Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

He was a war criminal. He gave the orders to murder POWs at the Fort Pillow Massacre.

There is not a shread of evidence that he gave any such order. Of course, as commander of the attacking force, he does bear responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

He was a war criminal. He gave the orders to murder POWs at the Fort Pillow Massacre.

Black man here.
The best general was whoever contributed most to the confederacy losing the war.

What does succeding, strating, succeded, and agraian mean?

Means the dude has a "smart" phone.

Anonymous wrote:Stonewall Jackson or JEB Stuart. Both were brilliant.

While the reasons behind the South succeding and strating the US Civil War was wrong and morally corrupt (and it WAS slavery, not States Rights, get real people), the Confederacy had much better military leaders and enlisted men. The Confederacy lost due to the rapid industrializing of the Northern States and their greater wealth. Of course, that too was one of the reasons the South succeded, the Southern planters knew the economy of the South was completely dependent on slave labor and would rapidly become the most impoverished region of the USA without the slaves to make the agraian society successful.

What does succeding, strating, succeded, and agraian mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

great general, one of the best. too brutal for the genteel war of the 1800s. he would fit in more in WWI, WWII or the Roman Empire days.

Is there such a thing? Wars are always brutal where crimes against humanity is common.

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

great general, one of the best. too brutal for the genteel war of the 1800s. he would fit in more in WWI, WWII or the Roman Empire days.

The one in charge of surrendering to the North.

Anonymous wrote:The one whose would-be mother swallowed.

What do you mean by this?

You mean "The war of Northern aggression"?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

Love these answers, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:confederate army was much better than the union. not sure how you can debate that.

by the end of the war, it became a war of attrition (plus the union obviously was much better supplied). that was the difference.

the only reason the north won was because of Lincoln. basically any other CiC would not have had the political and personal courage to keep sending home body bags.

+1 The Confederate strategy from the word go was that the North would sue for peace. Whoops.

confederate army was much better than the union. not sure how you can debate that.

by the end of the war, it became a war of attrition (plus the union obviously was much better supplied). that was the difference.

the only reason the north won was because of Lincoln. basically any other CiC would not have had the political and personal courage to keep sending home body bags.

The Confederate Army was not as good as the Union Army during the Civil War. There is a simple and logical reason the Confedrates won several battles during the early stages of the war. After John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1858, Southerns became convinced a full scale northern attack was imminent. They already had existing state militia units to put down potential slave revolts and believing they faced imminent attack these militia units grew into regular army units preparing for war. While the South was preparing for war the peacetime army in the north was virtually nonexistent.

You can't be serious? It was half the size of its Union adversary on which it inflicted far greater casualties and took four years to subdue? Not as good, really?

That they won "several battles during the early stages" is an understatement. And they had no head start in preparing for war - the armies were raised at seccession. There were state militias in evey northern state, in addition to the standing U.S. Army, albeit small at the time.

If there was a "simple and logical reason" for that Army's performance on the battlefield, the whole thing would have been long forgetten. It's too bad General Schwarzkopf died a couple years ago and can't stop in to DCUM and explain.

The one whose would-be mother swallowed.

What do you all think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?