Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston

Expand Messages
  • Tom Mix
    So, you re counting slave ownership as property and property as a means to achieving the middle class standard then I guess they were. If you want to count
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      So, you’re counting slave ownership as property and property as a means to achieving the middle class standard then I guess they were.  If you want to count that as middle class go ahead. But they sure were not middle class when those slaves were no longer property.  That was not nor could it ever be viewed as developing a middle class when they went straight to the bottom with out the slave labor and with the need to pay workers, which led to the poverty stricken share croppers throughout the South. They sure were not middle class. You ever seen share croppers homes?  Sure some isolated ones would be considered nice but most about 80-90% were poverty level shacks.  Where as the North was in the process of developing a thriving middle class that would get better as time wore on where as the South took about another 50-60 years to get a defined middle class.

       

      No reason to get in a snit though.  If your values are the type to reflect the southern aristocracy and total class based system as a fine society, go ahead.

      Tom  

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James W. Durney
      Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:04 AM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroupscom
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston

       

      --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:

      >
      > They had a developing one, yes. True growth would come in the later
      decades
      > but it was clearly on its way in New England and else where, like
      the steel
      > mills in Pennsylvania and Indiana for example. They provided
      livable wages
      > so a middle class could develop as opposed to slave labor in the
      South.
      > When, T.R. took over as President his trust busting efforts
      increased this
      > growth. The advent of the assembly line affording more work
      opportunities
      > in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois created employment
      opportunities and
      > enhanced the growth of the middle class and was a great part of the
      mass
      > exodus of black southerners to the north for these better paying
      jobs. It
      > all started around this time period. The South on the other would
      not have a
      > fully developed middle class until after WW II.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >

      Tom, you damned the South for having no middle class prior to the
      war. Yet you say that New England had a "developing one" and it
      would not be until TR that this happens in much of the nation. The
      South had a higher average income than the North in 1860. Slave
      ownership, a major sign of wealth, was more common than ownership of
      stock was in the 1950s. The shops, businesses and factories were
      owned and managed by the middle class just as they were in the rest
      of the nation.

    • Dick Weeks
      Carl, feel free to make comparisons between the eastern and western theaters. They were clearly two different theaters of operation and lend themselves to
      Message 68 of 68 , Sep 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Carl, feel free to make comparisons between the eastern and western
        theaters. They were clearly two different theaters of operation and lend
        themselves to comparison. What I don't want to happen is have the
        discussion centered on the east and then after about 20-30 posts look around
        and wonder how in the heck we got into a discussion on Gettysburg. This is
        a very easy trap to fall into.

        In my own mind I often make comparisons between east and west. While I live
        in the battlefield country of Northern Virginia (about 25 west of
        Washington, D.C.) and have devoted most of my studies to the war in the
        east, I found myself wondering about the war in the west. That is why I
        started this discussion group. Before the group I often wondered why Lee
        was so successful in the east and the western generals such as Johnston
        weren't as good in their theater of operation. As the discussions in the
        group progressed over the years I think I know, at least in my own mind,
        why.

        The war in the east covered territory that was about 100 miles wide by about
        150 miles long. This lent itself to Lee's style of fighting. That is,
        maneuver for position, consolidate the army, and attack when the opportunity
        presented itself. I am not so sure Lee could have done as well in the west.
        There was just too much territory to cover. The west was more campaigns
        than battles. The two campaigns that Lee conducted, the Maryland Campaign
        in September 1862 and the Gettysburg Campaign June/July 1863, were both
        failures. Lee was extremely adapt at identifying the enemy's mistakes and
        capitalizing on them, such as Chancellorsville. Johnston on the other hand
        could maneuver his army but couldn't seem to identify the time nor place
        where to attack and destroy his opponent's army.

        The bottom line is, to make a football analogy, I think Joe Johnston was
        playing not to lose. He was not playing to win. Whereas Lee was playing to
        win all the time. Johnston's style will get you through several mediocre
        seasons, but it will never get you to the Super Bowl. Having said that, I
        think had Lee been in the west, the war would probably not have lasted as
        long as it did. Lee, in my personal opinion, was every bit as lucky as he
        was good. He was facing inept commanders in the Union army most of the
        time. This might not have been true in the west. Just something to ponder
        and just my personal opinion..

        I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
        Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
        http://www.civilwarhome.com

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:16 AM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Joseph E. Johnston


        > Perhaps we will be allowed to mention eastern theater on a 'comparison
        > to the west' basis.
        >
        > Tom, surely it is valid to include battles in 1861 and 1862? If
        > including such CSA generals were pretty impressive... well, maybe not
        > in the western theater [g]. That's just the problem, the South just
        > kept losing in the West. As far as the East, you can find some battles
        > after Antietam that the CSA won, you know, The Wilderness and Cold
        > Harbor come to mind quickly.
        >
        > If you look at battles rather than campaigns, some other battles were
        > won by the CS side in the west... Sherman lost a few I'm thinking, our
        > boy JEJ handed it to him at Kennesaw Mountain for example... but the
        > US always won the campaigns.
        >
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Beginning with Antietam, where did this great job take place outside of
        >> Chancellorsville? Longstreet was great at Chickamauga but the others
        > were
        >> fairly well stopped, not across the board but it was Pete's break
        > through,
        >> allowed by a Union foul up, that won there. So, where did this
        > "great job"
        >> take place? Gettysburg? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta? Franklin?
        >>
        >> Tom
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.