Slavery had nothing to do with the post I was responding to....the OP said the US would be destroyed if the south had won....which is categorically false. The north was trying to end the confederate government the south was attempting to establish its own separate government.
OT: History Channel Miniseries "Grant"
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
That was a very interesting addition, to be fair there were plenty of confederates that hated Grant, Sherman, sherriden....in the case of the last 2 its probably justified considering the purposely targeted civilians. But Grant not so much his terms on with Robert E Lees actions after the war went a long way to reintegration the southetn population.
Me honestly while I dont dislike longstreet...Gettysburg was decided when jackson was killed....do you think the federal army would have held on the first day if jackson and not Ewell had commanded the 2nd corp
Every writer has some sort if agenda...personally I prefer James Robertson. Although he is a bit more focused while foote has a wider range of research Robertson was probably the most knowledgeable man i ever met when it comes to the war in the Shenandoah Valley.
I'll add another one of my professors at ASU, as well as at Glendale Community College in Arizona. Dr. Gilbert Cruz. I've never met a better soul or scholar of migration into Southwestern America. Gilbert is the one that opened my mind to other views, other cultures, and their plights. He always said the Spanish would eventually take over America. We simply fought too many wars getting here, and didn't have enough folks to occupy the lands. He was pretty spot on. His book, Let There Be Towns isan amazing read. What he taught me more than history was simply this; who is paying you to write? He learned that from his days in the National Park Service. Who pays is who writes. I never forgot that lesson.
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/let-there-be-towns-gilbert-r-cruz/1112319312
http://porterloring.tributes.com/obituary/show/Gilbert-R.-Cruz-105398305
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/let-there-be-towns-gilbert-r-cruz/1112319312
http://porterloring.tributes.com/obituary/show/Gilbert-R.-Cruz-105398305
On the first day Grant and Johnston were roughly even right? Grants succes happened only AFTER being reinforced which gave him roughly 2 to 1 advantage.
That is too big of an if. Because half of his old Corp was at Harrisburg and York and part of the other was at Gettysburg. So where would have Jackson’s Corp with 4 divisions had been. Now if Longstreet has his 4 divisions on day two they would have penetrated far deeper into union lines.
Lee could have won at Gettysburg but managed the campaign horribly. Mainly because he didn’t have Jackson and Longstreet as his one two punch anymore.
Not to change the subject....have you ever read anything on Hood's Texans....very very interesting unit.
Johnston does first day. The if was what if Johnston was in charge on the second. Beauregard was in idiot.
I would love to see you provide any historical evidence regarding what influence Jackson would have had on Gettysburg. Jackson was killed in May. You have nothing but conjecture. Furthermore, no one knows if Jackson or anyone would have engaged the Union troops. Pure speculation. You made a statement of fact that you have nothing to substantiate such comment.
Yes but we can agree that Ewell's inaction was a huge factor in determining the outcome right? Honestly I've always thought that had Jackson lived Gettysburg would have just been a 1 day skirmish and lee would have pushed toward Hershey/Harrisburg as he originally intended.
This is one of the reasons I love mathematics:
Max Dehn was an incredibly creative geometer, a student of Hilbert's.
Um its because of the way Jackson commanded his forces....this isn't a new Idea.... tthe confederates had the federals running.....Ewell chose not to keep applying pressure....Jackson was notorious for kerping the pressure on. Its called common sense.
Yes. But it was lee not understanding how to manage these new commanders. Jackson wrote to lee at Chancellorsville that he would attack when practicable. Lee used same language with ewell. Ewell even said that the orders weren’t direct enough like he used to get from Jackson.
Lee did same thing with Stuart. Why send them away when you knew that hooker just made that blunder at Chancellorsville.
