Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy Mega Pack releases on SteamDeal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 5:14:34 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 6845
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

or pound them relentlessly without much regard for casualties (Grant).


Catton and a couple of others have shown that was not Grant's strategy at all. His casualty rate per engagement was in most cases lower than the casualties that US and rebel armies suffered under the command of other general officers. About 2:1 overall which was, considering the time period, very good.

Grant's strategy was rather more one of remaining constantly engaged. So there were fewer "one big battle" events and more a constant stream of casualties. It robbed the Army of Northern Virginia of the only thing its commanders could use to good effect -- strategic initiative. Once Lee was pinned down by the Army of the Potomoc, the rest of the US armies were free to run wild.


Once again, I am a Southern boy at heart, but the best general of the conflict was Sam Grant. Many good generals won great battles during the conflict. However, Grant destroyed armies. I can't really think of any other general officer who did that. Not like Grant did.

"I can't spare this man--he fights." Lincoln



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 91
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 8:34:22 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

You won't get too many southerners admitting this but the simple fact is that no Confederate general, and this most definitely includes Lee, had any idea how to win the war for the south.




I was born and raised in Louisiana and I have to agree with this.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 92
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 8:38:07 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

All this expression of Southerly love is making me uncomfortable...

Just for those comments, Canoerebel, I'm not bringing you back any kumis the next time I go to Kazakhstan!

ETA: I am going to San Diego this summer for a convention. We're having a party on the deck of the Midway at harbor there. No pictures for you!



I live in San Diego. I'd love to have lunch with you if you have the time.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 93
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 6:38:41 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
You won't get too many southerners admitting this but the simple fact is that no Confederate general, and this most definitely includes Lee, had any idea how to win the war for the south.

I do agree with ilovestrategy. I think almost all Southrons would admit that, pal (except the Texicans, of course ). The parallels between the War of Northern Aggression and the Pacific War are many and varied, and the US Civil War often comes up in the context of strategic analysis of the Pacific conflict. Because ilovestrategy is a righteous dude and seems to love strategy, this is dedicated to him.

Generals, as a rule, don’t have the responsibility of defining a war winning strategy. That’s at the political/policy board level, at which generals have input but don’t control (unless they also run the govt like Fredrick or Nappo). It’s quite illuminating to consider that both Japan and the CSA were run by soldiers, or ex-soldiers, who thought of themselves as generals. Note; I am NOT equating Davis to Tojo, just remarking on the similar philosophical composition of each nation’s policy board level.

In the CSA, every general had to obtain approval of their campaign plans from the President, which were invariably altered by Davis.

In Japan, every IJN plan had to get approval from IJGHQ (effectively the govt, under Tojo), and which were invariably altered by the IJA: and vice versa.

Neither the CSA, nor Japan had any hope (or even contemplation) of winning the war by a resounding strategic victory over opposing forces. Their only hope was to achieve significant defensive victories that would sap the morale and will-to-continue of the opponent. They were both classical attritional situations (strategically, not necessarily tactically).

Both the CSA and Japan depended on foreign intervention. Japan depended on Germany beating Russia, or at least keeping her occupied and keeping the Westerns busy, thereby supporting the ‘weariness’ strategy. What they missed was the ‘outrage effect’ that just put the economic powerhouse in a higher gear, so it really didn’t matter squat what happened in Russia, Japan was toast sooner or later.

The CSA’s dependence was a bit more prosaic. They wanted (nay, required) active intervention. They first tried ‘cotton is king’, but all that did was push development of long staple Egyptian. Then they tried ‘we are your historical brothers, and here’s your chance to humiliate the hated Yankee and gain an economic foothold’. This was getting some traction so long as Southern arms demonstrated an ability to maintain the integrity of the State, but then along came the Emancipation Proclamation.

Once the conflict was cast in those terms, there was no way that GB would ever come in. Even a 10-year-old, remembering her actions in the 1812 conflict, would realize that GB would never, ever, allow herself to be tarnished with any association with slavery, whatsoever. A not sufficiently realized practical and political effect that Lincoln understood ohh, so well.

Ok. That’s an extremely brief background of the context within which a General must operate. Anybody out there have any suggestions about how any General, on either side, could have figure it out and done it different.

