Posted on 04/27/2022 9:57:50 AM PDT by Borges
They invaded our sovereign States , ranks packed with foreigner, mostly Germans, straight off the migrant ships into New York. The raised our farms , stole ,killed, or ate our livestock and foul . Burned our barns , and quite a few homes. Molested our women folk. Tore down our rail fences, ripped up.our railroads. Then after the end of the conflict, imposed a totalitarian ,martial, occupation regime. In every southern state.Nope , I don’t like ol U.S.Grant one bit. I spit upon his memory . Wish they’d plugged him good, early on.
“And had spent the years prior to that defeating every rebel general set up against him.”
Eventually. Made multiple failed attempts with Vicksburg before eventually wearing them down. Ft Donaldson? He was lucky the Confederate leadership sucked worse.
And he lost at Belmont.
FWIW, Lee tended to throw soldiers into battle in the beginning of the war. After Gettysburg, numbers forced him on the defensive. I don’t fault Grant for losing men, sometimes excessively. But he sometimes just threw lives away with no possible hope of gain.
More important, I think he often lied about what he did and what others did. He blamed his failures on others and then made sure they were professionally destroyed.
He had good points. Stubborn can be good in a general. But his lies bother me, and the unquestioning acceptance of his lies bothers me as well. I also think his ineptness prolonged the war, forcing a long siege at the end. But I admit I might be wrong on that one!
At Shiloh, he won in part because of the death of the Confederate leader and in part because he had reinforcements arriving after the first day. It also helped that Sherman - once the battle started - did a great job.
Your point? Draftees made up a small percentage of both armies. The myth of the Union drafting hundreds of thousands of immigrants fresh off the boat is so much BS. OBTW German immigrants outnumbered Irish immigrants by a considerable amount in the Union Army. As I said before, the war was fought mostly by men that volunteered.
These would be the Union officers who were busy losing while Grant was busy winning?
You just don't like it because it contradicts your narrative.
You like like it because it's disparaging, it's from someone with no qualifications on the topic they are speaking on, and it fits your agenda.
Is there some small threshold number that makes it okay for them to impress them off the boat? Is it 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?
Also, if it's such BS, why do I remember them including that in the movie "Gangs of New York"?
You also didn't address my point. If the Union drafted 10% of it's men, that's still four times what the CSA drafted.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the effect of passing a law saying you *would* be drafted unless you could pay $300.00 to get out of it.
A lot of people "volunteer" when it is made clear they will be drafted if they do not.
I’ve heard that Ike was put in charge of Allied forces because of his diplomatic skills. He could deal with the Soviets in a way that Patton could not.
I doubt such high ranking officers would voice such a public opinion. More like it is the lower ranking officers who have seen their friends and comrades killed in a futile and undeserving way.
You like like it because it's disparaging, it's from someone with no qualifications on the topic they are speaking on, and it fits your agenda.
Not so much those things, but I thought it would get a rise out of you. :)
Sometimes I find it amusing to stir the pot.
Who surrendered to who?
Ft Donaldson? He was lucky the Confederate leadership sucked worse.
You could use that same excuse to explain Lee's victories at Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Second Bull Run. Does that mean that Lee really wasn't a good general, just lucky in his opponents?
And he lost at Belmont.
And Lee lost at Cheat Mountain.
FWIW, Lee tended to throw soldiers into battle in the beginning of the war. After Gettysburg, numbers forced him on the defensive. I don’t fault Grant for losing men, sometimes excessively. But he sometimes just threw lives away with no possible hope of gain.
Grant first began commanding an army around January 1862. Lee took over the army from Johnston on June 1, 1862. So Grant commanded armies about six months longer but over his time in command Lee wracked up more dead and wounded in his command than Grant did under his. Who was really the butcher?
More important, I think he often lied about what he did and what others did. He blamed his failures on others and then made sure they were professionally destroyed.
Your evidence supporting this being?
as I recall Grant was a crook like Biden
Same crap, different day.
Also, if it’s such BS, why do I remember them including that in the movie “Gangs of New York”?
So you get your History from Hollywood?
Speaking for myself alone I find just about everything you post to be very amusing.
So you get your History from Hollywood?
*THIS* is the point you chose among many others that I made?
No, I don't get my history from Hollywood, but the fact Hollywood is showing it indicates that there are a lot of other people out there who believed that it happened.
Even Hollywood has it's historical researchers.
I guess you picked that particular point because it was the easiest to address.
What amount does your source of record give? I admit it's been a while since I've seen "Gangs of New York" so I don't recall what number they had.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the effect of passing a law saying you *would* be drafted unless you could pay $300.00 to get out of it.
Southerners could also pay a fee and be excluded from the draft. You also forgot that if a Southerner owned 20 or more slaves, he was exempt from the Confederate draft.
Well I am glad. I often feel a calling to spread joy into the world. :)
.
.
.
“Whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.” ― Jonathan Swift
Your idiocy knows no bounds.
I am not sure if the last reference is the one where he speaks against secession, because I was left with the impression that the context of the discussion concerns nullification. He made the point to me that a state cannot receive the benefits of the national union while concurrently deciding to selectively obey its laws.
In terms of a general right to secede, the 20th century provides an example of peaceful secession with Czechoslovakia and brutal separation with Yugoslavia.
James Madison, Secession, & State Sovereignty
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.war.civil.usa/p5V_C8Hm8yw
Do States Have a Right of Secession?
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/
James Madison on Secession
https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/
The answer that "the other side did it too" does not make it moral or proper.
If it is wrong, it's also wrong when other people do it.
What I am saying is that your "volunteers" may not be charged with the rightful zeal to subjugate people in other states so much as with resignation that they would be forced to join anyway if they didn't volunteer.
A lot of people in the Vietnam war volunteered because they knew they were going to get drafted anyways.
Perhaps volunteers got a better deal in both wars?
But the effect of a mandatory draft would be much greater than just the number of drafted. It would induce volunteerism.
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.