- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It took the Union 4 years to defeat the Confederacy
Posted on 5/18/17 at 5:26 am to The Boat
Posted on 5/18/17 at 5:26 am to The Boat
I dont know if I should reply seriously or not.
How about, "if the civil war had been a yelling contest we would all be eating grits and watching dukes of hazard reruns"
-Bob Waldstein, author Saturday Afternoon Madness, talking about the noise level of southern college football stadiums versus other parts of the country
How about, "if the civil war had been a yelling contest we would all be eating grits and watching dukes of hazard reruns"
-Bob Waldstein, author Saturday Afternoon Madness, talking about the noise level of southern college football stadiums versus other parts of the country
This post was edited on 5/18/17 at 5:27 am
0
Posted on 5/18/17 at 5:47 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
It was Romantic culture married with industrial machinery - a minor preview of the Franco-Prussian wars.
European generals (especially the Prussians) studied Union strategy very carefully, particularly the use of rail.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 6:34 am to The Boat
Takes a bit of time when troops had to March everywhere. Plus warfare was still archaic back then. Marching into battle. Straight line after straight line. Getting mowed down one after the other but still marching towards a battle.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 8:15 am to thelawnwranglers
quote:
That's with Robert E Lee loving this country enough not to go to guerilla tactics as Jefferson Davis wanted.
Very true.
The majority of people that are against the statues aren't aware of that fact.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 8:21 am to The Boat
quote:The Union was at a disadvantage until Jackson ignorantly got himself shot and then even more ignorantly didn't take the necessary step for survival.
How weak is that with all the advantages they had.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 8:34 am to Quarterite
One name
THOMAS STONEWALL JACKSON
had he not taken command at Bull Run the yanks would have won that battle and likely taken Richmond within a week.
PGTB almost lost it for them.
Then Stonewall prolonged the war by flabbergasting the union in the Shenandoah Valley for almost 3 years. Just beating the piss out of everyone.
Lee was evasive to the Union army, but Stonewall could actually win even in his retreats.
THOMAS STONEWALL JACKSON
had he not taken command at Bull Run the yanks would have won that battle and likely taken Richmond within a week.
PGTB almost lost it for them.
Then Stonewall prolonged the war by flabbergasting the union in the Shenandoah Valley for almost 3 years. Just beating the piss out of everyone.
Lee was evasive to the Union army, but Stonewall could actually win even in his retreats.
This post was edited on 5/18/17 at 8:36 am
Posted on 5/18/17 at 8:40 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
Four years is pretty quick considering the mobility and communications standards of the day.
For reference, the Germans defeated the French in about a year in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871. Make all the French jokes you want, but that's an established world power getting their clock cleaned in a year. Granted the political context and war aims were quite different between the two wars, the South was just a fledgling breakaway of poor, agrarian origins who was starting from scratch. Their military record is rather remarkable.
And the South was fighting in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863. To suggest the North quickly disposed of the South or to suggest that their victory was not still in doubt years into the war is simply untrue.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 8:49 am to The Boat
Doesn't matter, still won
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:11 am to ChewyDante
quote:
For reference, the Germans defeated the French in about a year in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871. Make all the French jokes you want, but that's an established world power getting their clock cleaned in a year. Granted the political context and war aims were quite different between the two wars, the South was just a fledgling breakaway of poor, agrarian origins who was starting from scratch. Their military record is rather remarkable.
And the South was fighting in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863. To suggest the North quickly disposed of the South or to suggest that their victory was not still in doubt years into the war is simply untrue.
The development of France and Germany in 1870 are not comparable to the United States in 1861. You're talking apples and gorillas. The U.S., especially the South, was a backwards arse place compared to continental Europe at the time. Both Germany and France had hundreds of years of sociopolitical development and economic mobilization behind them.
The greatest thing the South had going for them was size.
This post was edited on 5/18/17 at 10:15 am
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:25 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The development of France and Germany in 1870 are not comparable to the United States in 1861. You're talking apples and gorillas. The U.S., especially the South, was a backwards arse place compared to continental Europe at the time. Both Germany and France had hundreds of years of sociopolitical development and economic mobilization behind them.
The greatest thing the South had going for them was size.
I'm assuming you misunderstood my point, because none of that counters it. My point precisely was that France was a first rate military and economic power and was still defeated very quickly in an age of warfare where the travel and communications were very, very similar.
This was to point out that the actually no, the North didn't quickly defeat the South even though they had every advantage industrially and technologically over the South.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:33 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Make all the French jokes you want, but that's an established world power getting their clock cleaned in a year.
I always thought calling the French pussies was funny. They got blitzkrieged once by a much more powerful army and surrender. Now they are pussies. But people forget WWI and the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars where the French were anything but pussies.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:33 am to The Levee
Interestingly enough, with Mitch taking down all of these monuments, I've become more interested in the Civil War now than ever before. Thanks Mitch.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:38 am to ChewyDante
quote:
This was to point out that the actually no, the North didn't quickly defeat the South even though they had every advantage industrially and technologically over the South.
There was virtually no standing army, almost zero infrastructure where they were fighting, and a lack of understanding of the capability of their weaponry (really applies to both sides).
They dicked around for two years, but they did fine.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:39 am to The Boat
quote:
How weak is that with all the advantages they had.
Their major weakness was the fact that the vast majority of the pre-war army's officer corps was from the South. Almost all of them, with a few notable exceptions here and there, went South. It took a good while for the cream of the crop (namely Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan) to rise to the top of the food chain in the Union army.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:40 am to Superior Pariah
quote:
I always thought calling the French pussies was funny. They got blitzkrieged once by a much more powerful army and surrender. Now they are pussies. But people forget WWI and the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars where the French were anything but pussies.
Along with the Mongolian hordes and Alexander of Macedon's sweep, the French military had arguably the greatest history of any land power in the world up to 1939.
ETA: It's not just Napoleon, either.
This post was edited on 5/18/17 at 10:41 am
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:44 am to Sao
quote:
The South should have just complied like they were told.
I hope this is sarcasm. I understand the victor gets the spoils and history is whitewashed, but these were two separate nations. The Confederate States went through constitutional proceedings to withdraw from the Union and create their own. It wasn't treasonous, nor unlawful. The whole war started when the Union refused to withdraw military presence from the newly formed country after long diplomatic proceedings and un-kept promises by the Union. The Union invaded a foreign nation and committed various acts that were considered war crimes internationally. While the whitewashed version of the cause is noble and even lauded as exemplary, the routes used by the Union were anything but.
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:45 am to AwesomeSauce
Mini hijack...anyone recommend a good read on the civil war?
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:47 am to The Boat
Melt day 55,556...and counting. 
This post was edited on 5/18/17 at 10:47 am
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:50 am to The Boat
quote:
How weak is that with all the advantages they had.
Now just look at our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Posted on 5/18/17 at 10:50 am to lsugrad35
quote:
Mini hijack...anyone recommend a good read on the civil war?
Rebel Yell is a favorite of the history buffs on the board.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News