GDG- Inevitable defeat

[CWMHTours at aol.com]

Tom B.-
 
My Friend-
 
If you are worried about getting slammed by other members in  the GDG 
please   feel free to sign MY  name at the bottom  of your posts.  I can take the 
pain.  See if Al  responds.
 
I am starting to get used to it.  like a duck in the  rain.
 
What is frequently lost in discussion of Lee, Longstreet and  Jackson 
is/are the two Napoleonic Maxims of War.
 
Which are:
 
1:. Always attack with overwhelming force [A modern example  being Donald 
Rumsflod "You go to war with what you got"{DON'T HOOK ME  THIS ! 
GERMAINE!!!!!]}   (  Did I spell  germaine right?)
 
2.  Always keep your opponent off bakance.
 
Lee was a master of these 2 emxample beimg iftims.  Our  esteemned Noble 
God Shelby Foote labeled as geniuses both Lincoln and Forrest  but you have to 
admit that Lee, Jackson and Longstreet belong in the ampheuon  (Spell?)of  
heroes.
 
NOT AS A MODERN POLITICAL COMMENT!  DON'T HOOK  ME!!!!!!
 
It is effficient as a military commander to attack  with "overwhelming 
force" for example being  that sometimes if you bring a  LOT of your dudes the 
other guy runs away, ie. the  first Gulf War. (Also, as a bachelor,}   the 
first datecan get scared  and his dudes orun away.  [As a bachelor on a first 
date  when attacking with overwhelming force does't work very well.  I don't 
 know why  
 
RE: Viet Nam.   {DON'T HOOK ME!!!!!   THIS  is GERMAINE!  }  in the example 
 [Military-not  political- don't HOOK me!]    In the peak of the quantitiy 
of  troops.the
maxim of overwhelming force did not work in that  the US  got as high as 
550,000 troops) (Correct me if that figger is  wrong.)    The maxim fails 
us..... but we have few other  examples 
 
A modern example is the Humvees in Iraq  [DON'T HOOK  ME!!!!!  DO YOU SEE 
ALL THE EXCLAMATION MARKS?  THAT MEANS DOIN'T HOOK  ME- NOR YOU'L;L NEVER GET 
A BOWL OF CHILI IN IN DC IF YOU
 
That military idiot said go to war with what you got qand we  got 
Afghanisant and Iraq,
 
We should mot have gone in there until we were  prepared.
 
The analogy being Pap Thomas at Nashville.  he  didn'tattack until all his 
logistics was readv
 
 
A  Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
Peter  

 
In a message dated 1/23/2012 11:12:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bunco973 at optonline.net writes:

Esteemed  GDG Member Contributes:
Disclaimer : I respect Lee, and a big  fan of Longstreet - but - I 
honestly feel Lee's finest hours was the  Jackson episodes, thus deferring 
to 
most of Dave's post. IMHO - Lee was an  accomplished strategist - Jackson 
was 
the tactician, deferring to your  post of the Lee-Jackson combo. Sometimes 
I 
wonder (at the risk of getting  slammed in this group), whether Lee headed 
North, besides the tried and  true reasons, to stave off the chance of 
losing  
some of his command  to the West (Vicksburg especially). Commanders don't 
like to lose troops  to another command, maybe an ego thing ;-D. Not saying 
Lee's best  interests for the Confederacy were not in his heart, but the 
acceleration  of his movements after meeting with Davis was  (to me) a bit 
suspect.  If my musings are wrong, so be it, as I'm sure this esteemed 
group 
will  put me in the right direction - just a thought, though! (Have to go 
back  to lurker mode - starting to put my fat in the fire !!)

Regards,
Tom  B.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Tom
Sent: Monday,  January 23, 2012 10:38 PM
To: GDG
Subject: Re: GDG- Inevitable  defeat

Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>>> 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?  <<<     It was destroyed, by fire
(not the granite supports of  course), by Union militia.
Regards, Tom  B.





-----Original Message----- 
From:  CWMHTours at aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:28 PM
To:  gettysburg at arthes.com
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





----------------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