Is that so? In the beginning of the nation, yes. It was dominated by the south. Just look at the early presidents - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, and Taylor were ALL southerners. Interestingly, many historians consider 6 of these presidents (Tyler the exception, plus Taylor having died early in his term) to have been among our nation's 10 greatest and most successful, Washington and Jefferson especially so.
But aside from this early string, the bulk of our presidents (not to mention the bulk of our mediocre presidents) have come from the north and northeast:
Lincoln, Grant, B Harrison, WH Harrison, Garfield, Harding, Adams, J Q Adams, Kennedy, Pierce, Ford, Arthur, Cleveland, Van Buren, T Roosevelt, F Roosevelt, Fillmore, Hayes, Taft, McKinley, Wilson, and Buchanan - all were from northern states that fought on the north's side.
Historically, the population has been in the northeast, which has also led to heavy representation their in congress.
particularly racism.
Racism has long been a blight upon all of the country. Nobody denies that. But to claim it is strictly a southern thing is nothing less than absurd. Historically, racism was known to have existed heavily in the north's free states prior to the war. Alexis de Tocqueville noticed this, and in fact characterized the north as being more segregated than the south even despite the slavery in the south. More recently in the last two decades, our nation's major racial troubles have been almost entirely northern plus california. They have centered around places like D.C, New York City, Cincinatti, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles. You know. The places where the Jesse Jacksons, Louis Farrakahns, and Al Sharptons of this world stomp, the places where they have race riots every couple of years (or months). Your the one gauging Burnside from Lee's viewpoint.
I'm guaging Burnside from the historical viewpoint that (a) he lost the battle big time and (b) he directly caused the literal mowing down of 10,000 of his men by marching them into a virtually impregnable confederate line along a heavily defended geographic stronghold.
Is it you really think Burnside walked the Confederate positions in the morning?
No, it's that I know Burnside to have done what the outdated books told him to do, in charging his men virtually unsheilded straight into confederate fire. That's why 10,000 of them were mowed down, with not one even coming within 100 feet of the fence in front of the hill they were trying to take.
I won't go into the military details because I don't have time to waste on you now
Seeing as you spend your days arguing on nothing but civil war threads here on FR, I don't see why you can't waste any more time than you already have.
but I recommend Colonel T. N. Dupuy's QJM approach to the analysis of these battles.
In return, I recommend an actual visit to the Fredericksburg battlefield itself, from which point you can see exactly what Burnside's blunder was.
In particular consider the kill ratios, and don't forget that the Confederate numbers are derived largely from estimates.
Sure they are. I already noted that much in my earlier post to another poster regarding war casualties. In addition, I noted that one of the ways used to estimate those casualties especially near the end of the war involved simply presuming the "missing" counts to have been killed.
The truth of the matter is that the Confederates seldom had enough paper to keep them, nor did they have that many literate sergeants to take the counts.
And in noting that much, you only give more evidence of the truth in my assertion that the north won the war on its replenishable population and resources facing limited population and resources on the southern side.
McClellen of course was one of the very worst battle commanders in all of history.
See. I knew you could take sides within the north =)
You have a real stupid attitude.
Compared to yours, which is basically "I am right and I don't care what history or any of you say"? I do not call you stupid, so this is not a personal attack, rather a constructive criticism.
Sure. If you say so.
Your clear lack of insight and knowledge of the facts hampers your judgement tremendously.
...that coming straight from the guy who was so oblivious to the history of the constitutional convention that he had not a clue of Jefferson's role through his correspondence with Madison. Also the guy who willfully ignores historical facts that he does not want to see or read. Also the guy who subscribes to the myth of the starving sumter garrison. Also the guy who cannot fairly win a debate on his own merits and therefore resorts to the repeated use of straw men to mischaracterize and attack his opponent's arguments. Etc. Etc. Etc. Yeah. And you say I lack knowledge of the facts. ROTFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I recommend you read the source material most of the writers of the books you read never paid enough attention too.
You know, I could just as easily say the same about you, and do so more appropriately, as it is you who has the clear problem with willfully ignoring the source material that you do not want to read due to the fact that it contradicts your agenda-driven viewpoint.
I am of course referring to the Congressional Records of both governments as well as the combined OR's of both sides.
Where do ya think I found the Corwin amendment Mr. Lincoln so enthusiastically endorsed? If you focused on them instead of all the second and third hand books-for-profit
Second and third hand books-for-profit? What, may I ask, are you talking about? I do not recall citing any third hand books anywhere during the course of this debate. Most of my facts have been direct quoted citations from the sources themselves. You on the other hand have relied almost ENTIRELY on quoting second and third hand sources in their characterizations of Lincoln, plus a small number of oft-repeated quotes from Lincoln himself that do nothing more than demonstrate that he had varied and mixed positions on the issues they refer to. Accordingly, I think it is only accurate to note that it appears to be you, not me, who is engaging in exactly what you describe above, Walt. Get yourself a mirror, Walt, as you sorely need it to practice your above-posted ranting before!
you wouldn't be such a victim of your cartoonish and highly romaticized imagination.
Get this, everybody! Walt, the guy who thinks of Lincoln as the secular saint of emancipation and shouts down anybody who even remotely suggests Lincoln to be anything less, is accusing me of having the "romanticized" and "cartoonish" viewpoint! Talk about irony! ROTFLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
Perhaps too some day you would gain enough knowledge of simple facts of the world to recognize who you are talking too
Oh please! Keep going! You are killing me with laughter, Walt! And recognize who I am talking too? Sorry Walt, but I recognize you all too well. You are a hypocritical one trick pony who bases his entire presentation of history around a single agenda of smearing anything southern and deifying anything northern. No Walt, that is not an insult nor is it constructive criticism of you. It is a simple statement of fact as to what you are. As for me, you do not even know me seeing as you have only encountered me briefly over the last week (and yes, I have watched you on FR long before posting to you, seeing as you are easy to find and only post in one type of thread - civil war. I only decided recently to speak up and say something about the bilge that you post). So once again, Walt, take your own advice before that mirror, cause you need it more than I do.
not that it matters at all in this case other than you betray your traditional residual inheritance of ignorant bigotry.
Ooh! Bigot! What next, Walt? Let me guess. Are you gonna call me a "racist" next? How about "homophobe"? Or some other name out of your label-oriented democrat-style bag of tricks?
By all means, keep it up though, cause you entertain me with laughter thoroughly. You may be a historically ignorant one trick pony who is closed to anything factual that he does not want to hear, you may be a flaming hypocrite who projects his own problems onto other persons whom he does not even know, but above all, Walt, you are a riot to watch as you twist, turn, and squirm your way around from debate to debate, all the while making the democrat party's logo out of yourself on a regular basis.