'Bama crackers and the Constitution.

Acutally even though DaveK is doing some joshin' here, essentially he's right. Sherman and Grant were the idols of virtually all of the U.S. generals in World War II. They subscribed to Sherman's philosophy of:

"Let's don't f#$% around with these people, citizen or not, let's go in there and kick some serious @$$ and get this war over with as quickly as we can and go home. And if we're seen as vicious, who cares? It'll teach the next little enslaver or Nazi or Italian dictator and their "people" to think twice before starting $hit like this again."

Does Dresden and Berlin, daily grid-pattern carpet- bombing of Tokyo and then later the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ring any bells? Were we bad@$$e$ in WWII. Yes, sir and a good thing, otherwise we'd be speaking German right now. We did what needed to be done, sorry 'bout the collateral damage $hit. Oh well.

Was Sherman a bad@$$? You betcha! "Proud" Southerners who hate Sherman should wish they had had generals like him instead of pansy gentleman like Robert E. Lee. Outside of Stonewall Jackson, shot by his own men , and Nathan Bedford Forrest, (unfortunately, a racist Klansman, but a dawn-star premier Special Forces Op dude if there ever was one) the South had $hit for generals. War is war, not sipping mint junenips.

Sherman rocked! "War is hell." Duhhhh!!!!

DaveK. Look me up at VIR. I'll have on one of those tacky lime-green vests.

 

damn.... how the heck did a discussion about seperation of church and state degrade to the Civil War...??

we don't have to read, Brad....we can watch the Ken Burns series...

http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/

Any of the many civil war books by Shelby Foote are cool!

 

I had a couple of history teachers that seemed to only know what was in the school supplied book and judging from some of the responses to varying topics here, I see I wasn't the only one...

The only teacher that I really felt that he knew what he was talking about was Mr Miller (at least on the topic of the European Theather in WWII). He was a gunner on a B-17 who got shot down and spent some time as a POW before escaping... Although I suspect he was biased as well!

 

You can isolate yourself from interpretations of history to some extent by reading the actual documents of the period. The Declarations of Causes of the Seceding States speak for themselves.

 

Hey now, the French have marched into France.

Right after we liberated it for them, of course.

 

...and then they marched right back out when a German 6 year old was seen standing on a hill over looking France, holding a BB gun.

 

sorry, I got cut off earlier on my post. I forgot to add

Yep, it was about slaves. Not so much the ownership, as northerners owned them too, just not in as large of numbers. It was however the South's refusal to get rid of them which led them to want to leave which led them to fight.

More than slaves, it was an economic issue.

Oh, Dave...I love "Tippy Turtle gets turrets" One of my all time favorites.

 

sherman was no different than hitler, or hussein. if raping women, killing children and burning churches were great military feats, then i guess he's the best ever.

but that won't be in your high school history class.

get a grip.

 

Oh, and Sherman was a machine...

When you remember that he MARCHED...not drove a convoy of Humvees...it is all that more incredible what he accomplished.

 

sherman is on a spit in hell as we speak.

 

So, we were no better than Hitler or Hussein when we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Maybe we should go see your stance on this from that thread that covered it extensively...I would wager to say you might have taken both sides.

 

The thing that I find laughable is the notion that slavery was the issue for the rank and file Northern soldier. That a white guy in the mid-1800s would risk his life over the plight of Southern blacks.

Regardless of the government positions of the two sides, the above just doesn't hold water.

And Dave, the French didn't "march" back out; they ran. That's what retreating armies do: run for it. It would just be nice if they'd lay down their weapons, rather than drop them, since they're worth more on the surplus market without the dents and dings in them.

 

you've got to be fucking kidding. sherman sat and watched his band of devils commit these crimes, and did nothing. well, that's not true, sometimes he helped but he always laughed. sherman was an evil cocksucker and hopefully his eternity is all booked up.

i'm done.

 

last thing, it is SOOOOO laughable that you guys think the civil war was about slavery.

try MONEY.

 

So rape is what seperates us from those guys?



Don't go...I haven't hit a nerve on you in a while...lets talk about Dogs and Cats again too!!!!

 

Dang it...now we agree.

But money came from Slaves for the south...so they are tied in to one another.

Man, it appears I got my money's worth out of History last semester.

 

Ah yes, we have found something else to push Senior Bradley's buttons with.


Hey Brad, Sherman should have gone back and pooped on everything he burned.

 

Exactly: slavery = cheap labor (just food and water and meager housing)

cheap labor = lower operating expenses

lower operating expenses = more profit

profit = MONEY

 

answer these questions bruce.


did the initial terms bringing about the civil war have ANYTHING to do with slavery?

did the union not WANT to tax agriculture(slave labor} heavily to support the idustrialist states?

did the north give a shit about slavery or it's conditions?

did the north fight the war in the interest of freeing slaves?

 

<whistling>