Btw, Scott’s Anaconda plan, which was what got eventuated, bears a remarkable similarity to Nimitz’ operational concepts in the Central Pacific (ok, and MacArthur’s in SWPac). Just conceptually internalize Guadalcanal as Donelson; then Shiloh and Vicksburg as the Gilberts and Marshalls. Sherman’s strike through the heartland might, perhaps, evoke New Guinea/Philippines, while the Marianas/Okinawa suggest the final campaign to the Petersburg line and ‘the end’.

[ed] ok, so that's an over gloss of my professional opinion. On a personal level, I believe the parallels can be extended further. Both the Southern States and Imperial Japan, were sucked into precipitous and premature conflicts by the actions of a pack of sabre-rattling, self-absorbed, self-centered, utterly brainless "politicians".

Time, and attention to the economics of things, and attention as to how to make those things work for ya, rather than being a millstone, would have had some significantly different consequences. The Southern States shoulda, coulda, and our national landscape might have been very different. Japan shoulda, coulda, and the post war landscape would have been very different indeed.

< Message edited by JWE -- 3/23/2012 7:19:24 PM >


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 94
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 7:21:35 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 3453
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

... Btw, Scott’s Anaconda plan, which was what got eventuated, bears a remarkable similarity to Nimitz’ operational concepts in the Central Pacific (ok, and MacArthur’s in SWPac). Just conceptually internalize Guadalcanal as Donelson; then Shiloh and Vicksburg as the Gilberts and Marshalls. Sherman’s strike through the heartland might, perhaps, evoke New Guinea/Philippines, while the Marianas/Okinawa suggest the final campaign to the Petersburg line and ‘the end’.


I thought the Pacific war was more a "high road, low road" approach with Nimitz taking the more direct route, giving MacArthur more men and amphibious photo ops.

Then, somewhere along the way someone realized we could bypass and isolate enemy-held islands.

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 95
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 9:04:05 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6582
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I just blame the dog.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 96
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 9:54:09 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6845
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
"As we say out West, if a man can’t skin, he must hold a leg while somebody else does.” Lincoln commenting on Grants overall plan.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 97
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 9:58:28 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I thought the Pacific war was more a "high road, low road" approach with Nimitz taking the more direct route, giving MacArthur more men and amphibious photo ops.

Then, somewhere along the way someone realized we could bypass and isolate enemy-held islands.


More like "My road: no, MY road!" When the JCS couldn't decide in favor of either King of MacArthur they let them both proceed.

Both Mac and Nimitz and the staffs under them originally envisioned a slow advance base by base. The most famous being Mac's plan to take back Rabaul. Depending on which Bio you read, it was either Mac or one of his intel subordinates (Fellers) who came up with the bypassing idea. Halsey learned the benefits of this after the near disaster at the start of Cartwheel.

Like the "North" vs. "South" however....the US ultimately had the resource muscle to pull off a two pronged major offensive which served to help split and distract Japanese defensive efforts


(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 98
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/23/2012 10:04:07 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6845
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I thought the Pacific war was more a "high road, low road" approach with Nimitz taking the more direct route, giving MacArthur more men and amphibious photo ops.

Then, somewhere along the way someone realized we could bypass and isolate enemy-held islands.


More like "My road: no, MY road!" When the JCS couldn't decide in favor of either King of MacArthur they let them both proceed.

Both Mac and Nimitz and the staffs under them originally envisioned a slow advance base by base. The most famous being Mac's plan to take back Rabaul. Depending on which Bio you read, it was either Mac or one of his intel subordinates (Fellers) who came up with the bypassing idea. Halsey learned the benefits of this after the near disaster at the start of Cartwheel.

Like the "North" vs. "South" however....the US ultimately had the resource muscle to pull off a two pronged major offensive which served to help split and distract Japanese defensive efforts





Yep, I don't think it was in the end a bad way to go.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 99
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/24/2012 9:05:42 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4379
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Guys, as for someone who only has vague knowledge on the Civil War (that it took place from 1861-65 resides in memory
because I happened spend countless hours playing North&South ) I highly apprechiate your analysis of Gettysburg.

Very interesting read. Thank you!

