Author Topic: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp  (Read 6834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AprilRazz

  • I love my...
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2705
  • Reputation: +202/-16
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2009, 09:44:40 AM »
Actually, some manufacturing activities in the South did use slave labor.  There is no indication that they were any worse at it than their northern "free" counterparts.
From what I understand the slaves had it easy in comparison to their northern counterparts. A slave will always have his or her living expenses taken care of for life (until the emancipation that is) whereas the factory workers in northern cities lived in slums and a families very existence counted on the wage earner.
Another interesting comparison is slave vs indentured servant.
Proud Navy Wife and Veteran

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." Suzanna Hupp


racist – A statement of surrender during an argument. When two people or disputants are engaged in an acrimonious debate, the side that first says “Racist!” has conceded defeat. Synonymous with saying “Resign” during a chess game, or “Uncle” during a schoolyard fight. Ori

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2009, 10:50:41 AM »
No, they weren't. But the fact remains the South saw they could make more shipping out raw product that manufacturing it. This came to bite them in the ass during the war when they just didn't have the factories to turn out modern war requirements.

Up til '65 they were still getting uniforms and boots shipped in from England.

Gettysberg happened more because of a shoe factory in the region than some over arching military strategem.



So you are going to tell me that slaves were not in fact employed by Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA?
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16127
  • Reputation: +987/-215
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2009, 10:59:40 AM »
So the liberals have caused black guys to not take responsibility for themselves? They're not capable of supporting their child unless the mean liberals leave them alone? That's racist. I think blacks and whites are capable of thinking on their own. I also think black men are capable of paying back child support/welfare once Social Services tracks them down. I believe that so much that I favor getting rid of loopholes which enable "fathers" and "mothers" to not pay their child support for months at a time and get away with it.

You're right it's racist. It's racist as hell how you liberals think blacks can't compete without your f'n help...and you've been socially-engineering this shit for decades.


Quote
BTW, welfare recipients are mostly white women. I've yet to see evidence that most blacks are on welfare.

Not by percentage of population.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site




Offline dutch508

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10031
  • Reputation: +1260/-1006
  • Remember
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2009, 11:07:06 AM »
So you are going to tell me that slaves were not in fact employed by Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA?

~no, they weren't, as in no they weren't any 'worse' than the immigrant labor in the north. Sorry for not being clearer.

The South were the first to put on the table the idea of Black Regiments to fight, as you probably well know. One wonders the twisting and turning a la DUmpmonkie fashion the Confederate Congress went through with that idea.

Of course, the North also had problems with the concept. In the end- it worked out.

Until 1915, that is.
The torch of moral clarity since 12/18/07

2016 DOTY: 06 Omaha Steve - Is dying for ****'s face! How could you not vote for him, you heartless bastards!?!

Offline ReaganForRushmore

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Reputation: +59/-6
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2009, 11:41:33 AM »

Gettysberg happened more because of a shoe factory in the region than some over arching military strategem.



Actually, no.......Gettysburg was selected by Lee because of it's network of roads feeding into the hamlet. The ten roads leading into the town gave Lee options to move on Baltimore or Washington itself. The shoe situation is a misnomer in the fact that the Confederate army under Early on his way to Harrisburg a week before had been through Gettysburg. The surrounding region had been pretty well plundered by Confederate units. The legend that A.P. Hill's division was looking for shoes that brought the battle on is just that legend. The battle was brought on because Hill felt he was facing local militia, not Union troops. It wasn't until his division was fully engaged that he realized he was facing the Army of the Potomac......the rest is history.

Two questions for the room.

(1.) Would Stonewall Jackson made a difference at Gettysburg?,

(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?

Offline dutch508

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10031
  • Reputation: +1260/-1006
  • Remember
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2009, 12:08:37 PM »
You need to take a look at why the Conf. Army was in Penn, RfR.

