Replies

Not only the Thw War Of Southern Aggression over... it was friggen' *lost,* and lost badly.

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.

So yeah, the north won. They did it by throwing man after man in front of southern guns until the south ran out of bullets. If you want to call that military genius be my guest, I'm just glad the men we have in charge of the military these days are a bit smarter than that.

> Union casualties were easily double southern casualties because, frankly, northerners didn't have very much fight in them.

That's right, because it was the *Southerners* who were the aggressors.

> 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

"Warrior inclined?" Like Hamas? Hizbollah?

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.

Union casualties were easily double southern casualties because, frankly, northerners didn't have very much fight in them.

That is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard on one of these threads, and I've participated in a lot of them. If Northerners didn't have any fight in them then casualties would be less because none of the Northerners would fight, wouldn't that be true? Instead 2 million men served through 4 years of the bloodiest warfare this country has ever been through. Unlike the confederate army, where upwards of 25 to 30 percent were conscripted, the Union army had no effective draft and relied almost entirely on enlistments. Unlike the confederate army, where in April 1862 all of the early enlistees had their terms of service involuntarily extended for the duration of the war, the Union army could have melted away in the summer of 1864 as the 3 year enlistments ran out. But it didn't. A huge percentage of those men you claim "didn't have much fight" reupped to see the job through. And they did.