Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2011, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,967,234 times
Reputation: 21237

Advertisements

Hamish Forbes

Quote:
Yes. Now how does this "prove" that the behavior of Christians during the crusades was worse, in any way, than the sacking of Carthage?
You have forgotton your own thesis...that Christian massacres were somehow or other "enlightened" compared to non Christian slaughters. I have argued nothing which requires me to establish that Christian slaughter was worse, only that it wasn't any more "enlightened." That of course means that it is you who must provide the evidence that Christian slaughter was the product of comparative enlightened dynamics.

Got any?


Quote:
You've just said (above) that the behaviors of the conquerers were roughly the same, although this seems to me to be quite inaccurate -- Jerusalem and its environs fared better than Carthage.
Whether slaughtered/enslaved/displaced by Romans or Crusaders, makes little difference to the victim. I would actually rank the sack of Carthage as the more reasonable of the two events, at least Rome had a purpose, if a rather selfish purpose...to eliminate Carthage forever as an economic and political rival. The Crusaders slaughtered Jews because...they were Jews.


Quote:
In other words, there is no reason to keep harping on the misbehavior of Christians. Their behavior was generally par for the course, or better, for the times. You clearly don't like Christians (I don't care), but there is no need to keep disparaging them, and rather ill-mannered to do so. .
A) You raised the subject first...and have responded to each of my posts. I am harping on Christians to no more or less a degree than you are trying to promote them.

B) You need to embrace the idea that religious disagreement is not automatic "ill manners." Your current thinking holds them to be something other than someone's pile of ideas...as subject to criticism as any other pile of ideas.

I draw no distinction between:
1) These are my bad ideas.
and
2) These are my "sacred" bad ideas.

I'm an equal opportunity critic...I'll go after all bad ideas and that some are being advanced as "sacred" helps them not a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2011, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 394,766 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Irrational? I don't think so, Bragg wasn't very good but I think he was the best man available (unfortunately for Davis and fortunately for this nation). He did better than the men who commanded the Army of Tennessee both before and after him.

Now keeping Polk around, that was irrational.
I dunno... Perryville, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the list goes on, Bragg consistently failed to follow up on his advantages. At the close of Chickamauga, even Polk was ready to ride. Bragg was a good administrator, and he seemed to work well with Kirby Smith in KY, but he alienated everyone else. Davis compounded things by not keeping a tight rein on him. Like Stanley Horn said, Bragg just was not the person to do what needed to be done. (On the AOT: I am no fan of Joe Johnston. His passive-aggressive attitude towards Davis earlier in the war bordered on insubordination, but if he had not been replaced with Hood, I think Atlanta would have held out longer , and there would have been something in Sherman's way on the March to the Sea.)
Reading about Bragg's waffling, indecision, and his failure to make an effort to even find out what was happening at Wilmington makes one want to weep with frustration even after 150 years. Standing on top of Sugarloaf and looking towards Fort Fisher last year, I felt a glimmer of what Hoke's men must have felt when Bragg ordered them to pull back.
It's hard to respect a general who consistently blamed his men for his defeats. Not just his generals, but the rank and file.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,645,257 times
Reputation: 10453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strelnikov View Post
I dunno... Perryville, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the list goes on, Bragg consistently failed to follow up on his advantages.........

I agree with your analysis, Bragg was a failure, no doubt. But the others did even worse, or at least as bad. Davis was in a bind compounded by the increasingly able Federal command in the west.

I think Hood did the conventionally right thing in going out to fight Sherman's armies at Atlanta; I think the situation had reached such a state that success had to be placed on the results of battle. Of course well managed battle would've been beneficial. In hindsight given Hood's talents and those of his corps commanders the Army of Tennessee was in a hopeless situation, better they'd have thrown in the towel and gone home.

Have you read "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" by Woodworth? Pretty good book on the failure of Confederate command in the west. Well written too.

In any event defending Bragg and Hood makes for a more lively conversation.

Last edited by Irishtom29; 10-03-2011 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 394,766 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
I agree with your analysis, Bragg was a failure, no doubt. But the others did even worse, or at least as bad. Davis was in a bind compounded by the increasingly able Federal command in the west.

