Just Watched Gettysburg

Yes, it makes me extremely happy :cool: Actually, I've only ever been taught good things about Robert E. Lee. I just never agreed with it, and felt that Sherman and Grant's records were being diminished deliberately. I had a long rant about Lee and inadvertantly pissed her off, which is funny, because she has never been a fan of the men who faught for the South. My dad pretty much agrees with me that Lee is overrated...
 
Threedee said:
Yes, it makes me extremely happy :cool: Actually, I've only ever been taught good things about Robert E. Lee. I just never agreed with it, and felt that Sherman and Grant's records were being diminished deliberately. I had a long rant about Lee and inadvertantly pissed her off, which is funny, because she has never been a fan of the men who faught for the South. My dad pretty much agrees with me that Lee is overrated...
Click to expand...

Sherman was a war criminal and Grant was a drunk and one of the worst presidents of all time.

Lee in comparison seems rather nice. All he did was FIGHT FOR HIS HOMELAND!

MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Whoops, I meant to say that I had a conversation with my mom and got to vitriolic, even for her taste. Sorry for the apparent randomness of my last post :)

Well, I admit that Sherman's total war against the South is what makes me admire him. However, my professor from last year burst my bubble by saying that the burning of Atlanta is just a myth - that he merely forced the people to evacuate... :(

As for Grant, you are right. He is one of the worst presidents we ever had, and the bad label he gave to the GOP by 1876 is the main reason why Reconstruction ended so abruptly. The corruption of the thieves in his cabinet is officially known as 'Grantism.' Why do we always have to screw things up for ourselves once we have achieved, or are in he position to achieve greatness? Grant, TR (in 1912), Nixon and W have all had the opportunity to do so much for the country and for the party label, but instead chose to piss it away...
 
Whoops, I meant to say that I had a conversation with my mom and got to vitriolic, even for her taste. Sorry for the apparent randomness of my last post :)
Click to expand...

I can imagine that. You're philosophy is in some ways directly opposed to mine and in other ways exactly the same.

Well, I admit that Sherman's total war against the South is what makes me admire him. However, my professor from last year burst my bubble by saying that the burning of Atlanta is just a myth - that he merely forced the people to evacuate... :(
Click to expand...

LOL

As for Grant, you are right. He is one of the worst presidents we ever had, and the bad label he gave to the GOP by 1876 is the main reason why Reconstruction ended so abruptly. The corruption of the thieves in his cabinet is officially known as 'Grantism.' Why do we always have to screw things up for ourselves once we have achieved, or are in he position to achieve greatness? Grant, TR (in 1912), Nixon and W have all had the opportunity to do so much for the country and for the party label, but instead chose to piss it away...
Click to expand...

TR couldn't have won. Whenever you guys were allied with the progressives, you both needed each others votes to win... it's not so much that way anymore, now that the progressives are allied with the Democrats.

But wait? Aren't the populists allied with the Republicans? And aren't they just the same people who used to be Democrats?

I feel I'm oversimplifying things.
 
No, in my book you are not oversimplifying at all. I mean to infer that TR's run was disasterous, period. Taft had a more progressive record in 4 years than either TR or Wilson had in their 8 and 6 (Wilson was incapacitated for the last couple of years) years.

Populists founded the Dem Party but are currently sticking their noses into mine, and calling themselves conservatives with a straight face. Totally not appreciated! The progressive movement spanned both parties. Technically, Wilson killed the movement with WWI, and even imprisoned many under the Sedition Laws. People can still claim to be such, but its really just a matter of perspective...
 
Watermark said:
Slavery would have stopped, but a confederate form of government is economic insanity. The CSA would be a third world backwater. People would complain about education being a violation of their rights. Abortion would be banned. Mississippi alone would probably execute more people than any other nation on Earth. Segregation would still be practiced and poll taxes would still be charged.
Click to expand...

I think your ideas about it would only have been true if there had been no changes in the south, other than the abolishment of slavery, since the 1870s.

I find it hard to believe that would have been the case.
 
Solitary said:
I think your ideas about it would only have been true if there had been no changes in the south, other than the abolishment of slavery, since the 1870s.

I find it hard to believe that would have been the case.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know. Maybe the entire rash we're in right now is just a reaction to the CSA, and without it none of this bad stuff would've happened.

It's hard to tell in history.

But I say it's OK to just force the south into correctness anyway.
 
Threedee said:
Westerners have an odd obsession with enemy generals such as Salah Udin (Saladin), Napoleon and Lee... Citizenship is not something I take lightly, as certain generals in the Civil War did.)
Click to expand...

I dont think westerners in general have the obsession.... i just think its those who are obsessed with War and spend a lot of time reading about it... they become obsessed with those Generals of the past who led great Army's, ie... those you mentioned.

I know people who have an obsession with Hitler ... while he is to be loathed...his life story is a fascinating read.
 
klaatu said:
I dont think westerners in general have the obsession.... i just think its those who are obsessed with War and spend a lot of time reading about it... they become obsessed with those Generals of the past who led great Army's, ie... those you mentioned.

I know people who have an obsession with Hitler ... while he is to be loathed...his life story is a fascinating read.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, that would make sense. I mean, I do tend to get really emtionally involved in political battles faught a century ago or more as a political historian. Obviously we know about Hitler mania, which is why the Big H is often taken to mean Hitler Chennel rather than History Channel :)

I like to compare Hitler's life to Marx's. They were both failures in the arts (poetry and painting) before turning to political theory. They were also noted for having a lazy work ethic early on in life. They were also social outcasts and douchebags...

Epicurus said:
Wow Three you suck ass.

I won't even begin to dissect your countless idiotic statements in this thread.
Click to expand...

Okay, then. I guess I'm just too mean-spirited towards the enemies of my country...
 
Threedee said:
I like to compare Hitler's life to Marx's. They were both failures in the arts (poetry and painting) before turning to political theory. They were also noted for having a lazy work ethic early on in life. They were also social outcasts and douchebags...
Click to expand...

Yep, it's easy to take a bunch of obscure points, exaggerate and/or simplify them, and declare similarity between two entirely different historical figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top