Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Does that include Pea Ridge? Or are you just talking about the small-unit fights, when you say "partisan actions"?
I visited Pea Ridge in 1987, and I'd have to score that one as at least a marginal or even a provisional Union victory. The South had great field position at the end of the first day, and could have closed out the action and forced a retreat, if not for the cowardice of the muleskinners during the night.
It didn't help that the Confederates lost two experienced general officers during the battle. The old Napoleonic habit of generals' reconnoitering by "riding out" may have cost the Confederacy the entire war, considering they lost critical leaders at Pea Ridge, Shiloh, and Chancellorsville.
Again, I gave you fair warning that if you that if you persisted in threatening me in private messages, I'd post them for all to see. Too bad if that showed you to be the bully and coward that you are, a cockroach afraid of the light.
Yes, there is.
Condemnation by the exercise of eminent domain. Expropriation. Nationalization. Confiscation. Conscription.
Want more?
All legal, btw, as long as compensation is offered. Which it was -- although Lincoln wouldn't hear of treating with people he'd rather batter to the ground.
“Sheelby Foote was speaking of the writer Faulkner when he said (and I paraphrase as even now a tear comes to my eye) Every Southern male has within him that feeling deep in his heart, that feeling before the final charge at Gettysburg when the South was winning the war and final victory was within their grasp.”
Yep, and he was correct.
But we're not talking about "PROVING your lineage," we're talking about the census being a resource. Your claim is that the census is worthless. I showed that both the DAR and the SCV accept it. You've never shown anything that says the census is no good. In the past, you've claimed that the census missed too many people to be useful. Now you're claiming that they actually manufactured people--Stand Watie's slaves.
otoh, you have RUINED what little reputation for HONESTY, DECENCY & FAIR PLAY, that you MIGHT have had previously,by doing what you did.(are you feeling "a little lonely" since NOBODY but "Mr SPIN, the BIGOT","ftd, the useful idiot" & i will post to you???)
and you are ADMITTING that you published PRIVATE communications to you from me WITHOUT my CONSENT, after threatening ME with "disclosing your private messages if you don't stop posting"???
imVho, "you are TOAST" & a SELF-ADMITTED creep, a LIAR & a TROLL.
btw, you might try posting to "since 1854". he, TOO, is a BANNED FReeper (formerly: GrandOldPartisan), who is back in another guise.MAYBE he will "LOWER HIMSELF" by posting to you????
laughing AT you, TROLL!!!
free dixie,sw
“It didn’t help that the Confederates lost two experienced general officers during the battle. The old Napoleonic habit of generals’ reconnoitering by “riding out” may have cost the Confederacy the entire war, considering they lost critical leaders at Pea Ridge, Shiloh, and Chancellorsville.”
Excellent point.
that statement is FACT! and once more (surprise,surprise!) you are digging the hole you are IN deeper.
your REPUTATION is as a LIAR, a CREEP & a TROLL & you will (imVho) NEVER change that FACT, either.
as i said earlier, as a FReeper,you are TOAST!
why not head over to DU & post your hate-FILLED, simplistic LIES, there. evidently they LIKE trolls, liars, REVISIONISTS, fools, bigots & HATERS on DU.
laughing AT you, CREEP.
free dixie,sw
"fwiw, i could find out who you are in 10 minutes IF i cared. and i don’t
i have lots of FReeper friends." 01/29/2007
"fyi, i CAN get you banned" 02/05/2007
and you are ADMITTING that you published PRIVATE communications to you from me WITHOUT my CONSENT, after threatening ME with "disclosing your private messages if you don't stop posting"???
"By the way, if you want to communicate these sorts of threats, have the courage to do it in the public forum where everyone can see it. If it happens again, I’ll post all your messages to me onto the boards." 02/23/2007
"For other generations back to the Patriot, one or more of the following items would usually be considered acceptable proof: cemetery records, tombstone inscriptions, obituaries, probate records, wills, census records, Bible records, local histories, and well-documented genealogies.--DAR
As for the SCV, what kind of scam are they running if they're charging to trace your confederate ancestry through census records, but won't accept them as proof?
LG:
I can concede, but I always thought that Johnston’s death was the damper on the Confederate drive towards the river, etc. :)
Yes, lets.
Fort Henry, Fort Donalson, Memphis, Island Number 10, Shiloh (a Union victory even if you prefer not to recognize it. The Union repelled the Confederate attack, held the field, and forced the Rebel forces to withdraw), Iuka, Corinth, Stones River, New Orleans, Chattanooga, the Vicksburg campaign, the Atlanta campaign, the march to Sanvannah, Franklin, the Carolina campaigns. Whole Rebel armies captured at Fort Donalson and at Vicksburg. What do you have to offer? Chickamauga (which was against the Army of the Cumberland, not the Army of the Tennessee) and a skirmish at Galveston.
For the most part, inept Generals like Bragg, and Hood were the only reason for Confederate Losses in the West.
And who did Lee run his string of wins up against? Hooker, Pope, Burnside, and McClellan. It the Union wins in the west are due to poor Confederate generalship then the same can be said about the Rebel wins.
Anytime there were competent Generals, the Confederates won.
So...what you're saying is that there were no competent Confederate generals in the west?
My whole point in all of this is YES, no question that the Federals won the war, but it was certainly no brilliant victory, but rather a sheer overwhelming of the South by manpower and resources!
Ha!
Galveston a “skirmish”?
I think not.
Neither was Mansfield.
Mansfield was a major attempt to invade Northern Louisiana and Texas, and the Federals got their proverbial butts kicked.
And yes, I AM saying that most of Generals that had major commands like Bragg, and Hood were NOT competent.
The Generals that were, such as Cleberne and Forrest, didn’t have the power.
Also, in the east, I don’t consider many of the Union Generals incompetent. McClellan for example, was excellent at organization. He simply wasn’t utilized correctly. McDowell was decent, but he underestimated the enemy.
And no matter how good they were, the combination of Lee and Jackson were unbeatable.
Commanded by Nathaniel Banks. Again, you claim that the Union victories are due to inferior Confederate generalship so why isn't the reverse true? Beating a Nat Banks or a Ben Butler wasn't much of an accomplishment.
The Generals that were, such as Cleberne and Forrest, didn’t have the power.
Sounds like more feeble excuses to me.
Hooker? Burnside? Butler? Pope?
And no matter how good they were, the combination of Lee and Jackson were unbeatable.
Until your side shot half of them.
True...Your side obviously couldn’t do it. :)
NOBODY was complimentary to you OR evidently thought that ANY of the fault for this mess is mine.
see what being HATEFUL gets you on FR??? (offhand i'd say that "you've shot yourself in the foot").
laughing AT you, TROLL.
free dixie,sw
your posts are:
DIShonest,
simplistic,
generally SILLY,
filled with arrogance,
and point out that you should be laughed AT & RIDICULED, rather than taken seriously by anyone.
laughing AT you, TROLL.
free dixie,sw
Again with the mystery correspondents who are either too cowardly to say such things to me directly or are figments of your imagination like so many other things. Not one single person has said anything to me publicly or privately about the posting of your threats to me.
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.