I think Hood did the conventionally right thing in going out to fight Sherman's armies at Atlanta; I think the situation had reached such a state that success had to be placed on the results of battle. Of course well managed battle would've been beneficial. In hindsight given Hood's talents and those of his corps commanders the Army of Tennessee was in a hopeless situation, better they'd have thrown in the towel and gone home.

Have you read "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" by Woodworth? Pretty good book on the failure of Confederate command in the west. Well written too.

In any event defending Bragg and Hood makes for a more lively conversation.
I haven't read the Woodworth book. I'll check it out. I have read other stuff by him and he seems to be a decent writer. I have The Warrior Generals by Buell; and Glenn Tucker's Chickamauga, and the standard stuff. 'Stonewall of the West' about Cleburne is good.
You're quite right, there wasn't exactly a bevy of Confederate talent in the West. Forrest and Morgan were the only really exceptional leaders. At the Corps level, I don't think Hardee and Cheatham were bad, they just weren't exceptional. Cleburne was certainly competent. I wonder how he would have done at high command. D.H. Hill seems to have been competent as well. Politics seems to have been the main reason he was sidelined. I don't know much about Stewart..... Lee certainly wanted nothing to do with the West, but it would have been interesting to see how Longstreet would have fared in Bragg's position. Bragg was somewhat ill served by his subordinates, but, lord, he seemed to compound every bad situation. ( I love the story about how he argued with himself prior to the war.) The Confederates were facing quite a collection of talent from the opposition.
I guess Hood did exactly what Davis wanted him to do around Atlanta. I think he was a bit out of his element and that is all he knew to do. But I like to speculate on what would have happened if Sherman had faced any genuine threat on his March.
On another note, I used to be on several Civil War reenactor forums and many people were so arrogant and nasty that I dropped off of all of them. This thread has been much more civil and rewarding. *crosses fingers* (Just kidding!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,645,257 times
Reputation: 10453
Strelnikov---DH Hill could perform well but he was difficult to work with and inclined to insubordination and was one of the generals who failed Bragg at McLemore's Cove.

I think Longstreet hit his ceiling at corps command and I do consider him possibly the finest corps commander on either side. But even so he failed dismally under Bragg at Chattanooga and even more dismally with an independant command in east Tennessee. Hard fella to figure but I find his person the most attractive of the rebel commanders. Somehow a cockamamie myth has grown about him as the ultimate defensive fighter who had an insight ahead of his time into the use of field fortifications. I see little evidence of this but do see that four of the most smashing ATTACKS of the war were made by him; at 2nd Bull Run, the 2nd day at Gettysburg, the 2nd day at Chickamauga and the 2nd day of the Wilderness.

I don't have a firm fix on Stewart and SD Lee; they took corps command when things were on the downslide and seemed to have performed quite poorly in some cases and ably in others.

Regards
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,967,234 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
. I see little evidence of this but do see that four of the most smashing ATTACKS of the war were made by him; at 2nd Bull Run, the 2nd day at Gettysburg, the 2nd day at Chickamauga and the 2nd day of the Wilderness.
You are overlooking his most famous assault...known as "Pickett's Charge" it was actually Longstreet in command of the forward movement. Pickett was the senior officer who went forward with the troops, but the attack was planned by Longstreet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,645,257 times
Reputation: 10453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
You are overlooking his most famous assault...known as "Pickett's Charge" it was actually Longstreet in command of the forward movement. Pickett was the senior officer who went forward with the troops, but the attack was planned by Longstreet.

I'm aware of that GS. I wasn't overlooking it, I didn't think it relevent to my observation he launched four of the most overwhelming assaults of the war and was a very capable offensive fighter.

Fort Sanders was another fiasco and more Longstreet's fault than Pickett's Charge as Longstreet was in command at Knoxville. And there was his weak attack against the 11th and 12th Corps in Lookout Valley too. He had his bad days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2011, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 394,766 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Strelnikov---DH Hill could perform well but he was difficult to work with and inclined to insubordination and was one of the generals who failed Bragg at McLemore's Cove.