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 100
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 12:35:50 AM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
After reading all of this I had of course to watch that Gettysburg movie O.o Very good one, the Picket charge made me cry ....twice -.-

_____________________________



(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 101
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 1:45:04 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Me and my boys (17 and almost 15) watched Gettsyburg last night.  We do this about once a year.  Once again, I could not bring myself to watch Pickett's Charge.  It's a personal thing and very hard to put into words, but I just can't do it.  I'm glad the South lost the war.  I'm glad the United States were reunited.  I'm glad slavery came to an end sooner rather than later.  But I love the South, and Pickett's Charge is too painful to watch.

However...I did catch mistake in the movie this time, in part because of this thread.  I was paying closer attention to the part dealing with Ewell's failure to attack Cemetery Hill at the end of the first day of the battle.

The movie handles this very well, through the complaint made by General Trimble to General Lee:  "I told that man," Trimble says, speaking of Ewell, "that if he would give me one division, I would take that hill...."  Great scene, but at least twice, General Trimble point out that he had a couple of witnesses:  Generals Gordon and "Ewell."  He mean to say Gordon and Early.  :)

As we watched the movie last night, we realized that next July (2013) will be the 150th anniversary of the battle.  We're going to try to go.  If we make it, we're going to walk Pickett's Charge. 

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 102
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 2:24:53 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 17391
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
As we watched the movie last night, we realized that next July (2013) will be the 150th anniversary of the battle.  We're going to try to go.  If we make it, we're going to walk Pickett's Charge. 


Dan,

I have mixed feelings about the Gettysburg battlefield. The battlefield itself and the monuments thereupon are worthwhile to see and walk. You get a sense of scale that would otherwise be difficult to judge unless you've been there.

I was sorely disappointed with the town and the rampant commercialism of the town. It almost moved me to angry tears that (I'm not making this up) Pickett's Buffet was very near the site of the infamous charge that spilled the blood of so many fine Americans. For someone like yourself with a code of honor about historical accuracy, this may pain you more deeply than the thoughts evoked by the battlefield itself.

Of course, if you're making it up to Pennsylvania, you need to see Philadelphia and some of the nearby Revolutionary War battlefields, including the Brandywine. I used to live not far from there. Antietam would be on your way if you drove up from Georgia.

I think it's great that you're thinking about going to Gettysburg and surrounds. But won't this require you leaving Georgia for Yankee country?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 103
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 2:53:40 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3422
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I feel the same way as CR. I'm glad in an abstract sense that we lost, and slavery can never be justified, but in the end, I'm a Southerner.


_____________________________

Follow my latest AAR as I do battle with our resident author Cuttlefish at: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2742735

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 104
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:16:08 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8214
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

crsutton, thanks for posting.  Note, however, that Vicksburg capitulated on the same day that Lee retired from Gettysburg - July 4, 1863.  Thus, my family refuses to celebrate that as a holiday (we do so jokingly, though, even while on our way to observe fireworks in celebration of Indepence Day).


My dad would always fly the Union Jack on the 4th of July at our house in Richmond as I grew up (which house, BTW, was on Confederate Avenue).

My personal belief is that the battle was lost by day 2. The Union defensive line from Culp's Hill to the Round Tops was too strong. The best move would have been to disengage and move ESE towards Baltimore in the hopes of finding a more favorable field of battle. Thus, in the long run, I feel that the loss lies squarely on the shoulders of Gen'l Lee (a very distant cousin).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 105
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:20:48 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The parallels between the War of Northern Aggression and the Pacific War are many and varied, a


Especially the part where the United States emerges victorious from a war with aggressor force whose sole unifying ideology is an overblown sense of racial superiority.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/26/2012 3:21:24 AM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 106
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 10:18:32 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1215
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Once again, I could not bring myself to watch Pickett's Charge. But I love the South, and Pickett's Charge is too painful to watch.

As we watched the movie last night, we realized that next July (2013) will be the 150th anniversary of the battle. We're going to try to go. If we make it, we're going to walk Pickett's Charge.


