CHAT Musings on Trump, Lee, civil war, and vax
- Thread starter helen
- Start date
Infoscout
The Dude Abides
I have stated this until I am blue in the face, until a county or state says screw it we secede, civil war talk is just fiction. There is not going to some organic rising of the people, it will be when an organized entity says “Screw You” to the Fed, then Americans will have a decision to make. Once that county or states kicks the secesh ball toward the other side, their reaction will cataclysmic, and then Americans are either going to fight, or slave. I thought it would a few Virginia counties in 2019 over Richmonds gun control crap. But I believe it will be over the obvious presidential baloney over Covid. The Democrats have decided their world view is worth destroying the country for, at some point a local or state elected body is going to say no.
RememberGoliad
Veteran Member
It's not when a county or state says screw it we secede that starts the game, it's more when the ones being seceded from say 'oh no you don't, we need your resources' or 'oh no you don't, we've got an image to uphold'. The aggressors will be those who use force to prevent the withdrawal, the reassertion of states' sovereignty.
Don't let the forced, false, presented-as-fact narrative of the secessionists being the aggressors fool you. That's a gaslight to end all gaslights! There's all sorts of comparisons of our current political situation to a domestic arrangement gone bad, and I'm going to make another one: When the aggressor starts mashing buttons and the victim finally has enough and lashes out, who's at fault? (Not who gets blamed or who gets punished, but actual right-or-wrong fault.)
Milkweed Host
Veteran Member
A conventional CW2 would be extremely difficult to pull off.
The necessary tools can only be found on military bases.
After these tools are forcibly taken from military bases,
you have to deal with like, 25K of our own American troops inside
the DC fence, plus the many other assets in the DC area.
Only then can your remove the head of the snake and move forward.
I don't see that occurring.
Small pockets of resistance is about all I can envision.
State succession would come first.
That pesky old 2A is all that comes between them and us.
The necessary tools can only be found on military bases.
After these tools are forcibly taken from military bases,
you have to deal with like, 25K of our own American troops inside
the DC fence, plus the many other assets in the DC area.
Only then can your remove the head of the snake and move forward.
I don't see that occurring.
Small pockets of resistance is about all I can envision.
State succession would come first.
That pesky old 2A is all that comes between them and us.
I seem to have read that some English military historian came over in the 1920's (?) to write a military history of Lee figuring he was the military genius of No. Amer. I understand that after studying the war, he went home and wrote his book about Grant.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
NB Forrest, Sheridan, and even WT Sherman all would have been better choices IMO as commanding generals for pacifying Afghanistan than RE Lee. (JE Johnston would seem an apt choice, but I suspect his reputation is overblown.) Lee did indeed wreck his army, and thus the prospects of the Confederacy, with chronic overeagerness to make frontal assaults.
Good book on this subject:
Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage
by Dr. Grady McWhiney (Author), Perry D. Jamieson (Author)
"Why did the Confederacy lose so many men? The authors contend that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than the Federals. Offensive tactics, which had been used successfully by Americans in the Mexican War, were much less effective in the 1860s because an improved weapon—the rifle—had given increased strength to defenders. This book describes tactical theory in the 1850s and suggests how each related to Civil War tactics. It also considers the development of tactics in all three arms of the service during the Civil War.
In examining the Civil War the book separates Southern from Northern tactical practice and discusses Confederate military history in the context of Southern social history. Although the Southerners could have offset their numerical disadvantage by remaining on the defensive and forcing the Federals to attack, they failed to do so. The authors argue that the Southerners’ consistent favoring of offensive warfare was attributable, in large measure, to their Celtic heritage: they fought with the same courageous dash and reckless abandon that had characterized their Celtic forebears since ancient times. The Southerners of the Civil War generation were prisoners of their social and cultural history: they attacked courageously and were killed—on battlefields so totally defended by the Federals that “not even a chicken could get through.”"
Good book on this subject:
Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage: McWhiney, Dr. Grady, Jamieson, Perry D.: 9780817302290: Amazon.com: Books
Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage [McWhiney, Dr. Grady, Jamieson, Perry D.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage
www.amazon.com
Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage
by Dr. Grady McWhiney (Author), Perry D. Jamieson (Author)
"Why did the Confederacy lose so many men? The authors contend that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than the Federals. Offensive tactics, which had been used successfully by Americans in the Mexican War, were much less effective in the 1860s because an improved weapon—the rifle—had given increased strength to defenders. This book describes tactical theory in the 1850s and suggests how each related to Civil War tactics. It also considers the development of tactics in all three arms of the service during the Civil War.
