Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: M36 on March 23, 2007, 07:42:27 PM
-
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and
our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers!
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to
inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously
superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by
writing editorials - after the fact."
Robert E. Lee, 1863 (supposedly)
-
My friend is related to General Lee.
-
Originally posted by M36
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and
our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers!
In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses
plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to
inform me until it was too late.
Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously
superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by
writing editorials - after the fact."
Robert E. Lee, 1863 (supposedly)
Great quote! The press doesn't really change, except from one bag of skin to the next. ;)
-
That is a truly brilliant quotation! (if Lee didn't say it then he should have).
Ravs
-
Originally posted by nirvana
My friend is related to General Lee.
A lot of people are. It doesn't mean anything.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
My friend is related to General Lee.
I'm related to Wild Bill Hickok. He's my great 2nd uncle on my mother side. Kinda cool.
I'm also related to Pres Bush but only by marriage. He's like a 6th cousin twice removed or some crap like that. Don't really claim that one too much.
-
what I love is how the big news agencies are reluctently reporting how the "so called surge" is working (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+surge+is+working)
great quote!
PS I say so called because it was allways a numbers/PR game and not an actual surge.
-
I was just trying to up my post count so I would look kewl:cry
Oh good post too, Jim.
-
so this lee guy...did he win?
-
Originally posted by Torque
so this lee guy...did he win?
He didn't do too badly given the hand he was dealt. He lost, but if he had half the advantages the North had during the war he would have won. Too much of what happened was beyond his control.
-
Wasn't Lee lucky, he didn't have the intardnet to cope with?
-
General Sherman-
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!
You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it ...
Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."
Not all of the advice was late
-
Sherman was one bad bellybutton mother****er.
-
How dare jouranlists with little or no military experience question the Pentagon? Only Bush administraction appointees with little or no military experience are allowed to do that.
-
Yes, Sherman was bad-arse. He was also a hypocrite. This man condemned southerners for starting an unnecessary war to defend a bad cause, yet he unapologetically championed genocidal war against the Plains Indians.
Oh, and "President" Grant also endorsed that policy, at the urging of General Sherman and Phillip Sheridan.
-
I dont think Sherman said that. My bull-crap detector is going off like crazy. Give me a link to the source of that quote please.
Edit: I did some searching, and couldn't find a single reference to the Sherman quote above. There are many pages with quotes from Gen. Sherman, but none have that one.
Myth- BUSTED.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yes, Sherman was bad-arse. He was also a hypocrite. This man condemned southerners for starting an unnecessary war to defend a bad cause, yet he unapologetically championed genocidal war against the Plains Indians.
Oh, and "President" Grant also endorsed that policy, at the urging of General Sherman and Phillip Sheridan.
Ethnically cleansing the plains and expanding the US made him a hypocrite because he spoke against going to war against the US and fracturing it? And why did you type arse like you're british ?
-
Aqua-Shrimp,
Actually, the speech attributed to Sherman may be authentic, for the grammar and syntax appear to be from his time period, but I can't say for sure.
On the other hand, the speech supposedly penned by Lee is suspect, containing grammar and syntax more commonly found in our own time period. In any event, I find it difficult to believe that the modest, self-effacing Lee would respond publicly to personal criticism in the press. Indeed his record of success and rock solid moral character largely rendered him immune to such criticism in any event.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Suave,
Basically, yes, condemning Southerners for starting a war to defend slavery and then conducting a war of genocide against Native Americans makes Sherman a hypocrite.
There is no moral ambiguity here and it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
I've been in London on a couple of occasions. Made friends with a couple of fine English gentlemen, and one highly amusing and very garrulous Irishman from Belfast. They held me in such high regard that they made me an honorary Englishman, and informed me that I was entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto.
So, I repeat, Sherman was "bad-arse."
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Suave,
Basically, yes, condemning Southerners for starting a war to defend slavery and then conducting a war of genocide against Native Americans makes Sherman a hypocrite.
There is no moral ambiguity here and it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
I've been in London on a couple of occasions. Made friends with a couple of fine English gentlemen, and one highly amusing and very garrulous Irishman from Belfast. They held me in such high regard that they made me an honorary Englishman, and informed me that I was entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto.
So, I repeat, Sherman was "bad-arse."
Regards, Shuckins
But in that statement he's not condeming them for defending slavery.
-
Originally posted by Suave
But in that statement he's not condeming them for defending slavery.
