker than your opponent but one bold move and you can checkmate him.
Did not Hood threaten Washington in the very last months of the war ? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 9:40:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
And the previous 8-10 posts have what to do with bhist on tv?
Nothing. They have nothing to do with anything that anyone actually cares about. It's an old story: if you're being bested in an argument, screw the facts and start a flame war. It's the natural recourse for those who care more about "winning" than being right. Nevermind that it's a pyrrhic victory at best.....
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 10:48:21 PM
|
Actually, Bodden, I search in vain for a contribution on topic by either you or Warlord to this thread. Have either or you actually seen the show and offered comment on the topic? I did. Brent did. MRW did. Wild didn't see it but stayed on topic. Warlord did not. Was your contribution usurped? Sorry, feel free to post it now.
Wild, we need to get away from using board and field games as syllogistic for war. It implies there is an all powerful force that enforces known and agreed to rules. It's also very Victorian, Etonian, and aristocratic, based on the idea you can retreat after a tough day at the office for a stiff martini and re-enter the fray refreshed.
And that leads to assumptions that the capture of Richmond or Washington was a "checkmate" which would lead to surrender of the losing party. Current thought - and, more importantly of course, my thought, being the World's Foremost Authority since noted braintrust Irwin Corey granted me heir status (bow and scrape, peasant!) - is that Washington and Richmond were very different. Richmond was the capital, yes, but it also had significant industrial works and transportation hubs (neither abundant in the South) that were more important. In any case, when it fell, the government could have gone to Little Rock or Birmingham for all the difference it would have made. The loss was the steel works and railroad lines. And in any case, the South didn't fall when Richmond did.
Washington was surrounded by much the South wanted but the real industrial bases were further north. In any case, the South had no way to account for and distribute captured goods of that magnitude before they would be under attack again. Other than embarrassment there was nothing really lost if Washington fell. Then, as now, the dream of Congressmen running in panic brings soft smiles to any American....
And because the South couldn't really feed its own army immobile in fecund Virginia, it could hardly feed it under siege. It probably could do little more than burn and pillage, which had been done before. And aside from really, really annoying the North, nothing much would be accomplished. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on November 22 2004 10:50:31 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 11:09:29 PM
|
Warlord,
March of 1863 is about half way through the war as I said. Mark Twain deserted the Confederate Army, in any case.
On March 20 you wrote in another thread: "The film "ZULU" has some interesting items in it. One is the way volley fire was handled. Two lines of soldiers, the first kneeling, the second standing. At the order to fire the kneeling line of soldiers fire on the target. On the order the second line moves past the first line and kneels. The second line now stands and reloads. At the order the kneeling line in front fires. And so it continues if I have it correctly. I might be wrong, but I do not recall the American Army ever using this method of volley fire. Maybe they did , but I cannot recall it." Doesn't sound like you're familiar with it at all.
In any case, it does not entirely meld with today: "Trying to say that I said the American Army never used the kneel/fire advance drill. What I said is I had never seen it used - referring to frontier battles with the indians, as that thread was discussing!" Readers can decide. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 10:40:06 AM
|
Wild, we need to get away from using board and field games as syllogistic for war.
No it's very apt particularly in this case.Vietnam is another example where apparent weakness was in fact strenght.
The great Union commissariat not only rendered the Union armies moribund but kept Lee in the field.McClellan nearly drove Abe demented refusing to move until the last button was shined and accounted for.Union brigadiers were political apointments.Aristocrats who could like that drunken gob****e Meagher lead their country men to the slaughter.
What was in the South to destroy ,cotton?
Just how motivated was the North with it's draft riots,units just leaving the field because their 60 days was up and a most quaint system of the wealthy paying for the poor to fight in their place?
How do you quantify motivation,how does it stack up against coal and steel production?The South had a highly motivated well led army of outdoor men.They could outmanoeuver and out fight the desease ridden slum dwelling immigrants of the industrial north.