In examining the Civil War the book separates Southern from Northern tactical practice and discusses Confederate military history in the context of Southern social history. Although the Southerners could have offset their numerical disadvantage by remaining on the defensive and forcing the Federals to attack, they failed to do so. The authors argue that the Southerners’ consistent favoring of offensive warfare was attributable, in large measure, to their Celtic heritage: they fought with the same courageous dash and reckless abandon that had characterized their Celtic forebears since ancient times. The Southerners of the Civil War generation were prisoners of their social and cultural history: they attacked courageously and were killed—on battlefields so totally defended by the Federals that “not even a chicken could get through.”"
Lidell-Hart maybe?
TBonz
Veteran Member
Not so much at Gettysburg!
* *
Civil wars are anything but.
We're marching stolidly down the road to tyranny. At what point do people say "enough?" I don't know.
There is no good choice. Door 1 is war and death, Door 2 is tyranny and death.
He comes to mind but I have never researched it.
The rifled musket essentially increased the lethal reach of infantry by about ten times.
The official revision of infantry tactics in response was to take a slightly longer step, and take more of them per minute. That increased the speed of an infantry formation by 10-15% across the ground, in the face of a 10X exposure to danger.
Slaughter resulted.
General Hardee wrote the manual - Gen. William J. Hardee Grave in Selma's Old Live Oak Cemetery - RuralSWAlabama
In the days of muzzleloaders, massed formations were the only way to generate firepower on the battlefield.
Art Alphin Discusses the Rifled Musket - YouTube
RT 16:02
West Point Department of History
937 subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Adopted by the U. S. Army in 1855, the rifled musket utilized a number of technological advances that made the individual infantryman much more lethal. Cartridges with pre-measured amounts of gunpowder standardized loading and increased the rate of fire. Percussion caps replaced flint-based striking mechanisms, making the weapon more reliable. Lastly, rifled grooves and the Minié Ball made the musket more accurate than the smoothbore counterpart. Both Confederate and Union armies employed rifled muskets in the American Civil War, creating a dangerous combination of increased firepower with linear tactics. Commanders in the war increasingly turned to field fortifications and earthworks to protect their troops from the range and accuracy of the weapon. Art Alphin, a retired army officer and former instructor in the Department of History at West Point, created a series of instructional videos in the 1980s to educate cadets on the development and employment of military weapons and technology in the early modern and modern periods. He developed these presentations in support of The History of the Military Art, a capstone class that all cadets take prior to graduation. Alphin emphasized these military changes in both a classroom and firing range environment, allowing the cadets to see the functionality and effectiveness of each weapon.
The official revision of infantry tactics in response was to take a slightly longer step, and take more of them per minute. That increased the speed of an infantry formation by 10-15% across the ground, in the face of a 10X exposure to danger.
Slaughter resulted.
General Hardee wrote the manual - Gen. William J. Hardee Grave in Selma's Old Live Oak Cemetery - RuralSWAlabama
In the days of muzzleloaders, massed formations were the only way to generate firepower on the battlefield.
Art Alphin Discusses the Rifled Musket - YouTube
RT 16:02
West Point Department of History
937 subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
Adopted by the U. S. Army in 1855, the rifled musket utilized a number of technological advances that made the individual infantryman much more lethal. Cartridges with pre-measured amounts of gunpowder standardized loading and increased the rate of fire. Percussion caps replaced flint-based striking mechanisms, making the weapon more reliable. Lastly, rifled grooves and the Minié Ball made the musket more accurate than the smoothbore counterpart. Both Confederate and Union armies employed rifled muskets in the American Civil War, creating a dangerous combination of increased firepower with linear tactics. Commanders in the war increasingly turned to field fortifications and earthworks to protect their troops from the range and accuracy of the weapon. Art Alphin, a retired army officer and former instructor in the Department of History at West Point, created a series of instructional videos in the 1980s to educate cadets on the development and employment of military weapons and technology in the early modern and modern periods. He developed these presentations in support of The History of the Military Art, a capstone class that all cadets take prior to graduation. Alphin emphasized these military changes in both a classroom and firing range environment, allowing the cadets to see the functionality and effectiveness of each weapon.
I think you need to wait until the money looses all value. The Fed gov will have power only as long as it can pay its employees, and there remains some promise of pensions. Take that away, and I expect it will promptly implode. Then, the problem will be to keep foreign interference out of the vacuum.
helen
Panic Sex Lady
Which is possible with events beginning this week.
Meemur
Voice on the Prairie / FJB!
So noted. I'm taking that as another confirmation.
We're, IMHO, just as likely if not more so to see a "palace coup d'état" than a full up CW break out, at least in the onset.
