Author Topic: Your thoughts on "Yankees" (Read 8899 times)

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #90 on:** February 04, 2011, 03:16:22 AM »

Quote from: Swampman700 on February 03, 2011, 04:02:44 PM

If the south had won we'd all be speaking German or Japanese. The fact is the south didn't have a chance. The North won the war without even really trying.

`That is pure BS , The South started the war with way less in arms , ammo, supplies , food and men. They won the first and most battles and their biggest mastake was going north. Had they reserved strength by staying in a defense position the north would still be fighting to cross the James river. The inflicted more casulties on the northern troops during the war than they sustained. With out trying ? They tried how many generals before they found one that could stay in a battle get real man. They started with 3 times the troops and it still took 4 years . The South stole much need ordance from the north they couldn't even stop that. History proves the South beat itself not the north doing it .

Swampman · « **Reply #91 on:** February 04, 2011, 03:34:39 AM »

The north didn't even have to try to win the war. They just dabbled at it.

NY state alone had more fighting age men than the entire south.

They could have destroyed the south in a month had they expended their entire effort.

pastorp · « **Reply #92 on:** February 04, 2011, 02:49:54 PM »

Swampman you say the dumbest, most controversial things. Makes me wonder your motives for posting. Spell that TROLL.

You have a good day now, ya hear.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #93 on:** February 04, 2011, 02:57:34 PM »

The dumb part of what he says usually over shadows the controversial part by a huge margin. Once in awhile we can all write some that may come across to some as dumb or controversial. But with this guy its a pretty steady stream of just pure dumb. So you have to wonder.....

Swampman · « **Reply #94 on:** February 05, 2011, 01:31:20 AM »

You guys need to actually study history. The south had everything needed to win a war but manpower.

When the north decided to get into the war they won in a few months.

williamlayton · « **Reply #95 on:** February 05, 2011, 01:41:01 AM »

Shootall
I take your thoughts seriously---but I disagree. the South lost the war for a number of reason--and, well, Swampy is most correct--but I would not say it the way he does.
The South got flanked. Grant and Sherman turned the flank and exposed the soft underbelly of the South.
Fighting spirit goes a long way---but as the Japanese learned---it does not carry the battle.
really and truely---when the North got moving, the south lost the war, a war they really could not win.
Wars only benefit a few--the general population rarely sees the benefit of any war. They are started by a few--for their benefit, and the south had just as many self-serveing folks that wanted the war as did the North. Those few raise a steam for their benefit without any consideration of the many that they convince to fight for it.
Blessings

Swampman · « **Reply #96 on:** February 05, 2011, 03:25:18 AM »

It's always a "rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."

When the north stopped exchanging prisioners we ran out of soldiers in no time. In the end America was the most powerful nation in the world. Tat's why we aren't speaking German or Japanese today.

All part of God's plan to protect his chosen people.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #97 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:19:08 AM »

William, Had the South not gone north they would nould not have lost so many of their men. Would they have won , maybe not but then who knows ? I have seen reports that the north lost 3 to one men over the South. As for materials and arms the South was straped . I don't know if northern states would have supported lincon's war much longer if it had not been the victory at Gettysburg.

Quote from: Swampman700 on February 04, 2011, 03:34:39 AM

The north didn't even have to try to win the war. They just dabbled at it.

NY state alone had more fighting age men than the entire south.

They could have destroyed the south in a month had they expended their entire effort.

Really then why did they go thru. comanders so fast ? why did they lose so many battles ? WHY DID IT TAKE FOUR LONG YEARS AND COST SO MANY MEN ? The history shows what they did and that was what they could do !

williamlayton · « **Reply #98 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:48:58 AM »

The thought is well taken Shootall.
Lincoln was having a difficult time in sustaing support for the war. The North went into this campaign expecting a quick end to the recent rebelion. Had not Grant have made such great strides in the west there is no doubt the North may have given up the cause.
The key was the railroads.
Grant knew that with a little time he could outflank the South and he did this by quick and easy movement of men and material by rail.
The South had no real defenses in the west--choosing, by necessity, to mass all resources in the East.
Once the flanks were turned it was all over but the doing. Shermans march was no real feat--and he admitted this---it was just the doing that needed to be done.
The Northern generals Lincoln had in the East were much like Montgomery in WWII, great at amassing large, showy armies but with no ability to fight.
Once again, the addage that large armies cannot win battles but great logistics will always carry the day.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #99 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:57:47 AM »

True ! so what took so long ?

williamlayton · « **Reply #100 on:** February 07, 2011, 03:02:34 AM »

Finding someone who would fight and had vision--is my thought.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #101 on:** February 07, 2011, 03:17:57 AM »

Cabin4 · « **Reply #102 on:** February 07, 2011, 05:49:40 AM »

Quote from: Swampman700 on February 05, 2011, 03:25:18 AM

All part of God's plan to protect his chosen people.

