Pickett's Charge

[Evil One]

I'm not impressed with your disloyal ancestors who thought they could own my ancestors.

What about your ancestors who decided to sell their brethren into slavery?


Jim

 

[cmort666]

What about your ancestors who decided to sell their brethren into slavery?


Jim

I don't know that they're my ancestors.

Did your ancestors ride beside Bannister Tarleton?

Doesn't matter. To hell with slave catchers, slave traders and slave masters. They're all the same to me, irrespective of race or national origin. They deserve the sharp point of a bayonet or a bullet.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

A little thread drift here. Many of the West African nations have acknowledged that the Slave Trade was just that-a trade. They have preserved the prisons in which the captives were held. The more militant and aggresive tribes would take captives from the weaker tribes, the ones they looked down on, also their criminals and troublemakers, when the Slave Traders arrived they would trade with them. I have read that plows were much desired-in West Africa there was almost no native metal ore to make their own with, the West Africans saw how effective plows were, that's what they wanted. A very intelligent idea, IMHO, everybody got what they wanted.
Back to Pickett's Charge-it could NEVER have succeeded. It is a mile from Seminary Ridge to Cemetery Ridge, there were a few swales that gave the infantry some protection, for the last 500 yards they were in the open. No overhead artillery fire to support them, no "rolling barrage", the Union artillery had a clear field of fire. There were no FOs in the Civil War, they didn't have the communications necessary. Also the cannons then had no recoil mechanisms, they had to be repositioned for each shot. Artillery fired line of sight. Union artillery was superior to Confederate artillery both in numbers, weight of shot fired and deployment. After Gettysburg E.P. Alexander, Longstreet's Chief of Artillery, said:
"Give me Confederate infantry and Union artillery and I can conquer the world!"

 

[cmort666]

A little thread drift here. Many of the West African nations have acknowledged that the Slave Trade was just that-a trade. They have preserved the prisons in which the captives were held. The more militant and aggresive tribes would take captives from the weaker tribes, the ones they looked down on, also their criminals and troublemakers, when the Slave Traders arrived they would trade with them. I have read that plows were much desired-in West Africa there was almost no native metal ore to make their own with, the West Africans saw how effective plows were, that's what they wanted. A very intelligent idea, IMHO, everybody got what they wanted.

Everybody but the slaves.

Various Japanese commercial entities had a similar arrangement with the Japanese military which allowed them to "acquire" American POWs as slave labor on wharves, in coal mines, and elsewhere. In that case everybody "got what they wanted"... except for the Americans who were mutilated in accidents, worked and starved to death and outright murdered, usually just for "fun".

Sounds a little different when you put it that way, huh?

 

[Muddyboot]

Gentlemen
You won't change history with a pissing contest on the pages of this forum, give it a rest.

 

[7shooter]

Muddyboot
+1

 

[Andy Griffith]

Come on now guys.
At least agree to disagree so this thread will stay up.

After all, Grant and Lee were opponents and were able to sit down together and agree.

 

[Farmer17]

I was a bit underwhelmed when I visited Gettysburg this time last year. Just saw a whole bunch of farmlands and fields with a few statues and cannons scattered about, and not a whole lot of description on what, where, or how things where going during the battle. I would have thought there would be a large information Museum with many artifacts and audio/visual aids for such an important event in American history.

 

[Amici]

I was a bit underwhelmed when I visited Gettysburg this time last year. Just saw a whole bunch of farmlands and fields with a few statues and cannons scattered about, and not a whole lot of description on what, where, or how things where going during the battle. I would have thought there would be a large information Museum with many artifacts and audio/visual aids for such an important event in American history.

I would have thought anyone who actually WENT there could not help but see the huge new museum built on site.

OR bothered to rent an audio tour, if not an actual Registered Battlefield Guide to explain it to them.

OR taken advantage of the many specific tours (cemetery, Pickett's Charge, Little Round Top, Wheatfield/Peach Orchard, etc.) the NPS routinely conducts.

Sure you were actually there?

 

[mwtdvm]

It's George G. Meade!!

"If General Meade is there we had better leave him alone."

As in Ft. Meade, MD...

Trivial, probably, but let's get the guy's name right..

 

[dave-arlington-va]

After the war Pickett encountered Lee in Richmond and it has been reported Lee was cold or "icy" towards Pickett. John Singleton Mosby who was at that meeting later said Pickett said of Lee "that man destroyed my division". There is some dispute over Mosby's recollection but its fairly well established relations between Lee and Pickett were strained well before Gettysburg.

 

[oliver507]

To cmort

Cmort,
It is a shame that you are more uneducated about your ancestors and their history than some people on this board. It is apparent your American History teachers were either remiss in their duties or you were remiss in your studies. The Civil War of the United States
was not initially about slavery, the issue was "State Rights". Slavery only showed up in the last 1/3 of the war.

 

[dennis40x]

oliver507 the shame of it is that you're deficient in your studies

Cmort,
It is a shame that you are more uneducated about your ancestors and their history than some people on this board. It is apparent your American History teachers were either remiss in their duties or you were remiss in your studies. The Civil War of the United States
was not initially about slavery, the issue was "State Rights". Slavery only showed up in the last 1/3 of the war.

oliver507 the shame of it is that you're deficient in your studies. Reference work on this subject: General Lee's Army From Victory To Collapse by Joseph T Glatthaar. The author has taught at the U.S. Army Command Staff College, U.S. Army War College and U.S. Military Academy. The author is a distinguished Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

States rights included, is a major economical component the "Institution of Slavery" Study the census of 1860 and you'll see the direct relationship between wealth and slavery in the southern culture. Slavery is and was a major component that people like to ignore. It so much better to say we're fighting for our rights than to say we're fighting for our rights to enslave others.

 

[cmort666]

Cmort,
It is a shame that you are more uneducated about your ancestors and their history than some people on this board. It is apparent your American History teachers were either remiss in their duties or you were remiss in your studies. The Civil War of the United States
was not initially about slavery, the issue was "State Rights". Slavery only showed up in the last 1/3 of the war.

That's a ludicrous fantasy perpetrated by those who don't want to admit the truth of the Confederacy. The fanatical desire to preserve slavery was the driving force behind secession, and by the secessionists' own admission. They simply would not countenance not just the elimination of slavery, but the prevention of its spread to other states and territories, including California.

Pro-Confederacy is pro-slavery, just as pro-Germany in WWII is pro-Holocaust. Anything else is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Thiokol]

It seems that rational discussion has evaporated in this post. If you want to fight the Civil War all over again, please do it offline. The thread is now closed.