The civil war was a war lost.But for Lee's stubborness at Gettysburg the North would have asked for conditions.It was that close. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 12:31:01 PM
|
See, Wild, that's not true. As early as Shiloh, Rebel units deserted or refused to fight, and people came and went without much penalty, Cold Mountain (the book)notwithstanding. The guys from Michigan and Maine and Ohio and most of the North were not slum dwellers (most people didn't live in cities then, Wild), and every bit as outdoorsy as the malarial swamp dwellers from the South, and able to stand winter better. And being better fed, clothed, and provided for (please: there are always exceptions, but overall the North lived like Kings compared to the South)kept them in a better frame of mind to be thrilled by oration.
New York had draft riots mostly because the recent Irish immigrants didn't like the idea of dying for blacks and being drafted, which had been a compelling reason to leave British grasp long before the potato famine. More properly, it was a race riot, or one over race. These weren't long time citizens in bulk rioting, and although being close to the press and with an election the next year, the short lived New York riots of 1863 right after Gettysburg got lots of play from the Copperhead Democrats, then touting McClellan to get rid of Lincoln.
The game syllogism isn't apt, and I wonder why you think it is. I don't get the Vietnam analogy implication.
You're coming close to the Crush, Wild, getting all romantic about how motivation is all, which eventually folds into "If only Custer had led the charge...." and not that coward Reno.
Also, the remark about the south and cotton is puzzling. Yes, short answer. Cotton was cash to the South. They had no other source of cash. None. Without cash, they could not pay for ships building in Europe to run the blockade or fight the Union. Without cash, they couldn't utilize the black market to buy food and horses from Mexico or Canada or wherever they could get it. They got US dollars for cotton overseas, and nobody accepted the Confederate dollar, least of all themselves, which was useless.
The South was pretend, start to finish, clearer in concept today than it was then. When Lee referred to 'my country' or 'our people' he was referring to Virginia, not Dixie. People fought for their states and homes more than the 'South.' Supposedly, they were trying to get away from a federal power, not establish a new one. The deep stupidity of that became obvious to Stephens - who had his own blind spots - but not to Davis, who to his dying day saw no flaw but lots of treason and backstabbing. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 24 2004 : 08:47:57 AM
|
But they were already losing the war from Bull Run on.
AND
So actually? It's hard to see how the South could ever have won.
I used the game of chess as an an annalogy because it is a game of strategy not a game of numbers.Vietnam,on paper did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of defeating the US,but it was a war of strategy.The USAF dropped more ordnance on the North than was dropped on Hitler's Germany.And the result?Ten dollars worth of damage.The North Vietnamees gained a stalemate which the US got sick of and was no longer willing to pay the price.
Unlike the North the South did not require a victory just a stalemate.
The average northerner was no more bothered by the war than we are with the Iraq War.
The North suffered more casualties proportionally than Britian did in the first world war and it was said Britian had been bled white.If the average Northern was not bothered by that then it was because he was an immigrant with little or no alligence to the North.
You're coming close to the Crush, Wild, getting all romantic about how motivation is all,
You dismiss motivation as nothing more than romance.We know you did not serve in the military. I suppose we can also conclude that you never had to go out into the market place and compete for a crust.If you had you would know exactly how important a factor motivation is.Try run a business with a demotivated staff.
Even after Gettysburg the South fought on for a further year Inflicting checks on Grant in three major battles of European proportions.What would a victory at Gettysburg have achieved with JEB renewing acquaintances with the Union quartermasters?At least another two years of stalemate, with Europe at last recognising the Confederacy.
A couple of more brigades and the gallant Armistead was home and dry.
Have a good and peaceful thanksgiving everybody |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 24 2004 : 09:41:04 AM
|
Wild, (I think this was mentioned)supposedly, after Vietnam ended and military types met to talk, a US officer kept pointing out that we'd won all the battles (we had). The North Viet guy kept saying "I don't see the relevance" which flummoxed the Americans, who couldn't either in retrospect.