I think Longstreet hit his ceiling at corps command and I do consider him possibly the finest corps commander on either side. But even so he failed dismally under Bragg at Chattanooga and even more dismally with an independant command in east Tennessee. Hard fella to figure but I find his person the most attractive of the rebel commanders. Somehow a cockamamie myth has grown about him as the ultimate defensive fighter who had an insight ahead of his time into the use of field fortifications. I see little evidence of this but do see that four of the most smashing ATTACKS of the war were made by him; at 2nd Bull Run, the 2nd day at Gettysburg, the 2nd day at Chickamauga and the 2nd day of the Wilderness.

I don't have a firm fix on Stewart and SD Lee; they took corps command when things were on the downslide and seemed to have performed quite poorly in some cases and ably in others.

Regards
That's true. Even Wert's book firmly touts Longstreet as a defensive tactician, though it does sort of balance this by countering Longstreet's claim that Lee had agreed to fight a defensive battle at G'berg. But surely, Longstreet didn't show much defensive aptitude at Brown's Landing. I think he got too involved with the Anti-Bragg faction. It seemed like the whole Confederate command was more concerned with in-fighting than fighting the Federals.
One author, it may have been Wert, says that Longstreet understood the value of fortifications when it took other generals "until World War I" to figure this out. But I'd say quite a few Civil War generals understood their value by 1864!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2011, 03:51 PM
 
221 posts, read 654,666 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
I'm sorry to let FACTS rain on your little parade, but:

The Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH.

Didn't happen till partway THROUGH the war...

As to you 'trying to blame conservatives':

You DO understand that the south was predominantly Democrat's back then... right?

Lincoln was a republican.

Underlined portion: Check out how Black people were treated in ALL the states.


History... an amazing thing!

Oh, and I'm pretty sure what your selective hearing ignored was that while slavery was ONE of the reasons... it was not THE predominant reason.
Why else would all those poor southerners who DIDN'T OWN SLAVES be willing to DIE in the fight...
You do know that the progressive party of that time was the republicans and the conservatives the democrats. This changed in the 1920's into what we know today.

So what Lincoln believed would have been seen as something a democrats would believe today since the abolishment of slavery was progressive. So in a way Lincoln was a democrat. Or at least he believed what a democrat today would have believed back then, however weird that sounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2011, 05:16 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,482,602 times
Reputation: 3792
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanishGuy View Post
You do know that the progressive party of that time was the republicans and the conservatives the democrats.
Actually, that isn't quite accurate. The newly-formed Republican Party was more progressive than the group they split away from -- the Whigs. [Grandstander: please grant me a little leeway here. I'm trying to provide a short answer, okay?] "Whiggery" continued to dominate Southern politics until some time after the Civil War.

In point of fact, and in support of TheDanishGuy's assertion, it was a group of "radical Republicans" that was responsible for the so-called "Reconstruction Amendments" to the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment (of which the "equal protection" clause is causing some current-day conservative Republicans a fair amount of heartburn vis-a-vis gay marriage). By modern standards, the post-war Republican Party was pretty progressive.

The South (again an over-simplification) didn't go "Democratic" until some time after the Civil War -- they did so in direct opposition to the Republican Party, which in their minds "caused" the Civil War.

These Southern politicians basically took their conservatism with them into the Democratic Party, an act that placed them at odds with mainstream Democrats. And thus was born "Dixiecrats" such as Strom Thurmond, John Bankhead, John Sparkman, Howell Heflin, George Wallace, et al. While they had little short-term impact -- other than as political speed-bumps that slowed things down rather dramatically -- they actually did have long-term impacts on both domestic and foreign policy.

As always, YMMV.

-- Nighteyes

P.S:
Should one examine the beliefs and stands of Senator Howell Heflin (D - Alabama), one will recognize the current-day stands of the more conservative members of the Republican Party. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the modern-day South has long since converted from heavily Democratic to nearly 100% Republican. This strongly suggests that the earlier Southern Democrats - aka Dixiecrats - were DINOs, or Democrats In Name Only.

-- Nighteyes (who was born and raised in the South)

Last edited by Nighteyes; 10-06-2011 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top