The different power blocks in the Triumvirate would toss the others out in a heart beat if given the chance.
The professional politicians in that mix are bad enough, but when you add to the mix the apparatcheks from DoJ and DoD, the critical mass requirements for things to touch off drop a lot.
Last edited:
The foreign interference is already in the mix. How it manifests as things go on is the devil in the details.
Griz3752
Retired, practising Curmudgeon
I think this is more historically accurate about RE Lee & the Civil War. All the history I read said the South was winning until US Grant and Sheriden
Old Gringo
Senior Member
His biggest loss was Stonewall.
Let's not forget that Scott's Anaconda Plan was working and after the fall of New Orleans and then Vicksburg it was only a matter of time. The true cranking up of the attrition war by Grant was part and parcel to it.
Dusty Lady
Veteran Member
What events??
helen
Panic Sex Lady
The south could not win. And it was a much more clearly defined war than this situation.
Like someone said earlier, it would be more like Rwanda. But even Rwanda atrocities occurred between clearly identified groups.
There is no clear demarcation between us-them in this situation. Half of the willing vax were over 65 years old and just wanted to see their loved ones.
Am I pissed off at what's happening? Maybe worse than you are. Pissed off doesn't approach it. But civil war is not an applicable concept.
Like someone said earlier, it would be more like Rwanda. But even Rwanda atrocities occurred between clearly identified groups.
There is no clear demarcation between us-them in this situation. Half of the willing vax were over 65 years old and just wanted to see their loved ones.
Am I pissed off at what's happening? Maybe worse than you are. Pissed off doesn't approach it. But civil war is not an applicable concept.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
That certainly did not help.
But, worse yet IMO was Jefferson Davis's choices of Western commanders such as Braxton Bragg & Pemberton (another Paulus IMO), and not making better/quicker use of NB Forrest. If Forrest had been put in command at Forts Henry & Donelson, and in overall command at Shiloh and the whole Western theater thereafter, I think the Confederacy would have gotten its freedom. With a competing vision and nation right across the Ohio River to tamp down tyrannical impulses in the North, both the North and South would have been freer. (The blacks, of course, being economically increasingly useless, would desirably eventually have been repatriated home to Africa.)
Shooting, killing... those kind of events.
helen
Panic Sex Lady
I put it other places. Quick version: next Saturday is gonna be a cluster and make everything worse.
But the gallant Hood of Texas
Played hell in Tennessee
Oh my feet are torn and bloody, and my heart is full of woe,
I'm going back to Georgia, to find my Uncle Joe,
You may talk about your Beauregard, and sing of Bobby Lee,
But the gallant Hood of Texas, he played hell in Tennessee.
-- Civil War Lyrics The Yellow Rose of Texas by Emily D. West | Civil War Music (civilwarheritagetrails.org)
Describe it as decidedly uncivil war and you'll be a lot closer to the reality of what is likely, I think.
helen
Panic Sex Lady
I'm describing a decidedly asymmetrical conflict with zero chance of success.
Raggedyman
Res ipsa loquitur
well then - I ask the same (type) question of YOU as you did of me earlier . . .
WHAT do YOU intended to do . . . AND . . . exactly what is "an applicable concept" from your point of view?
Vax mandates will result in some kind of balkanization.
Especially if it's forced on kids by way of the school system.
Travel restrictions...same. (I don't expect this, but you never know)
Civil War?
Who ya gonna "war" on?
Dude up the street who had biden signs in his yard?
The true enemy is faceless and nameless for the most part....and thousands of miles away.
Things will vary by region, state and neighborhood.
Especially if it's forced on kids by way of the school system.
Travel restrictions...same. (I don't expect this, but you never know)
Civil War?
Who ya gonna "war" on?
Dude up the street who had biden signs in his yard?
The true enemy is faceless and nameless for the most part....and thousands of miles away.
Things will vary by region, state and neighborhood.
Ah, I get you now. Asymmetrical indeed - moving past 4G warfare to something almost tribal. Definitely not nation-building in its entirety. The Republic will be shattered - and is it even possible for it to be rebuilt after such a state of affairs? I somehow doubt it - even if we were working in a vacuum, there are too many jackals afield who would think the time was ripe for their own moves.
Good analysis.
I posted a blog by Aesop recently that discussed that at some length.
Uncivil war = impossible to define right now, I think.
But Biden-supporting neighbor is probably the best place to start in a local sense. Securing the AO and all that, yanno. One thing about it, the tribe can't be put at risk by inaction. And that's all I'll say about that.
Will their demise be considered, death by 'ronas?