There was no strategic reason for a battle to be fought at Gettysberg. At Longstreet pushed for, rightly, the better call would have been to position the Army between the AotP and Washington DC, however, that could have left them open to a flank attack by defensive troops in the DC area. If he had moved south, then he'd be traveling along the flank of the union army. If he had moved north, he'd be stretching his lines further north of his supply base- and a possible attack by union troops while thusly stread out.

However, Lee took a risk since the AotP had a new commander, and not knowing all the disposions of the Union troops, that he could bat them aside and continue to march.

Lee had to get out of the South in order to keep the enemy off the lands long enough to get a good crop into the ground. Also, you have to keep in mind the 'peace' party in the north would use this invasion as a plank to unseat Lincoln. If Lee could defeat the AotP, or even fight them to a draw- he'd win.

Supplies were a factor in moving to Gettysberg, although not the most important one. The road junctions simply served to bring all the various Corps to the battle quicker. Seazing them didn't do anything to help Lee's plan. It would have tied him to a geographical objective- rather than the political objective of the campaign.

Lee’s reasons for invading the North were political, military, and
economic. Politically, the prospect of European intervention on the side
of the Confederacy would be greatly enhanced by a decisive victory on
northern soil. The military objective was the capture of Harrisburg, the
capital of Pennsylvania. With Harrisburg in his hands, Lee could threaten
Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington as circumstances might make
advisable, and he could also cut the Pennsylvania Railroad, a vital supply
line for the Union armies. Such a campaign was a sound if bold concept,
particularly as Lee counted on outmarching the Army of the Potomac
and meeting with no opposition except that of militia.
The economic reason for the campaign had to do with such mundane
things as food, forage, horses, shoes—in fact almost everything an
army needs except ammunition, with which the Confederates were well
supplied. The Confederate commissary system, never good, had so broken
down that the army had no alternative but to “live off the country”—
not in the friendly Shenandoah Valley, but in the hostile Hagerstown
and Cumberland Valleys.


As for your two questions;

Would have Stonewall made a difference?

Probably not. Although if he had been leading the lead divisions odds are he would have pushed on and taken the 'high-ground', that would still mean, what? The AotP would have still came on, and simply positioned themselves further east in defensive positions. Lee would have still been forced to attack- or wait in position and been flanked. Pickett's Charge may have happened in a different location.

If Lee would have moved south, more south east really, what would have happened?

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/education/es5/es5.pdf

Meade, however, did not want to fight at Gettysburg, desiring a
stronger position. The line which he selected, generally known as the
Pipe Creek or Westminster line, might be better described as the Parrs
Ridge line. Parrs Ridge, in the western edge of the Piedmont, extends
northeast and southwest through Westminster. It forms the divide between
the Monocacy River drainage on the west and the direct drainage
to the Chesapeake Bay on the east. The ridge near the Pennsylvania-
Maryland State line stands at more than 1,000 feet above sea level, and
at Westminster about 800 feet; this compares with the usual Piedmont
elevations of 400 to 500 feet. Pipe Creek, flowing through the Triassic
basins north of the ridge and into the Monocacy River, is not particularly
formidable, but Parrs Ridge, to the east, upheld by highly resistant
schists and quartzites, has not only height, but widths of 4 to 10 miles that
could have been fortified into an almost impregnable defensive position


The torch of moral clarity since 12/18/07

2016 DOTY: 06 Omaha Steve - Is dying for ****'s face! How could you not vote for him, you heartless bastards!?!

Offline Splashdown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6729
  • Reputation: +475/-100
  • Out of 9 lives, I spent 7
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2009, 12:16:00 PM »


(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?

Did you read Newt's book? He addresses this very point.
Let nothing trouble you,
Let nothing frighten you. 
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience attains all that it strives for.
He who has God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
--St. Theresa of Avila



"No crushed ice; no peas." -- Undies

Offline ReaganForRushmore

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Reputation: +59/-6
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #82 on: May 26, 2009, 04:37:08 PM »
Did you read Newt's book? He addresses this very point.

No , I didn't........what happened?

