GDG- Inevitable defeat

CWMHTours at aol.com CWMHTours at aol.com
Mon Jan 23 21:12:24 CST 2012


Well that's fine.
 
I feel no enmity towards him.
 
I learn more from people who disagree with me than those who  do.....
 
Despite Al......... 
 
Please-
 
I want to learn.  Just the facts, ma'am.
 
Just tell me the facts, my opinions are fluid.
 
I actually want, and all of us in here, should want to be  changing our 
point of view always if there is any question that we take on  any position.
 
We should welcome any contradiction of any point we make and  make sure 
that it stands up under serious scrutiny.
 
I am a bachelor....  For some reason my girlfriends  always have gotten mad 
after serious scrutiny.... 
 
I think it has to do with why I am still single.
 
Dammit
 
 
A  Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/23/2012 9:43:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bluzdad at yahoo.com writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Peter:
Respectfully, I don't think that Dave is  offering any of these opinions as 
his own, but offering a synopsis of an  article.
K.


"Hello! I'm The Doctor."
(Dr.  Who)


________________________________
From: "CWMHTours at aol.com"  <CWMHTours at aol.com>
To: gettysburg at arthes.com 
Sent: Monday,  January 23, 2012 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable defeat

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Dave,

Respectfully  Sir,

I think we disagree, sir.

Where is it written that Lee  disagreed with Jackson about  destroying 
infrastructure in the  North?  I think Lee was just about as  aggressive as 
Jackson was  in bringing the war to your opponent. for example,  Antietam, 
Gtysbg,  
& Monocacy.

I am not dispersing you personally.  I just  see Lee &  Jackson as being a 
balanced combination.

By the  time of 2nd Man Lee could see the Hammer and the  Anvil.

The  Hammer was Jackson.

The Anvil was the wonderful James Peter  Longstreet,  the Old Warhorse. 

Also, just curious, I don't recall  reference to Lee being  concerned about 
destroying the RR bridge over  the Susq. R. being a big concern  of his.  
And 
in fact, if you  think about it, the damn thing IS still made  of big 
granite blocks.  Now just how are you going to knock the darn thing over  
without a  
whole lot of valuable time and trouble?  

Lee's 3 raids  up north where just  that.  Raids.  Move overwhelming forces 
 
up north and attack piecemeal  in overwhelming force.

The  purpose of going north for Lee was to de-stabilizing the  North.   
Everything else was a subset.

A  Loyal Neo-Anti  Unionist,
Peter



In a message dated 1/23/2012 8:24:04  P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
glory at zbzoom.net  writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Just finished "how  the south could have won the  civil war", by Bevin 
Alexander-Armchair  General 3-2012

It ends:  
Saddled with leaders like Davis and  Lee, who could not perceive reality,  
the South's defeat was  inevitable.

The crux of the article is Jackson  understood that  the means of war now 
favored the defense as witnessed during   the  7 days battles when only 1 
of 
Lee's 5 frontal attacks   succeeded.
Rifled muskets and canister would bleed out the southern army  at  this 
rate.
Instead, Jackson encouraged offensive movement leading  to a  defensive 
stance on ground of his choice.
He also favored  aggressive  northern invasion with additional plans to 
destroy  factories, railroads and  mines.
Both Davis and Lee rejected his  strategy. Davis was in favor of a  more 
passive policy hoping the  north would tire or Britain/France would  
intervene.
Lee favored  frontal attacks.

At second manassas,  Jackson's proposals led to  an opportunity to destroy 
Pope's army. It may have  worked if Lee  would have attacked Popes left 
earlier, failing to prevent  retreat.  
At Antietam, Jackson disagreed with Lee's goal of going to  destroy  the  
bridge over the Susquehanna.
Instead he wanted to draw   Mac to attack him north of Washington with 
added 
goal of destroying  factories  etc
When battle took place at Antietam, Lee chose to fight  despite little  
room 
for maneuver. Jackson's ideals would have  favored withdrawing to a more  
favorable defensive position.
At  Fredericksburg, Jackson proposed going  south to North Anna River where 
 
the cavalry would better be able to prevent  the union army's retreat  and 
resupply.
At Chancellorsville, Lee put  Jackson's strategy in  place. An end around 
to 
cut off Hookers retreat over the   Rappahannock  at US Ford was foiled by 
Jackson's wound.
Lee  invaded  North again but continued his fixation on frontal attacks  
during three costly  days at Gettysburg.

The above are  interesting points although over  simplified and without  
primary  sources.

Thoughts?
Dave


Sent from  my   iPhone
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
-to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/  for   Archives


----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives
----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com
  -to unsubscribe
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for  Archives



More information about the Gettysburg mailing list