Although I have little personal relationship to this, naturally, I do feel the same. I have a hard time to focus on that part of the movie. It's a bit like seeing a free people fail, since part in me feels the Southerns had a logic right to secede. Slavery, sure was a bad thing, and the logic that prevailed among some Southerns about this matter back then was pretty ... strange. But people joining a cause for me naturally have the right to leave it as well, in private life as much as anywhere else. Maybe they can be sued for the consequences, but to use of military force to bring them back... nay. So on some level I can understand the Southern cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I have mixed feelings about the Gettysburg battlefield. The battlefield itself and the monuments thereupon are worthwhile to see and walk. You get a sense of scale that would otherwise be difficult to judge unless you've been there.


The battlefield is largely an awesome sight. The scales, the views, the feeling Lee must have had standing on Cemetery Hill, or Hancock on the fatefull days from Cemetery Ridge. The view for Little round, the Devils Den. Just awesome. It lets one understand certain decisions much better, and also certain mistakes and confusions. Years of playing computer games and reading books somehow made it all sound much easier than it actually was, and putting blame on Ewell or Early for not pushing harder, or on Law for not feeling around Big Round, suddenly doesn't seem so easy anymore.
I would assign some blame on Lee and Ewell, and a bit on Early, for not following up that late afternoon and taking Culps Hill, but then again the terrain there and the town must have caused disorder, and how good the control and situation was is foggy. Lee for not creating a concerted effort by sending Anderson and Johnson for support of that task, and for letting Early getting blooded at foot of Cemetery Hill (was it Avery and Gordon to have suffered badly late that afternoon, right?).
The major failure is I think Lee, who failed to replace Ewell in due time, and failed to listen to Longstreet. With a Jackson on hand, I can imagine that a rapid flank movement either south to Mine Run environs or around Big Round, or even more aggressively, to the east would have been in the cards.

The battlefield and town, though, would better have been left more untouched. In parts too much has already changed, and all those tarmac roads are just terrible for a European. Better offer only walking tours on historic roads... Fortunately the battlefield is much better preserved than for example Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg or the Seven Days battlefields. Too bad for something that shaped the US history like no other time. I don't know about the Western parks, but some seem pretty well secured.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
You won't get too many southerners admitting this but the simple fact is that no Confederate general, and this most definitely includes Lee, had any idea how to win the war for the south.


Generals, as a rule, don’t have the responsibility of defining a war winning strategy. That’s at the political/policy board level, at which generals have input but don’t control (unless they also run the govt like Fredrick or Nappo). It’s quite illuminating to consider that both Japan and the CSA were run by soldiers, or ex-soldiers, who thought of themselves as generals. Note; I am NOT equating Davis to Tojo, just remarking on the similar philosophical composition of each nation’s policy board level.


My impression was that Davis always had an open ear for Lee's suggestions and ultimately Lee's plans were usually adopted by Davis?

The ultimate question remains: assuming no international intervention would have occurred, how could the CSA have then shaped their strategy to still have a chance of winning?
And how would the criteria and perceptions back in history have been about this? Obviously, the thinking at that time, and hence the decisions and strategies must have been very different than from our viewpoint today. When 1% casualties cause bad press, and 3% would be a modern military disaster, but occupation in many countries only triggers a guerrilla resistance, it is pretty clear that the goals of campaigns and wars today and 150 years ago, and their effects on the will of the people to fight, are much different. So what would have convinced the USA to ask for peace, and accept the CSA? A successful Antietam campaign with subsequent consequences for Maryland and Washington? A Gettysburg campaign aimed foremost at the destruction of the Army of Potomac?



< Message edited by janh -- 3/26/2012 10:21:14 AM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 107
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 10:22:05 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

  Once again, I could not bring myself to watch Pickett's Charge.  It's a personal thing and very hard to put into words, but I just can't do it.  I'm glad the South lost the war.  I'm glad the United States were reunited.  I'm glad slavery came to an end sooner rather than later.  But I love the South, and Pickett's Charge is too painful to watch.





Me too, me too. It is too painful for me to watch and there is not a soul here in California that could possibly understand. I also cannot watch it, being born and raised in Louisiana. Like you I am glad the South lost the war and slavery was ended with the United States being reunited. But something resonates in me when I see the Stars and Bars. It's a sign of where I grew up and I'll always be a Southerner.

But I have to admit though, Boston Cream Pie is something I have to thank the Yankees for!

