Re: Joseph E. Johnston
- --- In email@example.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
> So, you're counting slave ownership as property and property as a
> achieving the middle class standard then I guess they were. If youwant to
> count that as middle class go ahead.Like it or not slaves were property and property is one indication of
the middle class.
> But they sure were not middle classSomewhat like the crash of 1929? When their is a massive loss in
> when those slaves were no longer property.
property value, where people end up has nothing to do with where they
> That was not nor could it everthe bottom
> be viewed as developing a middle class when they went straight to
> with out the slave labor and with the need to pay workers, whichled to the
> poverty stricken share croppers throughout the South. They surewere not
> middle class. You ever seen share croppers homes? Sure someisolated ones
> would be considered nice but most about 80-90% were poverty levelshacks.
Share croppers were an after the war development. They have nothing
to do with your statement! You said that the South, prior to the
war, did not have a middle class.
> Where as the North was in the process of developing a thrivingmiddle class
> that would get better as time wore on where as the South took aboutanother
> 50-60 years to get a defined middle class.I would think that the war and Reconstruction had something to do
with this. Again, we are after the war and it has nothing to do with
your orginial statement.
> No reason to get in a snit though. If your values are the type to
> the southern aristocracy and total class based system as a finesociety, go
> ahead.This is a personal attack! Historical facts have NOTHING to do with
support or approval of the soceity. The idea that it is necessary to
paint the South as evil is just silly. The idea is to study the war
and have fun. The idea is NOT to pretend that this was some type of
Loard of the Rings battle with the South as evil and the North as
good. It is not historical but a huge part of the Emancipation
- 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,
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)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
>> fairly well stopped, not across the board but it was Pete's break
>> allowed by a Union foul up, that won there. So, where did this
> "great job"
>> take place? Gettysburg? Vicksburg? Chattanooga? Atlanta? Franklin?
> Yahoo! Groups Links