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39058
  • Reputation: +2049/-124
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #83 on: May 26, 2009, 04:55:30 PM »
No , I didn't........what happened?

The North won.  :hammer:

:bolt:

Offline Duchess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Reputation: +18/-0
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2009, 12:54:31 AM »
To the stupid DUmmie who hates Southerners being buried at Arlington and want them out of "their" cemetary--DUmbazz, the cemetary came from property of General Robert E Lee.

Offline Duchess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Reputation: +18/-0
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2009, 12:59:19 AM »
I take it, sir, you've been to Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, New York City, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, and all these other big cities dominated by corrupt Republican party machines?

I've noticed exactly the same thing.

If I had to make a choice, I'd sooner live in the poorest county in the south, than in the richest neighborhood in Boston.  It's a matter of cleanliness and health; I wouldn't want to catch anything, and besides, my Nebraska nostrils resent bad odors.

Thank you Mr Frank, I am of exactly the same opinion. I can't take seriously the opinions of people who think having a Starbucks is the height of civilisation, and the south will still be doing just fine, when the liberal strongholds are marching to work in  their little grey Mao suits.

Offline Duchess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
  • Reputation: +18/-0
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2009, 01:02:46 AM »
I had forgotten that one!  It also blows the little liberal peabrain to powder when you tell them the first female self-made millionaire of the 20th century was a black.  I can't think of her name now.  She was a textile giant.

Are you thinking of Madame CJ Walker, who became rich from hair products for blacks, primarily straightening formulas?

Offline Splashdown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6729
  • Reputation: +475/-100
  • Out of 9 lives, I spent 7
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2009, 07:05:31 AM »
No , I didn't........what happened?

It's a great book, read it. Lee wins Gettysburg, destroys the Army of the Potomac, and forces Lincoln to get Grant in the game earlier.
Let nothing trouble you,
Let nothing frighten you. 
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience attains all that it strives for.
He who has God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
--St. Theresa of Avila



"No crushed ice; no peas." -- Undies

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2009, 11:20:31 AM »
~no, they weren't, as in no they weren't any 'worse' than the immigrant labor in the north. Sorry for not being clearer.

The South were the first to put on the table the idea of Black Regiments to fight, as you probably well know. One wonders the twisting and turning a la DUmpmonkie fashion the Confederate Congress went through with that idea.

Of course, the North also had problems with the concept. In the end- it worked out.

Until 1915, that is.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, I'm not sure what convulutions the confederate congress went through, but as I recall General Lee was possibly the main proponent of creating all black regiments.  He cited historical occurences, including the revolution, where countries had freed slaves who fought in their armed forces.  Considering the average sorry state of the confederate supply system, it is probably just as well they didn't to any large degree.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2009, 11:48:11 AM »
Two questions for the room.

(1.) Would Stonewall Jackson made a difference at Gettysburg?,

(2.) What would have been the outcome if Lee had followed Longstreet's advice and slide to the South on ground between Meade and Washington at Rock Creek?

1.) Unlikely.  Stonewall Jackson, to form, in the place of Longstreet would have organized whatever troops were handy and launched a probably unsuccessful attack against Union forces that had gained good defensive positions on the first day.  Longstreet didn't beleive in wasting troops, that meant that he probably took to long organizing that attack, but Jackson's earlier, smaller attack would have likely fared no better.  It is not possible to know whether or not Jackson would have suggested a flanking maneuver (visible from Big Round Top anyway) before or after Pickett arrived with the Supply wagons and essentially fixed the AoNV in the position at Gettysburg.  Since any flanking maneuver could have been seen from Union observation posts on Big Round Top, it is likely Sedgwick or Sykes would have advanced to stopping the flanking movement, but possible exposing the Round Tops.

2.) Lee could not use the advice by that point.  If he were going to make such a maneuver, it needed to be complete prior to the arrival of Pickett and the Supply wagons which required good roads.  Though it would have offered the chance for the voctory that the AoNV needed.  Gettysburg did not, there were two good roads leading away from Gettyburg to the south and east, meaning even if the AoNV forces the Union off of cemetary ridge, most of the Union Army will escape.  Not that a shot to pieces AoNV that had taken the ridge would be in any shape to pursue.