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 108
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:24:32 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16071
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
When you visit Gettysburg and stand on Seminary Ridge and look across toward the Union position you just have to say "What the Hell was he thinking?" No trees, little topography until the gentle rise on the opposite side. And it is a long way.

The town itself is a bit commercialized, this is true, but one doesn't have to stop there. Most of the battlefield is devoid of modern structures, power lines, etc. There is nothing on McPherson ridge. The Seminary is still there (or rebuilt). LRT and the Peach Orchard apparently have more trees than was true historically but I understand the Park Service tried to remedy this. It is definitely worth a visit.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 3/26/2012 3:25:16 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 109
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:36:11 PM   
LST Express


Posts: 509
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Texas
Status: online
When I was there I took the time to walk from Seminary ridge to Cemetary ridge, thinking the whole time, you have got to be kidding me!

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 110
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:47:05 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6845
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Me and my boys (17 and almost 15) watched Gettsyburg last night.  We do this about once a year.  Once again, I could not bring myself to watch Pickett's Charge.  It's a personal thing and very hard to put into words, but I just can't do it.  I'm glad the South lost the war.  I'm glad the United States were reunited.  I'm glad slavery came to an end sooner rather than later.  But I love the South, and Pickett's Charge is too painful to watch.

However...I did catch mistake in the movie this time, in part because of this thread.  I was paying closer attention to the part dealing with Ewell's failure to attack Cemetery Hill at the end of the first day of the battle.

The movie handles this very well, through the complaint made by General Trimble to General Lee:  "I told that man," Trimble says, speaking of Ewell, "that if he would give me one division, I would take that hill...."  Great scene, but at least twice, General Trimble point out that he had a couple of witnesses:  Generals Gordon and "Ewell."  He mean to say Gordon and Early.  :)

As we watched the movie last night, we realized that next July (2013) will be the 150th anniversary of the battle.  We're going to try to go.  If we make it, we're going to walk Pickett's Charge. 


I agree. All my life I have loved my Southern heros. But I will have nothing to do with any sort of revisionist stuff. I'm am not willing to fool myself about that. When Sherman marched through my native state of Georgia, he was not just wrecking homes and towns. He was wrecking a unworkable culture and society that had to be wrecked in order to have any chance to function in a modern world. Mind you, I am not saying that "wrecking" on any level is good. But War is Hell and you can't escape from that. What came out of our Civil War it was the most powerful empire that has ever existed. And that has been pretty much a good thing for all of us (in the US-others may disagree )-Northerner or Southerner we are all better off. Union forever!




_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 111
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 3:50:33 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16071
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I found this. The NPS definitely got out the chainsaws. Here is Devil's Den from LRT, 2008. Not sure I approve the position of the parking lot but still.

I realize this will spam some browsers...but


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 112
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 5:54:24 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3567
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

... But people joining a cause for me naturally have the right to leave it as well, in private life as much as anywhere else. Maybe they can be sued for the consequences, but to use of military force to bring them back... nay. So on some level I can understand the Southern cause...



Lincoln's considered written opinion on whether the southern states had a legal right to secede is a masterpiece. His conclusion that secession was illegal meant that it was the South which took up arms illegally, not the North. No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position.

It was illegal then, it is still illegal today for any of the American states to secede. There is no provision in the constitution to allow unilateral secession. The constitution would need to be amended to create a process by which a state could secede.

Alfred

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 113
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 6:23:38 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8046
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

... But people joining a cause for me naturally have the right to leave it as well, in private life as much as anywhere else. Maybe they can be sued for the consequences, but to use of military force to bring them back... nay. So on some level I can understand the Southern cause...



Lincoln's considered written opinion on whether the southern states had a legal right to secede is a masterpiece. His conclusion that secession was illegal meant that it was the South which took up arms illegally, not the North. No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position.

It was illegal then, it is still illegal today for any of the American states to secede. There is no provision in the constitution to allow unilateral secession. The constitution would need to be amended to create a process by which a state could secede.

Alfred



Ah, the old Westphalia trick. Good one, Chief!

