What The Yankees Did To Them.

christiefan915 said:
The Civil War was the bloodiest war with the most casualties in this country's history and no general on either side deserves to be called a hero for being part of this travesty.
Click to expand...

It's not any of their faults that the CSA committed to such a bloody and devastating war. The fact is, Sherman, Grant, and other American field commanders were heroes. Certainly, the South demonstrated after the war, and for well over a century, that nowhere near enough Confederates were killed. Perhaps if instead of upwards of 200k, they had lost upwards of 400k, like we did, the South would have been a better people in the aftermath.
 
Threedee said:
It's not any of their faults that the CSA committed to such a bloody and devastating war. The fact is, Sherman, Grant, and other American field commanders were heroes. Certainly, the South demonstrated after the war, and for well over a century, that nowhere near enough Confederates were killed. Perhaps if instead of upwards of 200k, they had lost upwards of 400k, like we did, the South would have been a better people in the aftermath.
Click to expand...

Could the Civil War have been avoided? I agree with this writer.

"The extremists on both sides deliberately inflamed this conflict. The major difference between the sections on that is the extremists in the North never achieved the power and influence the extremists in the South did. Both were influential; the extremists in the South simply were more influential in their section than the Abolitionists in the North were.

What is needed to resolve this without war is compromise. What we see in the 1850s is a failure to compromise, a hardening of positions, and a deliberate inflammation of differences. I agree with Shelby Foote that compromise is the true genius of America, and the Civil War came about because of the total failure of the politicians of that day to work out a compromise."

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-could-the-war-have-been-prevented.11773/
 
christiefan915 said:
Could the Civil War have been avoided? I agree with this writer.

"The extremists on both sides deliberately inflamed this conflict. The major difference between the sections on that is the extremists in the North never achieved the power and influence the extremists in the South did. Both were influential; the extremists in the South simply were more influential in their section than the Abolitionists in the North were.

What is needed to resolve this without war is compromise. What we see in the 1850s is a failure to compromise, a hardening of positions, and a deliberate inflammation of differences. I agree with Shelby Foote that compromise is the true genius of America, and the Civil War came about because of the total failure of the politicians of that day to work out a compromise."

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-could-the-war-have-been-prevented.11773/
Click to expand...

If they had reached a compromise, the entire upper south would have remained in the union.
 
Threedee said:
It's not any of their faults that the CSA committed to such a bloody and devastating war. The fact is, Sherman, Grant, and other American field commanders were heroes. Certainly, the South demonstrated after the war, and for well over a century, that nowhere near enough Confederates were killed. Perhaps if instead of upwards of 200k, they had lost upwards of 400k, like we did, the South would have been a better people in the aftermath.
Click to expand...

And you're nothing short of being just another troll.

This country's greatest military leaders such as Washington, MacArthur, Lee, Patton never resorted to the type of total war and deliberate starvation of civilians like that list of war criminals you provided did.

You're just a religious bigot and a cultural terrorist who hates white protestants in the south and you're trolling this thread in grand a-typical little peg pants style.
 
philly rabbit said:
And you're nothing short of being just another troll.

This country's greatest military leaders such as Washington, MacArthur, Lee, Patton never resorted to the type of total war and deliberate starvation of civilians like that list of war criminals you provided did.

You're just a religious bigot and a cultural terrorist who hates white protestants in the south and you're trolling this thread in grand a-typical little peg pants style.
Click to expand...

Well, this is where you don't know what you're talking about: General Stimpson and General George C Marshall authorized and pushed for the bombing of Hiroshima, and General Curtis LeMay authorized and planned the firebombing of Tokyo.

Look; war is war and decisions are made at the time of need. Your personal view of history is lacking.

What's happened in the thread, is that you've read a book and are trying to take off on it with no thesis, no application of reason for discussing it and really no relevant context for subject matter to validate any thesis.
 
philly rabbit said:
And you're nothing short of being just another troll.

This country's greatest military leaders such as Washington, MacArthur, Lee, Patton never resorted to the type of total war and deliberate starvation of civilians like that list of war criminals you provided did.

You're just a religious bigot and a cultural terrorist who hates white protestants in the south and you're trolling this thread in grand a-typical little peg pants style.
Click to expand...

Lee wasn't an American general. He achieved the rank as a Confederate.

As for white protestants in the south, I also hate the white Catholics as well, so your charge of religious bigotry is false. I am merely a cultural bigot.

Sherman was a great hero.
 
christiefan915 said:
Could the Civil War have been avoided? I agree with this writer.

