Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

House of Horrors Abortion Clinic

320 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

He was at one point the only success story in an fruitless Union campaign. I do overlook Grant I must admit, not intentionally, I read your post and I thought to myself "I did forget that actually" :lol:.

I'm just more interested in Sherman, his letter to Atlanta is one of the most terrifying things I've ever read, more so than any horror novel.

Grant and Farragut on the Mississippi is some of the most exciting reading if you're a civil war fan. If they hadn't closed that pipeline who knows how many more years the south could've hung on or worse, dragged more of the western territories/states in. Vicksburg is gut wrenching from both sides. The Wikipedia page is pretty good on the subject http://en.wikipedia....ge_of_Vicksburg Brutal fighting and Grant was the man needed at the time.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of respect for Grant and Sherman. Even though they were on the wrong side! LOL :)

Honestly, if it hadn't been for Grant and Shermans extremely lenient surrender terms to the Confederates, the war probably would have gone on longer...Washington was NOT happy about that.

I think Lee was a better military tactician than Grant, but Grant never gave up, like many other Union generals did. You have to respect and admire that.

I think that Grant and Lee were equals. They were on the same side, in the philosophical sense of the word. Lee led the CSA due to his loyalty to his home state of Virginia. In any event, I think that Jackson would have absolutely, convincingly crushed Sherman on an equal playing field where both armies had the same numbers, weapons, money, etc..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think that Grant and Lee were equals. They were on the same side, in the philosophical sense of the word. Lee led the CSA due to his loyalty to his home state of Virginia. In any event, I think that Jackson would have absolutely, convincingly crushed Sherman on an equal playing field where both armies had the same numbers, weapons, money, etc..

I don't know about that, Maybe at the beginning but if Sherman had his army at the end of the war vs. Jackson's army I think it is a coin toss. Interesting things to think about and of course we are both right because we'll never know.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who p***ed in your cornflakes? :hmm:

I'm just trying to figure out what your avatar represents based on your previous comments. A republican criminal mob boss in Atlantic City, to a Union general under Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. Is it about manipulating state/political power to get what you want, or is 'Boardwalk Empire' just a good cable TV show? Your posts are Republican-party biased so I'm not confused about the Republican choices, I'm just a bit perplexed about your two top choices within other Republican party choices. How about a Ron Reagan instead? Perhaps a George Herbert Walker Bush? How about Teddybear Roosevelt? I would grate on Republicans with a Ron Paul avatar myself, (at least a real Republican like Robert Taft but nobody would know who the picture was) but the puppy is way too cute to remove for now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to figure out what your avatar represents based on your previous comments. A republican criminal mob boss in Atlantic City, to a Union general under Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. Is it about manipulating state/political power to get what you want, or is 'Boardwalk Empire' just a good cable TV show? Your posts are Republican-party biased so I'm not confused about the Republican choices, I'm just a bit perplexed about your two top choices within other Republican party choices. How about a Ron Reagan instead? Perhaps a George Herbert Walker Bush? How about Teddybear Roosevelt? I would grate on Republicans with a Ron Paul avatar myself, (at least a real Republican like Robert Taft but nobody would know who the picture was) but the puppy is way too cute to remove for now!

Not really a republican as much as a conservative. The GOP has p***ed me off way to many times and play the game like losers. Libertarians rub me the same way, play to lose but I am a conservative through and through and if they could toss out the leaders of teh gOP we coukd beat the criminals on the left. As far as the Nucky avatar, didn't have an avatar and just happened to run across Nucky, one of my favorite shows and decided to use it. Crime boss yes but a pragmatist as well. Boardwalk Empire is an outstanding series if you haven't seen it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Grant and Lee were equals. They were on the same side, in the philosophical sense of the word. Lee led the CSA due to his loyalty to his home state of Virginia. In any event, I think that Jackson would have absolutely, convincingly crushed Sherman on an equal playing field where both armies had the same numbers, weapons, money, etc..

I don't know about that, Maybe at the beginning but if Sherman had his army at the end of the war vs. Jackson's army I think it is a coin toss. Interesting things to think about and of course we are both right because we'll never know.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived we would have won the war. But, that's my "what if" theory. I love what Lee says when he hears about Jackson.

As Jackson lay dying, Lee sent a message through Chaplain Lacy, saying "Give General Jackson my affectionate regards, and say to him: he has lost his left arm but I my right."

Grants tactic for beating the South was to keep throwing a bunch of men at the Confederates, and hope we ran out of men! Unfortunately, it was really the only tactic he could use. I do think people tend to overlook Grant when compared to Lee or Sherman though. He was smart, and courageous. But I think Lee had better tactical genius. Not to mention look what Lee had to work with! He didn't have as many men as the Union side, nor their weaponry. Grant had the men and the firepower.