Oooh, shoots and scores. Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union, the South went over states' rights.
Good catch.
-
He traveled before he shot...the basket is disallowed.
A couple of points:
First, in these discussions about the origins of the Civil War you yankee boys always insist that the South fought to defend the institution of slavery, and totally reject any arguments that the South went to war to preserve "states rights." On that argument rests the northern assertion that their war was just, while the South's war was cruel and morally repugnant. While what Sherman is referring to when he mentions the South's "bad cause" may be open to interpretation, there can be no doubt that he considered it a morally reprehensible reason to go to war; a "crime against civilization."
Secondly, you've neatly side-stepped my original reference to Sherman's genocidal war against the Indians, which was the focal point of my original argument. What was that, if not a "crime against civilization" and a "bad cause"? If public opinion had not begun to turn against the government's "Indian Policy," who knows to what conclusion Sherman might have pushed that policy.
Sherman was no saint. Despised in the South as the "Attilla of the West", even some of his peers were appalled at the tactics he used in his drive through Georgia to the sea. His scorched-earth policies brought suffering to both black and white alike.
So, again, I assert that he was a hypocrite.
-
war is bad, when your in a war , you need generals that will win that war.
after you win, then you can call them anything you want.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Secondly, you've neatly side-stepped my original reference to Sherman's genocidal war against the Indians, which was the focal point of my original argument. What was that, if not a "crime against civilization" and a "bad cause"?
No I didn't, see ethnic cleansing. Nobody considered the indians civilized, let alone part of the nation.
-
Sherman didn't consider the Indians civilized. And exactly HOW does that excuse the genocidal war against the Indians?
The Nazis justified the Final Solution with the belief that the Jews were sub-humans.
Your statement that the Indians were not considered part of the nation speaks volumes about the political and moral chicanery that the government went through to deprive the Indians of their land and their lives.
This was bold, unadulterated, unapologetic hypocrisy.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Basically, yes, condemning Southerners for starting a war to defend slavery and then conducting a war of genocide against Native Americans makes Sherman a hypocrite.
No it doesn't. Speaking against one horrible thing and supporting a different horrible thing isn't hypocracy.
The necesary part of hypocracy is dishonesty. Decrying something that you willingly and knowingly execute.
He admonishes the south for going to war against the USA, (to defend slavery if you like). He never does go to war against the USA to defend slavery.
He advocates the ethnic cleansing of native americans. He takes part in the ethnic cleansing of native americans.
I think his approach to warfare was ahead of his time. He held no chivalric illusions about war and knew that the most humane path is to get it on and get it over. In fact if you read his quote you'll notice that he's allready aware that war is about materiel, not angry people and legions of soldiers.
It wasn't really untill wwII that the rest of the world's military institutions caught on that the quickest way to win a war isn't by killing the enemy's soldiers.
But it seems like the war wagers have forgotten all this now. We're back to measured responses, police actions and interminable peace negotiating.
-
Look, If I say spouse abuse is wrong, and I go home and beat my wife everyday, I'm a hypocrit.
If I say spouse abuse is wrong, and I go home and beat my kids everyday, I'm not a hypocrit, just a scumb bag.
Agree?
-
jews and indians (either indian) and negroes are all human and as such have god given human rights.
There have been those throughout history that did not recognize these peoples as being human..
They were wrong.. They weren't always evil... they were just wrong.
lazs
-
And Shuckins is right about the quotes. That quote was attributed to Sherman when Sherman was still alive, and Sherman never disowned it. So we must conclude that he said it.
And Lee never wrote or published memiors, and from what I gather, didn't want to discuss or stir up the past. It was over, and that was good enough for him.
And from what I've learned about Lee, judging from his actions and statements durring the war, and this is just my amature opinion, he wanted the war to be over possibly more than he wanted to win.
-
Hmm now you got me thinking.
Why do you speculate that Lee continued to press the attack at gettysburg even against his brightest and most trusted general's (Longstreet) advise?
Longstreet's position, and he was right, was that the northern army was in a perfect position. They wanted the south to attack. And that the confederate army should redeploy and fight on more favorable ground.
By the 3rd day all seven corps of the federal army was there and having taken all the high ground and observation points they held a broad advantage, even though the numbers were roughly equal. Lee had to realize this, indeed his general's did protest.
What possessed him to order Picketts charge in such unfavorable circumstances?
The only thing I can think of is that he knew that time was on the US army's side. The North would only get stronger, and each time he met them the fight would be more and more difficult.