Wars are pretty much all political. We "lost" the War of 1812 in many ways except for that clever treaty due to Napoleon's threat to England. DC had been burned and looted, and although there were those minor naval battles, we'd lost yet another invasion of Canada, and we were divided. Nawlins happened after the fact.
I grasp the point of the board game, I just don't think it accurate. There are never just two parties involved, one, and there are clear cut wins and draws in games, not life.
And to repeat, the South had no ability to distribute and profit from a huge victory of captured stuff. They couldn't get it South, and even if they burned it the North could replace it all in months. Shoes and clothing don't last long in those conditions, and an influx of captured stuff still means you need to replace it in weeks and months. The industrial might of the North was just huge, unbelievable. The South couldn't grasp it. Even the North couldn't, because they didn't realize what other states were doing till Stanton and friends brought it under control. Although different in scale, it was every bit as overpowering as when Japan and Germany discovered this later.
I don't see any stalemate in the highly unlikely event that Stuart's cavalry, exhausted after his pointless but terribly romantic rush around doing something or other dashing but of no moment to Lee, defeated the Union cavalry forces or got to the back of Cemetery Ridge, where huge reinforcements were waiting unused by the Union.
I do not dismiss motivation as nothing more than romance. But you can't really motivate the ambulatory dead, all tearful military myth notwithstanding. It's generally conceded that the war could have been won on a fourth day of Gettysburg if Meade had attacked Lee in retreat. Lee had nothing much left. Grant would have had units moving. Meade wasn't the motivator needed, and was happy just to have defeated the South in his home state. Even in later tactical defeat, Grant just flanked Lee and forced him back time after time. He had so much in men and material he could just do it without much risk.
It didn't matter if Lee won the battles, because while they were being fought, he was being flanked by other forces of Grant's and had to retreat anyway. It's really hard to frame this as a war the North could really lose. During the war, there were always old northern cities with more people than the ANV, and there were often southern states with less people than AOP. (I'm not counting the new western states, here.) |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2004 : 09:37:22 AM
|
DC
Your posts are riddled with inconsistancies which makes it very difficult to debate with you.For example.
So actually? It's hard to see how the South could ever have won.A statement forcasting a clear cut win.And then this.and there are clear cut wins and draws in games, not life.
AND
You're coming close to the Crush, Wild, getting all romantic about how motivation is all,Followed by.I do not dismiss motivation as nothing more than romance.
Meanwhile back at the ranch---
Your statement It's hard to see how the South could ever have won.Is based on this formula---
5 x pop + 10 x indust = victory.Of course what is missing is the unquantifiable human element.Once you have a human element involved you cannot predict the outcome.Someone said that victory lies not with those who can inflict the most but with those who can enjure the most.
500000 casualties along the Potomac and you say the North is not bothered.50000 in the Mekong Delta and the US has had enough.How do you factor in that range of human response to conflict?
Industrial might is useless unless it can be applied and as you say the Union fought with one arm behind it's back.Not by choice but because they did not have the managerial wherewitall and the advantages they did have were wasted by incompetants.A union army twice as big as the confederate army took twice as long to maneouver.Lee's freedom of movement was not limited by reliance on roads and railways.
Lee's aim of achieving a stalemate was a very realistic goal.All he had to do was avoid a catastrophic error.And that's where human nature influenced the outcome not as you contend industrial might.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 25 2004 : 11:07:30 AM
|
Wild, neither you nor Warlord are very good at debate, number one, and secondly you don't grasp syllogism. I'm nothing if not consistent.
Saying "it's hard to see how the South could ever have won" is not a forecast of anything, much less a clear cut win. It reflects retrospection of the war, the exact opposite. And "there are clear cut wins and draws in games, not life" stands on its own. Again, Wild, you've always taken sentences applying to one issue (in this case, a discussion of the war) and trying to negate them by comparison to statements applying to other topics (that war is not a game).