You are of course quite correct. If nothing else the situation in 1861 illustrates the good practice of always reading the document before one signs.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 114
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 6:41:48 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16071
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

... But people joining a cause for me naturally have the right to leave it as well, in private life as much as anywhere else. Maybe they can be sued for the consequences, but to use of military force to bring them back... nay. So on some level I can understand the Southern cause...



Lincoln's considered written opinion on whether the southern states had a legal right to secede is a masterpiece. His conclusion that secession was illegal meant that it was the South which took up arms illegally, not the North. No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position.

It was illegal then, it is still illegal today for any of the American states to secede. There is no provision in the constitution to allow unilateral secession. The constitution would need to be amended to create a process by which a state could secede.

Alfred



I think there may now be a few states that nobody would miss.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 115
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 7:47:32 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 693
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Her Majesty's Government used the following definition:

"Sovereignty. - A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country, is a foreign sovereign state."

Of course, there is a much better description of British foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 116
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 7:53:53 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 693
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline
Incidentally, I believe you are referring to Max Weber and his concept of Gewaltmonopol des Staates, that is, "the State's monopoly on violence".

According to Weber a state is a single entity that upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its authority over a given defined territory.

His concept was a further development of the concept of Westphalian nation-state sovereignty, which was founded on the principles of territoriality and a monopoly for internal agents on involvement in domestic structures (i.e. no external agents having a role).

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 117
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 8:27:32 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3025
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Her Majesty's Government used the following definition:

"Sovereignty. - A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country, is a foreign sovereign state."

Of course, there is a much better description of British foreign policy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8




Then there are the shades of grey. Lots of examples, the split up of Yugoslavia comes to mind as a recent example. Where outside goverments directly or indirectly supported the "break out states" and not the original state. Same could be said of the war of liberation, where well future "north" had no problem using arms and justifying it against its "own state".
This isnt to say the south or north was right just pointing out that in sooo many cases, u construct arguements with the facts that fits into ur arguement to show what is right/wrong. Is how the human mind works, in most cases.

Any how, Cap u ever seen the episode of top gear UK, where they take a road trip in USA?
"Irony deficiency", hilarious.

Kind regards

Rasmus

(in reply to CT Grognard)
Post #: 118
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 8:31:52 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position.


It's interesting that Lincoln would make the case on THAT grounds because constitutionally it's just wrong. The USA did then and still does have many jurisdictions independent of the Federal Gov't that have the equivalent of militias.

I'd have figured that Lincoln's best argument was that the secession did not follow a constitutionally valid process. I figure it *could* be legally done, but you'd have to have a constitutional amendment abandoning Federal jurisdiction within the area defined to secede.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 119
RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg - 3/26/2012 8:52:29 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Lincoln's considered written opinion on whether the southern states had a legal right to secede is a masterpiece. His conclusion that secession was illegal meant that it was the South which took up arms illegally, not the North. No State (in the sense of the duly authorised national government) which most definitely since the Treaty of Westphalia claims a monopoly over internal military forces and their use, can tolerate any segment within the State from challengining that monopolistic position.

It was illegal then, it is still illegal today for any of the American states to secede. There is no provision in the constitution to allow unilateral secession. The constitution would need to be amended to create a process by which a state could secede.

Alfred

Lincoln's arguments are quite compelling. But he ignores the arguments put forth by Otis, Gerry, Adams, et al, in favor of secession by the new England States in 1814: the very States that were so opposed to that proposition just 35 years later.

Is it "legal" to secede? That has never been definitively decided, and perhaps rightfully so. After the War of Sucession, there were several Amendments made to the Constitution, but not one (nada, rien, nichts, nichevo) said a State couldn't secede; a fundamental State Right that is still in play, today. After the whole War thing and all, you would think they would make it clear, I mean, they had a perfect opportunity, but they didn't. Why not? Because States Rights were still a fundamental principle of the National establishment.

Just think about that for a minute.

The study of Constitutional Law is an exercise in whimsical, Mescaline dreams, and depends, solely, on the who-what-where-why and 'how big is my winkie', of whatever Supreme Court Justice happens to be in power at the time.

It was never constitutionally illegal to secede. It is not now, and has never been, constitutionally illegal to secede. States Rights is a nascent concept, waiting in the wings. Liberty has multiple birthplaces and every State is a separate incubator (T.Paine, paraphrased).

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121