Posted on 06/03/2019 5:19:21 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Union General George Meade launches 3 corps of his Army of the Potomac against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia’s works near Cold Harbor. Meade’s assault is a failure. Over 7000 Union casualties and not one foot of ground gained. Lieutenant General Grant, in ordering Meade to make the attack, called it the worst mistake he ever made.
I do know that Doodle Dawg has put forth the names of several authors of Biographies on Taney, and I think most if not all were Northerners, because I actually did check that.
But aside from that, an interesting question would be, "Where was all this stuff published?"
flanking movements are as old as infantry warfare. Bold risk taking is not a tactical maneuver. Without a local farmer showing Lee an unmapped road, Jackson’s devastating flank attack against the XI Corp. might not have happened.
If it had been delayed until the next morning, it would have fallen on empty space. XI Corp had been ordered to withdraw from it’s position and return to Hookers position.
Which, incidentally, was where Jackson drove it.
No that would be the General Lee. Pickett lost 49% of his attacking force at Cemetary Ridge. “Picket’s Charge” was a replay of Lee’s assault at Malvern Hill. He ignored the old military dictum “never attack a superior enemy, up hill, when the enemy is expecting the attack. Both the Maryland campaign and the Pennsylvania Campaign ended in failure. Neither produced the results that the Army Commander planned to achieve.
Would have pulled it off had a few things gone differently, but sometimes that's just the luck of the draw.
I know USMA grads and they tell me they study the Civil War and Lee/Jackson in particular. I’ve met German Army Officers and they tell me the same thing. I actually was a tour guide for some of them at the Petersburg battlefield.
your point.
Your opinion is duly noted, but by a strict definition of the word what the Southerners did in 1861-1865 was a rebellion.
You fully understand it.
Not really, no.
You are just angry that you absolutely cannot refute it...
I don't try and refute people who believe that the earth is flat or that it's only 6000 years old either. You can't reason someone out of a position that they weren't reasoned into. You hold your position based on your own wishful opinions and blind prejudices, and will twist facts any way you can to make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
It was not “luck” that caused the failures I have mentioned.
Any more than “luck” can be attributed to Lee’s victories at 2nd Manassas or Chancellorsville
So your opinion is that Lee’s victories during the 7 days, 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville were due to his superior generalship, and his defeats at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg were due to “luck”.
That is incorrect. It was correct prior to 1776, but after a nation was created which expressly recognizes the right to do what they did, that definition is no longer correct.
Also no effort was made to takeover the existing national government. Self Determination is not "rebellion". No one has a right to rule other people.
Not really, no.
I'm pretty sure you grasp the concept of "trade." You understand this just fine, you just refuse to admit the clear truth because it does not support the rest of what you wish to believe.
The South was responsible for 73% of all the trade with Europe, and therefore they were responsible for producing 73% of all the tax revenue.
And as i've said, it's actually more, because the game was rigged to tax more highly the things the South wanted.
Again, your opinion is duly noted.
I'm pretty sure you grasp the concept of "trade." You understand this just fine, you just refuse to admit the clear truth because it does not support the rest of what you wish to believe.
Trade yes, but apparently you viewed it as barter.
And your insistence on referring to facts as "opinions" has long been observed.
You wish they were opinions.
Trade yes, but apparently you viewed it as barter.
Barter, Trade, exchange. Regardless what you call it, people want what they consider a fair exchange.
Whatever name you prefer to call it, the South was still producing 73% of it in 1860.
The North was only producing 27% of it.
Maybe it had something to do with the Acela Corridor.
Runs most of the world today, but didn't run much of anything in AD 70.
Like all your tax money going to Washington DC to be spent on what New York Liberals think is important?
You wish they were opinions.
You wish they were facts.
Whatever name you prefer to call it, the South was still producing 73% of it in 1860.
The North was only producing 27% of it.
But the North was paying upwards of 95% of the tariffs.
With money from the South, ergo the South was paying for them.
The North only produced 27% of all export value, and therefore could only pay for 27% of import value, and even some portion of that 27% was produced from material from the South.
So when the government collected over $100 million in tariff revenue in FY1863 who paid for that? What with the South busy rebelling and all?
Without war power blocking trade, the North would have been financially wrecked.
Why not? I'm playing your stupid game? If tariff is always paid by the person creating the exports and not by the person importing the item then who paid it in 1863? Exactly $102,316,152.99 in tariff revenue. If not paid by then South then by who?
Arguing the margins is not worth my time.
North weren't paying the taxes in 1860. The South was paying the bulk of the taxes, and they were only a fourth the size of the taxpayers of the North.
Arguing the margins is not worth my time.
Translation: I haven't a clue how to answer it.
North weren't paying the taxes in 1860. The South was paying the bulk of the taxes, and they were only a fourth the size of the taxpayers of the North.
Then who was paying the taxes in FY 1863?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.