Forget about the Jews being Gods chosen ones. Its now the Northern Union Army.

The amount of rubbish I'm reading here is really hard to comprehend. But the repeating source and pattern is not.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 07, 2011, 06:17:33 PM »

People claim to be conservatives, constitutionalists & libertarians around here. Yet they show support for an effort that directly contradicts the entire principal of what this nation was assembled from. This is a complete contradiction. They will never accept this and they only choose a side today, 150 years later because they can pick a winning side without consequence. Its like proclaiming who your favorite team is after the game is over. Brain washing by the liberal text book writers is, apparently very effective.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #104 on:** February 08, 2011, 01:40:30 AM »

Quote from: Brewster on February 07, 2011, 05:06:35 PM

Removed for reasons of content, the lack there of!

Sir this is an example of why Southerners dislike yankees !

williamlayton · « **Reply #105 on:** February 08, 2011, 01:56:35 AM »

When we get down to comments as I have read lately it is a sure sign that the discussion has gone from discussion to passion.
Passion has no place in historical studies--only in smoke filled back rooms where there is no consequence to be feared.
The south brought passion to a battle and lost---they tried---they lost. All that is left is the study---you can't go back.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #106 on:** February 08, 2011, 01:59:46 AM »

With out passion why would we even care about history ?

williamlayton · « **Reply #107 on:** February 08, 2011, 03:04:42 AM »

For the benifits offered---passion does not create objectivity.
It does breed discontent and fires the boilers of unrest.
there is a place for this passion but it is not in the objective study of history.

The South had many good qualities and people just as were found in the North.
I really don't see, in my travels, much difference in the common peoples around this nation.
Politics is a different subject---passion is good in politics.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #108 on:** February 08, 2011, 03:19:02 AM »

I see different attitudes as the differences . But then it exist north and South .

Cabin4 · « **Reply #109 on:** February 08, 2011, 04:16:31 AM »

Show me in the rules where only objective study is permitted and passion is not? The point here is we debate over what is posted. Objectivity and passion can at times be up for personal interpretation. And while we can just say, well the south faught and lost and that’s all there is, and end it there, there would be no need for this forum then! Obviously the specific intent of this forum is to debate the civil war. In a debate, there are opposing sides, in opposing sides there is going to be passion especially when there are significant issues being discussed. So I see nothing wrong here yet.

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #110 on:** February 08, 2011, 04:43:43 AM »

Show me a man who has no passion and I'll show you a man who will not stand up for his beliefs (or has no beliefs to begin with) in times of hardship.

The quote that comes to mind is: A man who doesn't believe in something will fall for anything.

williamlayton · « **Reply #111 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:41:13 AM »

Debate is good and worthwhile---I enjoy debating and that is what we do all around this place.
When you let your passion over ride your thinking is when one starts to lose touch with reality. it is like getting in a fight and losing your temper---the other guy has got you whipped 8 of 10 times.
keep your cool and depend on facts of opinion to carry the day.
We do it around this place real well most of the times---sometimes, each of us, get a little out of joint. That's OK if it is not the only way you have to debate.
Take you feelings from your sleeve and put them in your hip pocket.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #112 on:** February 09, 2011, 10:54:43 AM »

That's hard to do when you live where I do. No matter which way I drive here I pass the graves of Southern soilders , the trenches they lived and died in , In down town Richmond when we do a ground work we dig thru. the ashs where Richmond was burned. With so much in plain sight its hard to not show passion ! When you walk past a monument with your great grandfather's name on it on the way to get plumbing permits ................ Maybe its different if history is not so close .

williamlayton · « **Reply #113 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:18:13 AM »

Well, I guess we all have left someone in a graveyard.
I did my own dad in WWII. When I walk thru that graveyard i don't start hateing the Germans all over again. The war yes---but it is over and done with.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #114 on:** February 09, 2011, 11:20:22 AM »

Sorry about your dad . Sometimes it seems like we live in a grave yard around here . I would expect Gettysburg and other battle sites are the same.

williamlayton · « **Reply #115 on:** February 09, 2011, 12:31:08 PM »

For both sides.
You don't have to feel sorry for me--hell, I am not the only one who was left like that.
Life happens--If we planned it, it would probably be more screwed up than if God was in control.
The point being passions are best left for positive good than this kind of discussion.
Blessings

Swampman · « **Reply #116 on:** February 09, 2011, 01:59:41 PM »

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." ~Abraham Lincoln~

Brewster · « **Reply #117 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:54:51 PM »

April 12th. Burn the stars and bars Day. The banner of traitors.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #118 on:** February 09, 2011, 06:05:28 PM »

Lincoln was a traitor. He paid the price.

Brewster · « **Reply #119 on:** February 09, 2011, 06:31:20 PM »

and breakwind will delete me, I'd expect.