-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Are All Yanks Stupid ****s?
- Thread starter algo
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 200
you'd have to be a real idiot to ask that question.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 663
i dont get it either, im just glad im not a yank. i live in ohio but my familys from west virginia and i play a confederate for the reeanactments. so i dont think it was an insult.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 18,423
Uhhh...I take exception to being called any form of "yank"!
In the truest sense of southern tradition I demand satisfaction sir!
Banana peels at 10 paces!
In the truest sense of southern tradition I demand satisfaction sir!
Banana peels at 10 paces!
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2004
- Messages
- 95
if the south was so smart way did they lose
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 18,423
Watchful said:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 18,423
backwoodsman said:
Lee surrendered......I didn't.
The south lost for many reasons, but the war wasn't over when Robert E Lee surrendered, only his army was, the last battle was actually fought on June 3, in Galveston Texas. I'm and inactive union drummerboy, but I'm for the south's cause, not slavery. Lee wasn't a good general, Beaugard was better and should have been in command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee and the rest of the CSA was outgeneraled by Grant, one of the best generals of the War of Secession era. I'd type more but my bro has to do homework, btw I live in NH, was born in KY.
Actually...we may have lost the military conflict...but who's values and traditions run this country? Check out the red states, and then look at where the last couple of presidents came from. Its like when Rome conquered Greece...Greece conquered Rome 
In fact, the military is made up of mostly Southerners, both the enlisted man and the officer (check the stats if you wish) The majority of the finances now are located in Southern states, as well as population. I beg to differ that we really "lost".
In fact, the military is made up of mostly Southerners, both the enlisted man and the officer (check the stats if you wish) The majority of the finances now are located in Southern states, as well as population. I beg to differ that we really "lost".The reason the south lost is the reason any side loses in any conflict,which is lack of money.The south was poor with few resources,monetary aid was nilch.I will however add that some of this countries greatest war hero's were southern such as Alvin C York,Audi Murphy(Texas)to name just a couple.Just my .o2 
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 200
i think everyone has missed perhaps the most obvious and certainly the most relevant point: southern chicks have bigger breastesses.
AHH I just wrote a huge response and the deleted it somehow on accident!!!
To say that the reason the south lost was because of the economy is bull, that is waht ignorant teachers tell their students, it isn't an agrument. Granted it didn't help having a poor economy, but it was largely cause by military failures.
Well I'll just a say a few things then, the CSA could have won, and came close. Read these: Lee Considered, Grant and Lee a Study in Generalship and Personality by JFC Fuller, The South Was Right!, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant by JFC Fuller. JFC Fuller was a english general and a historian, one of the first generals to understand modern tank warfare.
A couple more things, Lee should have stayed on the defensive, he had little understanding of grand strategy, should have sent aid to Vicksburg (the real turning point) instead of attacking(Gettysburg). When Vicksburg fell, to grant, the CSA was divided and lost control of the missippi, and lost 30,000 soldiers and supplies etc. And what would he have done if he won at Gettysburg? He couldn't seige washington, he didn't hjave the supplies or seige train. The Union could take the losses better than the south could. The CSA was invaded and was defending themselves and they should have stayed and defended, that would have given a better chance of aid, victory and wearing down the Union.
The CSA definately did not win, just look at our government, very strong federal government and weak state governments, people now identify themselves with their country rather then their state. The War of Secession made what is our country today.
I could go into greater depth, I actually wrote a 27 page paper on Grant and Lee for my Honors History class a couple years ago in high school.
Also, the war came close at the end to the south resorting to pure guerilla warfare, Fitz Lee wanted to with his cav and did for a little while but was convinced otherwise, if that happened the war would have dragged on for years more and the the country would be a wreck.
The south could have lost every battle and won the war, just look at the Rev. war, the US lost most of the battles and won, and especially if they kept the invasion at bay.
To say that the reason the south lost was because of the economy is bull, that is waht ignorant teachers tell their students, it isn't an agrument. Granted it didn't help having a poor economy, but it was largely cause by military failures.
Well I'll just a say a few things then, the CSA could have won, and came close. Read these: Lee Considered, Grant and Lee a Study in Generalship and Personality by JFC Fuller, The South Was Right!, The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant by JFC Fuller. JFC Fuller was a english general and a historian, one of the first generals to understand modern tank warfare.
A couple more things, Lee should have stayed on the defensive, he had little understanding of grand strategy, should have sent aid to Vicksburg (the real turning point) instead of attacking(Gettysburg). When Vicksburg fell, to grant, the CSA was divided and lost control of the missippi, and lost 30,000 soldiers and supplies etc. And what would he have done if he won at Gettysburg? He couldn't seige washington, he didn't hjave the supplies or seige train. The Union could take the losses better than the south could. The CSA was invaded and was defending themselves and they should have stayed and defended, that would have given a better chance of aid, victory and wearing down the Union.
The CSA definately did not win, just look at our government, very strong federal government and weak state governments, people now identify themselves with their country rather then their state. The War of Secession made what is our country today.
I could go into greater depth, I actually wrote a 27 page paper on Grant and Lee for my Honors History class a couple years ago in high school.
Also, the war came close at the end to the south resorting to pure guerilla warfare, Fitz Lee wanted to with his cav and did for a little while but was convinced otherwise, if that happened the war would have dragged on for years more and the the country would be a wreck.
The south could have lost every battle and won the war, just look at the Rev. war, the US lost most of the battles and won, and especially if they kept the invasion at bay.
BTW Forest, Longstreet and Stonewall were excellent CSA generals too. and also Albert Sidney Johnston. Forest was actually illiterate and started as a private, and rose to a Lt Gen
Oh ya, anther reason with the south losing and grand strategy, lee was made general in chief in 65, grant in 64, and the CSA before that didn't have one.
Oh ya, anther reason with the south losing and grand strategy, lee was made general in chief in 65, grant in 64, and the CSA before that didn't have one.