He had the whole of the federal army before him, and I speculate that he knew if he didn't beat them there, he wasn't going to beat them. Or at least, if he didn't beat them there, it was going to be a long and bloody war.
-
Uhh... Shuckins? I think I said it was a states' rights issue for the south.
-
Suave,
A Southern victory on northern soil would have dealt a tremendous blow to Lincoln's administration, which already faced a great deal of criticism from the northern population. Lee understood that perfectly, as well as he understood the fact that if the war were to be protracted, the South had little hope of victory.
So, it was to that end, to strike a mortal blow to the north's will to fight, that he commenced his second invasion of the north. With that aim in mind, retreat without giving battle was not an option. His subsequent, questionable decisions at Gettysburg are predicated upon that fact, and upon the fact that Stuart was joy-riding across the northern terrain, leaving Lee largely without the benefit of reconnaissance of the northern positions and of the strength that faced him.
-
Kieran, nothing personal....I was speaking in generalities.
Regards
-
Also, don't forget that up until that point, the south had won nearly every major battle. I'd be confident myself if I had dominated the north for 2-3 years.
The same day of Gettysburg the south lost another major battle (vicksburg), and didn't do well for the rest of the war.
-
I'm related to the "Shermantor" from "American Pie".
My Dad was his Great Grandfather...
Which goes to prove one thing...
Dad was a Navy man..28 Years..
The Shermanator claimed he "tagged" it and ended up pisssin down his leg at the end of the movie...
Moral of this story is...
:huh
wait where was I?
Oh yeah....
The Shermanator is related to me.
:(
Dammmmm..... (http://www.atomfilms.com/film/more_sex_than.jsp?channelKeyword=channel_funny_songs)
-
the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.
and the indians do not have to stay on the reservations, they can assimilate into the general population and still keep their culture.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.
and the indians do not have to stay on the reservations, they can assimilate into the general population and still keep their culture.
This largely ignores history.
Ask the Cherokee. They had assimilated. Didn't do them any good.
Whites wanted nothing to do with the indian. They were pushed aside onto land that was unsuitable to any white man's needs, and correspondingly unsuitable to the indian. Concentration camp? No, but the crushing poverty that resulted made it every bit as bad. These indians were usually utterly dependent on government rations to keep them alive. Those rations often were hijacked to black markets, resulting in starvation for the indians.
-
BS, i worked along side a lakota, he had a house, mortgage, wife, kids, car, good job, all that white man stuff and he did not live on a reservation and he still kept his indian culture. He is not the only indian that i personally know that is living in the "white mans world", how many do you know?
-
The hail are you talking about John? Kieran and I are discussing events that affected the lives of Indians living in the 1870s-1900s. You're talking about the prosperity of an Indian living 130 years after Custer's Last Stand.
In terms of how whites perceived the worth of the land of the reservations, they were the least valuable of all the lands in the west. It has only been in recent decades that some of the vast mineral wealth of some of these lands has been discovered. Some reservations in the east are raking in tons of money by running gambling meccas.
Despite that, many Indians living on reservations still occupy the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.
In addition, attempts to redress some of the wrongs done the Indians, such as the Dawes Act and attempts to "mainstream" them into American culture were blatant efforts to erase the culture of Indians in order to make them more palatable to whites. Their children had to attend white run schools, give up their traditional tribal styles of dress, clip their hair, and speak only English in the classrooms. If your Lakota friend managed to retain his culture it is only because some of his ancestors made a determined effort to do so in the face of government opposition.
-
i'm sorry, you can discuss things that happened 100 years ago that we had absolutely no control over, i will live in the present.
-
Originally posted by john9001
BS, i worked along side a lakota, he had a house, mortgage, wife, kids, car, good job, all that white man stuff and he did not live on a reservation and he still kept his indian culture. He is not the only indian that i personally know that is living in the "white mans world", how many do you know?
LOL!
Grandma was full blooded Cherokee... good enough for ya?
That said, I agree totally with Shuckins. You need to decide what time period you're discussing and stick with it. If Shuckins was talking about the hypocrisy of Sherman in the context of history, it's more honest for you to discuss the indian situation from the same time period.
Your argument is like saying slavery wasn't so bad because you know blacks that are getting along just fine today.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the indian wars were not genocidal, they were to get the indians to go to the reservations, and the reservations were no concentration camps, some reservations are bigger than some states.
white man bad, indian better off living as stone age people.