Your second example is worse. Containing many of the same words, they aren't saying opposite things at all. It's best blown apart this way. Dark Cloud says that Wild thinks MOTIVATION = ALL (EVERYTHING). But, Dark Cloud himself does not think MOTIVATION = ROMANCE. Where's the opposition? What are you talking about, in fact?
You're nearly as bad as Warlord.
My statement is not based on a formula, which alert readers could have safely concluded because one is not referenced at any point. However much you want it to have been, it's not my position. If I had a formula, it certainly would not be that one, which doesn't make any sense at all. Saying "once you have a human element" is the sort of cliche that is meant to denote calm, reasoned analysis, even though what you mean is "once you have illogical emotion."
But it also is rather stupid: there is always a human aspect, which is actually the more correct word, in the analysis being done if nowhere else. More to the point, you're trying to ridicule my position because my silly mathematical formula (which I don't have and you have to provide to ridicule) is naive without formulating in ....well, what? Your formula, you explain it. You simply fabricated evidence for a position I do not hold. You do this a lot.
I'm glad you've read about the 600k odd northern fatalities in the four years, which here you seem to think were only casualties along the Potomac, but most of them came from disease, not combat, and disease not directly from wounds but from close quarters. Under some analyses, the fact that people died of diseases they statistically would have died of back home in some circumstances is padding the stats.
When I say the North didn't "notice" these deaths, I'm not saying entire villages weren't plunged into mourning, I'm saying as a nation/state, the north wasn't short of labor anywhere, didn't suffer a birth rate decline(to say no more), or any of the things indicating great social trauma beyond the battlefield. The North could fight this war, other wars against Indians, and send its excess population west. If you were just reading economic summaries and census reports, its concievable you wouldn't notice our worst war was being fought in those four years.
I don't know where you get your statistics. I think you're referencing the 600k plus northern fatalities in the civil war, not 'casualities' which were far more. I don't think you mean 50k casualties in the Mekong Delta, but are referencing the 57k dead from the entire Vietnam war. In any case, only about 2% of the population (and probably less because of out of control immigration) was affected in this way during the Civil War. France, in WWI, lost 6% dead, already had a declining birth rate, was an economy based on bubbles.
In your last paragraph, all reason departs as you try to mimic my past posts without, unfortunately, knowing of that which you write. I suppose it's hard to argue with a statement like "industrial might is useless unless it can be applied." Then you try to apply it to Shelby Foote's remark where he and I were talking about something else.
Foote was clearly referencing (he says in Burns' The Civil War) the huge numbers of young men the north had leading normal lives and not in the Army but who could have been. I'd like some examples of the overall management failures and incompetence of the North, given the high marks historians and economists have given it. That's wishful thinking. Recall that in the war's darkest hour for the north, the Monitor was designed and built in blinding speed (for that era)without disrupting normal orders. The south couldn't have done it at all. Britain either, maybe, but you'd have to imagine Jackie Fisher designing a totally new class of ship during WWI and getting it built as quick as he once had the Dreadnought.
And then, you merge non-existent economic problems with the military, as if they were the same thing. A Union Army twice as big takes twice as long to manuever. Proof? Examples? Let's see. How much bigger was Sherman's Army than the opposition? Who moved faster and how much faster? History says a lot faster.
I've never denied the Union Army was pathetic early on, given its huge strength. For that, credit the lousy commanding generals, not dashing Southerners.
Lee's "freedom of movement" was indeed totally limited by reliance on roads and railways. That's how his army got supplied, Wild. Or, in the South's case, often didn't get supplied.
And no, Lee's "aim of achieving a stalemate" was not a realistic goal and not really his, although it early enough became his best hope. I can't imagine any of these guys, north or south, willing to accept a stalemate.
