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

Re: Joseph E. Johnston

Expand Messages
  • James W. Durney
    ... means to ... want to ... Like it or not slaves were property and property is one indication of the middle class. ... Somewhat like the crash of 1929? When
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 5 4:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      Like it or not slaves were property and property is one indication of
      the middle class.

      > But they sure were not middle class
      > when those slaves were no longer property.

      Somewhat like the crash of 1929? When their is a massive loss in
      property value, where people end up has nothing to do with where they
      were.

      > 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.

      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 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.
      >

      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
      reflect
      > the southern aristocracy and total class based system as a fine
      society, 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
      Tradition.
    • 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.