"The extremists on both sides deliberately inflamed this conflict. The major difference between the sections on that is the extremists in the North never achieved the power and influence the extremists in the South did. Both were influential; the extremists in the South simply were more influential in their section than the Abolitionists in the North were.

What is needed to resolve this without war is compromise. What we see in the 1850s is a failure to compromise, a hardening of positions, and a deliberate inflammation of differences. I agree with Shelby Foote that compromise is the true genius of America, and the Civil War came about because of the total failure of the politicians of that day to work out a compromise."

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-could-the-war-have-been-prevented.11773/
Click to expand...

Abolitionists aside, moderates weren't willing to let the South secede. Nothing, including compromising on slavery vis-a-vis the Crittenden Amendment, was going to stop those fucking retards from leaving.
 
philly rabbit said:
Have you noticed yet how a few liberals have already supported the killing of innocents as long as their white protestants?

Notice how I hit their hate buttons?

Have you heard from any liberal or neocon as of yet condemning the moral reprehension of total war because it's on the slavers in the south as they describe them?
Click to expand...


It is why l condemn war, period.

When we go to war, how would you conduct a war? What would you do to a population hiding the enemy soldiers, fields and livestock that supplied the enemy? Ignore them? What is your definition of war?

Weren't you the one who complained about the restraints on our military in the Vietnam War?
 
jet57 said:
Well, this is where you don't know what you're talking about: General Stimpson and General George C Marshall authorized and pushed for the bombing of Hiroshima, and General Curtis LeMay authorized and planned the firebombing of Tokyo.

Look; war is war and decisions are made at the time of need. Your personal view of history is lacking.

What's happened in the thread, is that you've read a book and are trying to take off on it with no thesis, no application of reason for discussing it and really no relevant context for subject matter to validate any thesis.
Click to expand...

Lincoln turned up his killing machine on civilians because there was an election coming up in 64 when Atlanta was under seige and if Atlanta had held on for just a while longer - just a few more months, Lincoln would have been out of office on his ass and the Democrats would have won the election and peace and independence for the confederacy would have been achieved. Lincoln you see was in big trouble in the polls up north with the war dragging on and more and more northerners having their sons on the casualty lists that kept ever growing with no real positive results. A better defense in front of Atlanta and the Yankees bogged down at the Chattanooga River on account of it instead of poor confederate leadership which led to the replacement of General Johnston as commander of the Army Of Tennessee by Hood which came too late would have meant doom for Lincoln and his republican party and it's Wall Street banker, industrialist supporters.

You south haters always seem to ignore this fact as you continue to justify the killing of white protestants down south while your attempt at superior knowledge over me over accurate American history comes up terribly short. Look - war is war says the parking lot philosopher always mindful of which race and religion the innocent victims of it happen to be.

And don't give me generals authorizing the nuking of Japan either trying to prove what a smart little ass you are. Both the Germans and the Japanese practiced total war on civilian populations before the nuking and although I personally don't think that justified it, you also conveniently didn't mention that fact either. Or the fact that the confederacy never held a policy of total war on civilians which is something else your miserable little half a fag ass failed to mention.

You narssissts from single mommy homes always self rightous and knowing everything that needs to be known at birth are such two faced hypocrites when it comes to who gets human rights considerations and who doesn't when it comes to exterminating your enemies by any means.
 
Last edited:
Sardonic said:
It is why l condemn war, period.

When we go to war, how would you conduct a war? What would you do to a population hiding the enemy soldiers, fields and livestock that supplied the enemy? Ignore them? What is your definition of war?

Weren't you the one who complained about the restraints on our military in the Vietnam War?
Click to expand...

No I was the one complaining about the Democrats in congress winning the war for the communists and losing the war for us after we had it won.

.... Or did you forget?

I didn't start the G damned Vietnam war Jersey and I didn't escalate it and I certainly didn't lose it single handidly all be my lonesome little self. So stop trying to turn this around on me claiming I condemn the killing of civilians in the civil war while I desired an escalation of the Vietnam war at the same time. I have done no such thing.
 
You only seem to care about white, protestant slave-owning civilians. What you forget is that the Founders justified fighting the British over the loss of freedom and liberty. By this same principle, the fowl people of the South were legitimate targets.

And since we seem to be forgetting again: Who started the Civil War by attacking an American fort?
 
Threedee said:
You only seem to care about white, protestant slave-owning civilians. What you forget is that the Founders justified fighting the British over the loss of freedom and liberty. By this same principle, the fowl people of the South were legitimate targets.

And since we seem to be forgetting again: Who started the Civil War by attacking an American fort?
Click to expand...

You're trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top