And then he made it so.
Sherman's March?
- Thread starter Old School 3319
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Yup, wars leave scars. Generations later, people who have never heard the guns nor, fully understand why the war occurred carry on the family hates. The human animal is indeed fascinating. Some go to great lengths to maintain generations old hates. I have good reason to dislike certain governments but, I was never ever able to work up a hate for the Vietnamese as a people.
I suppose many of my fellow Americans must consider FDR a war criminal after the fire bombings. But, being on the winning side we got to determine who the war criminals were and run the trials. It's always better to be the winner as opposed to the loser. Never, ever get into a war and not win. The consequences can be debilitating.
I suppose many of my fellow Americans must consider FDR a war criminal after the fire bombings. But, being on the winning side we got to determine who the war criminals were and run the trials. It's always better to be the winner as opposed to the loser. Never, ever get into a war and not win. The consequences can be debilitating.
War has always been "hell" for the fighter and many civilians. The so-called civilized wars of the 16 and 17 hundreds were only civilized until the leaders turned their victorious army loose on the town folk. As for civilians? You wouldn't wanted to have been a civilian in a town being pillaged by Temujin Borjigin, the great Khan. Nothing really new in warfare except the efficiency of the weapons.
The South simply was led by the monied class into a war it had not the faintest chance of winning. Cotton wasn't really king, the English opposed slavery and the Czar sent his fleet to keep the Brits and French cooling their heels no matter how much they feared the US and it's burgeoning economy. No chance! None! Nada! Zip!
Chivalry was indeed dead but, the Southern male fought valiantly even though way out of his weight class.
The South simply was led by the monied class into a war it had not the faintest chance of winning. Cotton wasn't really king, the English opposed slavery and the Czar sent his fleet to keep the Brits and French cooling their heels no matter how much they feared the US and it's burgeoning economy. No chance! None! Nada! Zip!
Chivalry was indeed dead but, the Southern male fought valiantly even though way out of his weight class.
OK, well we continue with the bravado of who's tougher, a better fighter.
The South was outclassed in terms of numbers, war materials, money, industrial capabilities. This was seen by some even before the real war/hostilities began.
Were some Confederate soldiers braver, tougher, better, than some Union soldiers? Absolutely. But the reverse is also true.
The South was outclassed in terms of numbers, war materials, money, industrial capabilities. This was seen by some even before the real war/hostilities began.
Were some Confederate soldiers braver, tougher, better, than some Union soldiers? Absolutely. But the reverse is also true.
Under Kurtz anyone who complains about tongue bite gets their tongue cut out for their own well being.
Fun fact. During the war, it was the British who referred to the tank as "Sherman." The US forces just referred to it was the M4.
Cheers,
Chili
Jackson failed Lee almost as many times as he shone for him. Beaverdam Creek? He wasn't mistake proof unless one only reads of his successes. Same with R.E.Lee. Lee wasn't able to win an offensive battle. He sometimes was unable to get his lieutenants to fight when he wanted them to. Certainly a failure of leadership as he appointed and retained those lieutenants. He wouldn't write a disparaging word even after the war. By far the most interesting personage of the war after President Davis. Now there was a conflicted individual sorely in over his head.
It took Lincoln a couple of years to find a fighting general to lead his armies. Twas a war like most wars, the fewest errors won the battles and the economic might out weighed fighting ability. All soldiers by and large fight bravely. It's a matter of life and death. It also a matter of meeting the expectations of the soldier next to you.
It took Lincoln a couple of years to find a fighting general to lead his armies. Twas a war like most wars, the fewest errors won the battles and the economic might out weighed fighting ability. All soldiers by and large fight bravely. It's a matter of life and death. It also a matter of meeting the expectations of the soldier next to you.
It never ceases to amaze me around here how a question that has absolutely nothing to do about politics turns into a political thread.
In this case a simple question about a blend.
In case people don't know; POLITICS ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE.
It has gotten old. If it doesn't stop, there will be more severe penalties for it.
Enough is enough. If you can not contribute to the original post in a thread, then don't post.
In this case a simple question about a blend.
In case people don't know; POLITICS ARE NOT ALLOWED HERE.
It has gotten old. If it doesn't stop, there will be more severe penalties for it.
Enough is enough. If you can not contribute to the original post in a thread, then don't post.
- Status