In any case, it wouldn't have worked. The main reason is as I've said previously. The South could not maintain a large army in the field, even in peacetime, for any long period of years. It had to pillage, which is why the Shenendoah became their desperate last hope: it was close to Lee's Army. No other source in the entire South from beginning to end could produce enough food or get it to the Army. A wannabe nation of agriculture and small farms couldn't even feed itself. Since it couldn't sustain itself in the north, it pillaged its own for loving community relations. How pathetic is that?
Although bolstered by West Point grads, a third rate college that's produced the most traitors in arms against the United States ("country" is only third in their list of importance in the oath), the South's best weapon for victory was the bad command of the north. Once commanders brought the daring new concept of not retreating to recover whenever McClellan got the vapors or Hooker sobered up and realized what he'd done, the overpowering strength of the North was finally exploited. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on November 25 2004 11:27:31 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2004 : 07:06:12 AM
|
Iknow how you like to regard yourself as something of a wordsmith DC but I would check out syllogism again I think you are a premise short.
You're coming close to the Crush, Wild, getting all romantic about how motivation is all, which eventually folds into "If only Custer had led the charge...." and not that coward Reno.
Crush,romance,all,if only,coward?I think that's dismissing the significance of motivation.
Saying "it's hard to see how the South could ever have won" is not a forecast of anything, much less a clear cut win. It reflects retrospection of the war,
It's the main issue here and you base it on hindsight and retrospection? This can only be debated knowing the strenghts and dispositions of the contending forces on the 21st July 1861.
Rather than dealing with each individual point you have made in your voluminous post permit me to distill it down to this.As long as the North was prepared to pay the price the outcome was never in doubt. So I ask you when does the price become too much.In Vietnam,Lebanon,Somalia,where casualties were nothing compaired to those suffered in the civil war the US withdrew.Industrial strenght even combined with greatly superior numbers alone will not determine the outcome of conflicts.
If you were just reading economic summaries and census reports, its concievable you wouldn't notice our worst war was being fought in those four years.A view from the company clerk's office is so different from that of the surgeon's tent.
If you are using Shelby Foote to make a point give the full reference it will save misunderstandings.
There are a few other points but have not got the time now will return to them later
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2004 : 1:02:37 PM
|
by paragraph:
1. You know no such thing, but I've been called worse than "wordsmith," and that you think it an insult is silly. Neither am I a premise short, however.
2. Rather than trying to understand a sentence by using what you feel are keywords, read the whole thing. The sentence does not dismiss the "significance" of motivation. It ridicules only the thought that motivation is "all." See the difference? Don't nod, you haven't admitted seeing it thus far.
3. Oh, come on. My origianl sentence was an observation on the Civil War, not putting words in the mouths of someone in early 1861. You tried to make it say something else, and you try again here. But, for the record, the issue was raised by thoughtful Southerners early on.
4. Your synopsis is dead correct. The South thought the North composed of bookkeepers and fuss budgets too concerned about money to fight, and that Southern manhood would win out always. Despite all contrary fact, elements continued to believe this to the dismal end and a century beyond. It remains a contention of some historians that the north was always on the threshold of collapse and suing for peace. In reality, dedication to the war seemed to get stronger even as the naysayers got louder. And all those immigrants sure helped. You don't emmigrate to lands about to collapse in perpetual war or defeat. Apparently the buzz wasn't that the north was dead meat. Nobody emmigrated to the South, you note. Never really had.
And everything predicted for the North happened in the South.
The South collapsed as a society (because it wasn't one, really) complete with moronic religious revivals (Just like the Ghost Dance, in fact. If we only do thus and so and praise God, victory will be ours despite all evidence to the contrary. Bullets cannot stop young men pure of heart who believe in the Cause, you see....)long before its military did. The north was divided (having all sorts of pulls on its attention and interest that the South did not)and not really focussed at the beginning.
And uncontested, industry and numbers do not guarantee victory. Neither will essentially no industry and inferior numbers. The fact is there is no formula. But the north would have had to have had zero motivation to totally negate its huge advantages. But it was every bit as motivated as the South if not more so. The northern press covered dissent far more closely than anyone covered Southern dissent, traditionally expressed by just leaving the army.