That's a hard sell...once grant was reinforced it was done having superior numbers was grants greatest weapon
I've read everything I could get my hands on since I was a kid growing up just south of Gettysburg. Stuart and his ride around the federal army is still one of the few things I can't wrap my head around. Why did he do it? We know Stuart was an excellent Cavalry officer, hell it has been argued that Cavalry was the one true advantage the south had over the north. Stuart had to see that leaving lee blind was not a good thing. I've read everything from he was seeking revenge after Brandy Station. To lee had actually issued secret orders to Stuart to pillage and plunder southern PA. None of them make sense.
This is nothing but conjecture. You're literally trying to prognosticate history based on nothing. You, nor anyone has any idea what Jackson would have done. History is actually what happened. Tom Brady gets hurt and cannot play. Do we sit back and say, "what would Tom Brady do?" No, no we don't. History is about reality. I can name dozens of Generals killed. What was their impact? Hell if anyone knows. We deal in facts, not unsubstantiated conjecture.
What exactly have you read on Jackson? Your common sense is like the books on the Civil War called what if? No respected historian would ever make such unsubstantiated comments. If they did, they'd be laughed out of the society, and for good reason.
if, If, IF!
Would-a, could-a, should-a!
North 1 South 0.
Oh Shut up!
Grant WAS a superior general PERIOD.
In many regards, better than Lee.
Game, set, match.
Would-a, could-a, should-a!
North 1 South 0.
Oh Shut up!
Grant WAS a superior general PERIOD.
In many regards, better than Lee.
Game, set, match.
Waiting for historical evidence. It actually matters. It's why Grant got shamed, and I could go on beyond numerous bullsh&t regarding what our government has done regarding accuracy and policy, from Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, MLK, to the KKK. It's absolute nonsense projecting what might have or could have. It's actually about what did. What did is what matters.
Lol..well first off this isnt a historical society so maybe you should at least attempt to not look down your nose to others. Secondly your tom hrady analogy doesn't really fly.....watch a broadcast or any sports panel....they are full of the what ifs. Lastly when dealing with "history" studying what happened is just as important as determining the IMPACT OF WHAT HAPPENED. If Jackson’s death is an event then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the possible impacts of that event. What I have posted is my opinion of what those impacts are an opinion which is based on Jaccksons previous engagements...his valley campaign for example. Now this being a discussion board I did not think it prudent to provide a works cited page. Now you can disagree with my opinion that's fine but You're hostility is really not necessary.
Your opinion is just that. What don't you get? History, accurate history, to those that have spent their life studying, isn't a joke of a sports show. It also isn't your Google lookup bullsh$t. You need to defend your comments. You said your unsubstantiated position regarding Jackson, prove it. It matters.
I'll tell ya what. You provide any evidence regarding a dead General, I'm all ears.
And I should care about what you think because? I'm trying to participate on a discussion and here you come interjecting you're pompous arrogance. Seriously
You are the one that brought up sports dont backpeddle now....and for that matter I dont have to do anything this is a DISSCUSION BOARD it matters to you....but here's the thing cupcake.....what matters to you is only important to YOU, to others it doesn't mean to much. Now if I were back in my college years and writing a paper then yes laying out and defending my argument would be necessary. But here it is not so you have two choices....you can respectfully disagree with me or you can continue being an arrogant a$$hole makes no difference to me.....oh and BTW dont assume you are the only one that has spent years studying history. I earned my degree in the field a long time ago I just don't turn everything into a formal debate, and you can stop with the race baiting BS as well.
Grant was correct, Lee and the other Confederate Generals that attended West Point were TRAITORS. Should have been hanged for treason.
You actually need to defend your projections which are totally unsubstantiated. Race? Lmao. I simply stated historical accuracy regarding the kkk, MLK, and the Black Panthers, and what our very government did to each. So, historical accuracy is now race baiting because you cannot defend your position regarding Jackson?
Then walk awa
No I don't have to do anything. You don't have any authority to dictate anything to me or anyone else what we have to post. And, no race baiting is race baiting our government has done a lot of reprehensible things yet you only chose examples that are racially charged and very focused on the struggles of one race in particular....its called a tell.....and a very obvious one at that.