Longstreet's suggestion to fall back into defensive terrain has some merit, but that would have exposed Confederate supply lines.  It is doubtful that the AoP would have launched another attack into a heavily fortified defensive position, after their severe losses attempting that at Fredericksburg.  Then again, Lee had had a similiar experience at Malvern Hill in Virginia about a year before Gettysburg, and it didn't stop him.

I've stood on the Confederate position on Day 3 of the battle and tried to guess what Lee must have been thinking.  Why send men across one mile of open terrain under fire the whole time?  The only reasoning I have ever come up with is that Lee knew that Pickett's charge was really the last chance the Confederacy had.  He gambled his men's lives away when he could not hope to have achieved the vicory he needed.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #90 on: May 27, 2009, 11:53:18 AM »
No , I didn't........what happened?

As the other's have already said, it's a good book.  Also note that Longstreet presses his opinion one day earlier than IRL.  It is also worth noting that historically, Longstreeet and Lee had a personality conflict that may have contributed to the AoNV staying to long at Gettysburg.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline Splashdown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6729
  • Reputation: +475/-100
  • Out of 9 lives, I spent 7
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #91 on: May 27, 2009, 12:48:56 PM »
1.) Unlikely.  Stonewall Jackson, to form, in the place of Longstreet would have organized whatever troops were handy and launched a probably unsuccessful attack against Union forces that had gained good defensive positions on the first day.  Longstreet didn't beleive in wasting troops, that meant that he probably took to long organizing that attack, but Jackson's earlier, smaller attack would have likely fared no better.  It is not possible to know whether or not Jackson would have suggested a flanking maneuver (visible from Big Round Top anyway) before or after Pickett arrived with the Supply wagons and essentially fixed the AoNV in the position at Gettysburg.  Since any flanking maneuver could have been seen from Union observation posts on Big Round Top, it is likely Sedgwick or Sykes would have advanced to stopping the flanking movement, but possible exposing the Round Tops.

2.) Lee could not use the advice by that point.  If he were going to make such a maneuver, it needed to be complete prior to the arrival of Pickett and the Supply wagons which required good roads.  Though it would have offered the chance for the voctory that the AoNV needed.  Gettysburg did not, there were two good roads leading away from Gettyburg to the south and east, meaning even if the AoNV forces the Union off of cemetary ridge, most of the Union Army will escape.  Not that a shot to pieces AoNV that had taken the ridge would be in any shape to pursue.

Longstreet's suggestion to fall back into defensive terrain has some merit, but that would have exposed Confederate supply lines.  It is doubtful that the AoP would have launched another attack into a heavily fortified defensive position, after their severe losses attempting that at Fredericksburg.  Then again, Lee had had a similiar experience at Malvern Hill in Virginia about a year before Gettysburg, and it didn't stop him.

I've stood on the Confederate position on Day 3 of the battle and tried to guess what Lee must have been thinking.  Why send men across one mile of open terrain under fire the whole time?  The only reasoning I have ever come up with is that Lee knew that Pickett's charge was really the last chance the Confederacy had.  He gambled his men's lives away when he could not hope to have achieved the vicory he needed.

I'm no expert; I'm also way out of my league, so please don't think I'm disputing your opinion.

One thing to take into consideration--Which is one of the reasons I love New's book, btw, is that Meade was a brand-new general, FORCED into taking charge of the AoP, and uncomfortable in his role. Gen. Renolds, who ironically, died during day 1, refused it because he wasn't allowed a free hand.

Gingrich contends that Meade would have been forced to give chase to the ANV due to political pressure. If the Army of Northern Va. would have been able to find a defensive position, Gingrich contends, the AoP would have given chase.