You have to understand that right after the Civil War the north, as a society, moved right on to new concerns, so much so that veterans groups had to be formed to get any honor or compensation for the vets after the immediate post war flurries. The South, on the other hand, having nothing, constantly relived and glorified everything and became a swamp of depression in every sense.
Shelby Foote interviewed on camera for The Civil War. I have only my notes. I'm not watching the six hours again to give you the exact frame. But I know there was a companion book and I'll look it up next time I hit the library. Are you contesting his observation? I doubt if many here on this board don't recall it, and maybe someone has the book. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 26 2004 : 2:55:49 PM
|
A brief summation of some opinions of West Point through the years by those who'd know.
1. "West Point is monarchial, corrupt, and corrupting....the very worst caste....a military aristocracy...." Alden Partridge, 1806. He was the Third Superintendent of West Point.
2. In 1830, a bill in Congress was introduced to shut it down for similar reasons by that commie-pinko un-American the Honorable David Crockett of Tennessee. Oh, President and General Grant at one time during his own attendance at West Point favored its dissolution during yet another debate on the topic in 1839.
3. In 1863, looking at how many traitors from that very aristocracy had graduated from West Point and then broken vows to country and their army, Republican Senator Wade of Ohio, close to A. Lincoln, was apolplectic in his condemnation and introduced a bill to get rid of West Point.
4. "West Point is an under-graduate scholarship school without many scholars or any great motivation for learning...." General George Lincoln, Nixon advisor and academic guru of the Academy.
5. "...at a tender age, the West Point Cadet learns that military rules are sacred and in time readily accepts them as a substitute for integrity. As he progresses through his military career, the rules remain uppermost in his code of honor. In fact, his 'honor' is entwined with the rules and so long as he obeys the rules, whatever their content, or whatever manner of man or fool may have written them, his honor is sound." -Col. L. C. West, Judge Advocate General Corps |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - November 27 2004 : 08:38:57 AM
|
1. You know no such thing, but I've been called worse than "wordsmith," and that you think it an insult is silly. Neither am I a premise short, however.
Insult DC ? Heavens no,just a mild rebuke for sending me to stand in the corner with the infant terrible of the board.
Wordsmith is another name for our bards who were men of letters and great learning and were held in high esteem in the old Celtic society.
Neither am I a premise short, however
A denial is not sufficent.
But they were already losing the war from Bull Run on.
AND
So actually? It's hard to see how the South could ever have won.You say about the above
But, for the record, the issue was raised by thoughtful Southerners early on.
I have done not an insubstantial amount of reading of the subject and I have never encountered that opinion.Chapter and verse please DC?
And you can hold to the above without considering that the North did not have an army at the outset and that anything resembling military knowhow went South.That offensive technology employed by the North was the same as that employed at Waterloo,while the defensive technology of the South resembled that of the Somme.A hundred years in the difference which brought about horrors like Cold Harbour.7000 Federal casualties in 7 minutes.And could you have predicted which side the strategically important State of Kentucky would have declared for?
The South thought the North composed of bookkeepers and fuss budgets too concerned about money to fight etc
But they still imported 800000 rifled muskets to kill these bookkeepers.
The South collapsed as a society (because it wasn't one, really) complete with moronic religious revivals (Just like the Ghost Dance, in fact.
All very interesting and colourful but just so much nebulous minutiae which I hope you are not offering to support your contention.
But I know there was a companion book and I'll look it up next time I hit the library.THE CIVIL WAR by Geoffery C Ward
And Shelby Foote quotes William Faulkner "For every Southern boy,it's always in his reach to imagine it being one o'clock on an early July day in 1863,the guns are laid,the troops are lined up,the flags are already out of their cases and ready to be unfurled,but it hasn't happened yet.And he can go back in his mind to the time before the war was going to be lost and he can always have that moment for himself.
Gettysburg DC not Bullrun
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Bhist on the History Channel