Dude, you made your statement, you need to back it up. Pretty basic stuff. You don't, no one cares. Just don't pretend your words are valid. Pretty simple stuff. And don't call anyone an a&&hole on this board again. You went there, no one else.
Basically what you are saying is that some kind of war between the North and South was inevitable.
What would happen now if States wanted to secede from the Union? Would people support a war to prevent it or would citizens support letting stars go? Is such a question far fetched or is it a possibility?
You have just asked my favorite Gettysburg "what if" question. "What if" Lee still had Jackson, and told him it was imperative to take Cemetery Ridge, the high ground to the extreme right of the Union line (which was definitely doable), and he succeeded --- the outcome of the battle may have been quite different.
Yep!
But, at this time, I would like to thank the Lee family for that valuable plot of land now known as Arlington National Cemetary.
Thank you!
Not exactly.
It did help but his strategy; his methods of attack, did most of the damage.
So you are the ultimate expert on all things Gettysburg? Most students of the Gettysburg battle feel that had Lee's instruction's to Ewell been more decisive and direct, and had Ewell himself not been so slow and tentative, the Confederates could have taken Cemetery Ridge that first day. That said, two questions that students of the Gettysburg battle have pondered for over 150 years are "had Jackson, not Ewell, been given the same orders and responsibility, would he have been successful" and "to what degree would that have likely changed the battle". The OP merely asked a very frequently proposed question, and you climb all over him like some "know it all". Of course there is no proof --- it didn't happen. I hate to be the one to deliver the bad news, but you don't know it all. I have studied the Civil War, especially the Gettysburg Campaign, for 50 years and I still try to remain open minded as new information, insights, and opinions come along. There are also a lot of "what ifs" that relate to Jeb Stuart ending up too far east and being unable to communicate back to Lee re the strength and positions of the Union forces, but I guess you'll jump all over anyone who approaches that subject too. Lighten up on being so critical.
"What ifs" are a commonly used theme for all of history. How many "what ifs" have we all heard about WWII. How many times have we all heard the "What if Hitler continued to focus on the western front, most likely taking England, and not for some strange reason decide to split and go into Russia. Thus beginning two fronts? " That "what if" has been asked and played out a million times thru the last 70 years. And "common sense" does have to play a role in the conversation.... Of coarse it did not really happen... We all know it did not really happen. That much is obvious. But a fun little caveat about studying history is that we have the benefit of hindsight and we can all look back with knowledge at hand and make some pretty "logical assumptions". For example, If Hitler did not let ego get in the way, and he allowed the German Generals to keep the full efforts of the German Army focused to the west and taking England, it's pretty logical to assume England would have eventually fallen. They simply did not have the lasting ability to withstand a long assault by the Germans, and the USA was too far removed at that stage, physically, politically and psychologically to come to England's aid fast enough to prevent the inevitable German victory. But as we all know, Hitler made the head scratching decision to pull focus from England, and begin his assault on Russia.
If Ewell took Culps Hill or any part of cemetary ridge the battle was essentially over because the Union position was untenable with such an artillery position. Who knows where the next battle would have been. Meade wanted Pipe creek in Maryland.
One of SNLs ‘deep thoughts’ was what if lee had a division of elite panzer tanks?
Yep, thats my feelings on it. A lot of pent up anger over the war plus slaves escaping to the north would make another war highly likely.
One issue I didn't address was how long slavery would have lasted had the South won independence. It would certainly be gone by now as humanity has come a long way. The pressure to banish slavery would have been too strong to resist. I would guess that in 20 to 30 years it would be gone.
One impetus to ban slavery would have been the industrialization of agriculture. As machinery developed, the South's dependence on slavery would have diminished. The cotton gin, tractor, steel plows, all made operating large plantations without slaves profitable
But seriously, you can not read a book or watch a serious show regarding the early stages of WWII and not have the standard hypothesis about "What if Hitler had continued the focus on England and not deviated to Russia". That's practically standard WWII narrative and that's nothing more than a "what if".
Similar threads