Again, I don't have the chops for this debate, but it's an interesting argument, I think.
Let nothing trouble you,
Let nothing frighten you. 
All things are passing;
God never changes.
Patience attains all that it strives for.
He who has God lacks nothing:
God alone suffices.
--St. Theresa of Avila



"No crushed ice; no peas." -- Undies

Offline TheSarge

  • Platoon Sergeant
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Reputation: +411/-252
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #92 on: May 27, 2009, 12:51:11 PM »
Couldn't it also be reasoned that had Chamberlain's single file line not held during the battle on Little Round Top that the attack by the CSA would have been successful?

Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years.  The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

If it walks like a donkey and brays like a donkey and smells like a donkey - it's Cold Warrior.  - PoliCon



Palin has run a state, a town and a commercial fishing operation. Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth. - Mark Steyn

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #93 on: May 27, 2009, 01:33:32 PM »
Couldn't it also be reasoned that had Chamberlain's single file line not held during the battle on Little Round Top that the attack by the CSA would have been successful?



Had Chamberlain's line been forced to retreat, then yes the Confederacy would have captured the hill but are unlikely to have held it for very long, given it is closer to Union lines and is an important tactical location.  Something close to what occured in the Devil's Den would have been the likely outcome.

Would the Confederacy have been able to hold Little Round Top, and convert it into an unassailable defensive position?  In my opinion, No.  Little Round Top is heavily wooded and rocky terrain.  The Confederacy could not have emplaced artillery on Little Round Top in time for the Union counter attack.   The Union took a long time to emplace their artillery on Little Round Top.

Big Round Top was the more important tactical location.  It was actually clear and a good position to get artillery support in quickly.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline Vagabond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2464
  • Reputation: +160/-52
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #94 on: May 27, 2009, 01:40:15 PM »
I'm no expert; I'm also way out of my league, so please don't think I'm disputing your opinion.

One thing to take into consideration--Which is one of the reasons I love New's book, btw, is that Meade was a brand-new general, FORCED into taking charge of the AoP, and uncomfortable in his role. Gen. Renolds, who ironically, died during day 1, refused it because he wasn't allowed a free hand.

Gingrich contends that Meade would have been forced to give chase to the ANV due to political pressure. If the Army of Northern Va. would have been able to find a defensive position, Gingrich contends, the AoP would have given chase.

Again, I don't have the chops for this debate, but it's an interesting argument, I think.

Gingrich relied on Lee severing the Union supply route to force that attack.  Meade may have chosen to wait until the Union supply lines had been restored and then attacked the Confederate supply lines.  Further, the Union had a division at their disposal with absolutely nothing between it and Richmond.  Gingrich wrote a good book, but he ignored any other option the Union had available to excercise.
There comes a time when even good men must run up the black flag of anarchy and slit throats. - H.L. Mencken

Offline ReaganForRushmore

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Reputation: +59/-6
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #95 on: May 27, 2009, 06:41:46 PM »
Personally, I would have retreated to Cashtown, back up the Chambersburg Pike and dared the Union to attack. With the mountains to his back, Lee could have held the position with very few men and consolidated his forces to meet any feint the AoP could throw at him. If Meade chose to exploit the South Mountain passes, again, small units with artillery support would have battles of attrition like Malvern Hill and Fredericksburg. If Mead heads North to flank Lee, then Lee moves South behind the Blue Ridge Mountains and pops out toward D.C......... shoulda, coulda, woulda. :thatsright:

Offline ReaganForRushmore

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
  • Reputation: +59/-6
Re: More insane anti-South hatred at the DUmp
« Reply #96 on: May 27, 2009, 06:46:00 PM »
As the other's have already said, it's a good book.  Also note that Longstreet presses his opinion one day earlier than IRL.  It is also worth noting that historically, Longstreeet and Lee had a personality conflict that may have contributed to the AoNV staying to long at Gettysburg.

Longstreet was a defensive genius......his theories on defensive warfare were a precursor to the trench warfare of World War I, over 50 years into the future. The command of Lee, Jackson and Longstreet were magnificent