[Colonel Kangaroo]

You might want to reread your history there. Union casualties were easily double southern casualties because, frankly, northerners didn't have very much fight in them. You know you're people are naturally warrior inclined when a single army's worth of them can hold off another whole country for four years, and a lot of these soldiers didn't have basic equipment like shoes, you know.

The rebs showed a lot of fight when they vacated the formidable position on Missionary Ridge and ran all the way to Georgia.

I've got nothing against ordinary reb soldiers. I think that most of them were decent fellows whose ignorance of the larger world and its issues were misused in a bad cause by the selfish thugs who ran the Confederate show. I think reb soldiers on the whole fought decently and on a general equality with the Union soldiers. But the discrepancy in casualties was due to the fact that most often the Union had to take the fight to the rebs with the offense generally involving greater casualties. And the normal superiority of both the strategic and tactical defense was even greater in this early period of rifles.

If the myth of superior Southern martial valor was true, Sherman could not have treated South Georgia and South Carolina as his private park.

[TexConfederate1861]

I believe that if the men and materials had been equal, the South would have won, hands down. Southern Generals were the best as a whole. Even West Point doesn't dispute that fact.

[stand watie]

and as usual, your post #150 illustrates, for all to see, just how out of touch with TRUTH & perhaps REALITY you are.

PITY that you don't know that.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

IF anything you posted wasn't SILLY & FALSE, smart FReepers wouldn't "laugh behind their hands" AT you & your SILLY nonsense.

free dixie,sw