| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|||||||||||||
| what Went wrong At Gettysburg | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
81st Post |
|
Crazy Delawares Member 
|
If one uses history as a barometer, when the British captured/destroyed DC during the War of 1812, it did not cause an end to the hostilities. The leaders simply moved to another city. Even if the rebs captured DC (which I doubt they could've), I don't see the war ending. Conversely, even if Little Mac had taken Richmond after the Peninsula, the war would've still gone on. The same could be said for the taking of Washington, DC. As the war showed, destroying the opposing army ws much easier said than done. Sorry for stating the overbearingly obvious, my friends.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 11:54 pm |
|
82nd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
The more current word would be totally "whacked." Thanks, Fan, I haven't spoken to a teener in ages and ages. (And that applies to my grandaughters and greatnieces and nephews -- they don't talk to me either.) Last time I talked to a teener, he was still saying "neato."  ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 12:13 am |
|
83rd Post |
|
ole Member
|
As the war showed, destroying the opposing army ws much easier said than done. Sorry for stating the overbearingly obvious, my friends. It's not overbearingly obvious, CD. There are many enthusiastic compatriots who do not realize that all the armies were too big to be destroyed while being not big enough to destroy. Antietam/Sharpsburg was about as close as anyone came to being able to destroy an army, but short of Lee being killed or captured, the AoNV was a long way from being destroyed. And the AoT, after the twin disasters at Franklin and Nashville still managed to field close to 10,000 men in North Carolina.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 12:49 am |
|
85th Post |
|
Dixie Girl Southern Belle 
|
ole wrote: The more current word would be totally "whacked." what does neato and whacked mean??? Last edited on Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 02:50 am by Dixie Girl ____________________ War Means Fighting And Fighting Means Killing - N. B. Forrest When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Stonewall Jackson |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 01:35 pm |
|
86th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
Dixie Girl wrote:
"Neato" is an expression from the late fifties to mid-sixties meaning "cool" which is another expression from that era. "Neato" is a variant of "neat," generally meaning nice or extra nice. "Cool" actually derives from the language of jazz musicians of the fifties and late forties. I am a Miles Davis admirer. One of his best known albums is "The Birth of Cool." Jazz musicians of those times called music or whatever they liked "cool." The expression gained popularity in the larger population outside of the jazz community. "Whacked" or as is often heard ,"just plain whack," is a more current expression meaning "crazy." "Whack" is probably outmoded now by newer teen jargon. Being from the Jurassic Period (I am 65), the only reason I can keep up is through movies or TV shows directed to mainly younger audiences. Oddly enough, the older I get, the less appealing I find such shows, so I am losing track of the latest slang. In fact, it seems like a waste fo time, if the truth be told. For me, it is no longer "cool" to be up on teen slang. In fact, it is just plain whack. 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 04:32 pm |
|
88th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member 
|
CleburneFan wrote:
Cleburne Fan, I am so sorry, I completely misjudged you. I was convinced you were Paleolithic  Like, that is so totally awesome, you know? Sincerely yours, Private Neanderthal man
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
89th Post |
|
Dixie Girl Southern Belle
|
CleburneFan wrote
i sure am glad somebody knows what teen slang means cause i sho' nuff dont. everybody that i hang out with is over the age of 40 and we just talk like everybody else in my town does, i am officially uncool because of this but i dont care
____________________ War Means Fighting And Fighting Means Killing - N. B. Forrest When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Stonewall Jackson |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Southern Son. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
91st Post |
|
TimK Member
|
I enjoyed reading and learning from this thread way back when it was about what went wrong at Gettysburg.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
92nd Post |
|
javal1 Grumpy Geezer 
|
Very good point Tim. Those wishing to discuss regional or generational linguistics should open a thread elsewhere. What went wrong at Gettysburg is the subject of this one.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
93rd Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
44th VA INF wrote: When Lee Marched to gettysburg his army thought they were invinsble also the preassure of being so close to ending the war must have began to take its toll on genral Lee I'm not sure what you mean by "the pressure of being so close to ending the war." The war lasted much longer, almost one year and ten months longer. Do you mean that had Lee won at Gettysburg, the war would have ended then and there or do you mean Lee was under great pressure to end the war before he even started out for the Gettysburg Campaign? Do you mean the war was all Lee's to win or lose? Don't forget, there was still a very hot war going on in the Western Theater. I remind you again that Vicksburg, MS fell to Grant just one day after Lee lost at Gettysburg. Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Schofield, and other Northern generals would not have given up just because of setbacks, even severe setbacks, in the Eastern Theater. It is laudable that you have taken such an interest in Lee, a truly remarkable man and general. It might help you, however, to study some of the great Confederate generals of the Western Theater just for perspective. Lee did not fight for the Southern cause all by himself. Check out Albert S. Johnston, William Hardee, Braxton Bragg, John Bell Hood, J.E. Johnston, P.G.T. Beaurgard, Richard Taylor, Wade Hampton, Nathan Beford Forest, Patrick Cleburne and others. Many were less adept than Lee at their roles in the Civil War, but they made great sacrifices, even of their very lives, too. Remember Lee was not alone in the Confederate cause.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 25th, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
94th Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
Clearburn Fan whati mean by that is that when they marched to gettysburg the ANV had betten the ynks at Chancslersville, Fredricksburg 2nd Manassas,and 7 days so they fought this would be a nother victorie and this one would so the preasure was on lee ''The crowning Victorie'' -Lewis armistead
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 03:41 am |
|
95th Post |
|
susansweet Member 
|
I have no idea what you just wrote.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 09:59 am |
|
96th Post |
|
gettysburgerrn Member 
|
I think its something to the effect that the confederates in the east had strung together an impressive string of victories and that there was a pressure on Lee to end the war with this invasion. I don't agree with that statement I am just trying to translate  Ken
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
97th Post |
|
susansweet Member
|
Ken thanks for the translation . Okay now that I have the translation I agree with you . I don't agree. From the little I have read and all the people I respect that know so much about Gettysburg Lee did not want to fight there . He hadn't headed north with the intention of fighting a big battle in Gettysburg. Susan
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
98th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Lee had several presumptive reasons for invading Pennsylvania, not the least of which was his impressive string of victories thus far: a win in Pennsylvania (or, at least, not a defeat) would have done Lincoln's government no favor in keeping northern support for the war.) I think this what 44th was getting at. I don't figure that Lee thought that another win would necessarily end the war, but he was certainly dedicated in his efforts to keep whupping up on the AotP until the northern people had had enough. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26th, 2008 05:23 pm |
|
100th Post |
|
susansweet Member
|
Thanks Bama that is what I had thought was the reason . I didn't know details enough to write it out . Gettysburg was an accidental meeting . Not a planned out battle. Right? Susan
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:10 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg | Top |