By the way, didn't John Wayne portray Sherman in "How the West Was Won"??

:)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to do reading on Vicksburg, I'm currently reading a Confederate soldier's memoirs ("Company Aytch" by Sam Watkins) but after that, on to Vicksburg.

I got into the Civil War only a few months ago. I read "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin last year and it just got me hooked. Then I read a military history of the Civil War by John Keegan and from that Lee and Sherman just begged me to learn more about them. Then I got Ken Burns' documentary on DVD which is the best thing I've ever seen; it remains my main point of reference, most of the stuff I know off the top of my head comes from that.

So there are still areas I need to learn about in detail, Grant definately being one of them. I'm at that stage where I know a good deal but there are black holes where I have to be reminded, i.e. Vicksburg. Naval operations is another area I'm loose on, things like that. I have a Civil War reading list as long as my arm though so maybe Vicksburg will have to wait.

Questions like who would beat whom in a given situation like Sherman vs. Jackson? I don't have an in depth knowledge as of yet to be able to give an opinion. So forgive me if I go quiet on things like that :lol:.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to do reading on Vicksburg, I'm currently reading a Confederate soldier's memoirs ("Company Aytch" by Sam Watkins) but after that, on to Vicksburg.

I got into the Civil War only a few months ago. I read "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" by Doris Kearns Goodwin last year and it just got me hooked. Then I read a military history of the Civil War by John Keegan and from that Lee and Sherman just begged me to learn more about them. Then I got Ken Burns' documentary on DVD which is the best thing I've ever seen; it remains my main point of reference, most of the stuff I know off the top of my head comes from that.

So there are still areas I need to learn about in detail, Grant definately being one of them. I'm at that stage where I know a good deal but there are black holes where I have to be reminded, i.e. Vicksburg. Naval operations is another area I'm loose on, things like that. I have a Civil War reading list as long as my arm though so maybe Vicksburg will have to wait.

Questions like who would beat whom in a given situation like Sherman vs. Jackson? I don't have an in depth knowledge as of yet to be able to give an opinion. So forgive me if I go quiet on things like that :lol:.

The Ken Burns documentary on the Civil war is one of the best! There is a really good book called "April 1865: The Month That Saved America" and it was even made into a documentary on the history channel. Also another good documentary you might like is "Lee vs Grant" which is on Youtube. It's very good also.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ken Burns documentary on the Civil war is one of the best! There is a really good book called "April 1865: The Month That Saved America" and it was even made into a documentary on the history channel. Also another good documentary you might like is "Lee vs Grant" which is on Youtube. It's very good also.

Thanks for those, I'm gonna look up the documentaries on YouTube now and I'll add the book to my list. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read so many books and I am so terrible at remembering the titles and authors but it sounds like you have the best lined up. One you may have left off the list is a book by Richard Adams, the author of "Watership Down", called "Traveller". It is written from Lee's horse's perspective and is a really enjoyable book to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Traveller-Richard-Adams/dp/0394570553

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that, Maybe at the beginning but if Sherman had his army at the end of the war vs. Jackson's army I think it is a coin toss. Interesting things to think about and of course we are both right because we'll never know.

I'm talking about both sides having the same numbers, weapons, industrial base, etc.. The South was at a disadvantage in those categories.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Stonewall Jackson had lived we would have won the war. But, that's my "what if" theory. I love what Lee says when he hears about Jackson.

Grants tactic for beating the South was to keep throwing a bunch of men at the Confederates, and hope we ran out of men! Unfortunately, it was really the only tactic he could use. I do think people tend to overlook Grant when compared to Lee or Sherman though. He was smart, and courageous. But I think Lee had better tactical genius. Not to mention look what Lee had to work with! He didn't have as many men as the Union side, nor their weaponry. Grant had the men and the firepower.

With apologies to the OP for thread drift, it's hard to say if your scenario is one that would change the outcome of the war due to the fact that the two sides were mismatched when it came to material and money. I think that Jackson is the best American military leader of that era, but one can only do so much for so long if your supplies are scarce. The CSA's best bet was continued guerilla skirmishes. They were the great equalizer.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

After years of amateur study the one sad conclusion I have come to is that the Generals of WWI failed to learn any lessons from the American War between the states. I know it seems ridiculous a century on but it still turns my stomach when I read of the massive loss of life in Europe from 1914 -1918, when we had taught them what not to do in in the 1860's. The War Museum in London is amazing but chilling.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overwsword started this thread but here we go again

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325786/Douglas-Karpen-Second-house-horrors-abortion-clinic-investigated-Texas.html

Is this a new thread? I think so. I have started an inordinate amount of threads in the last week and hope someone else will take this one and run. Another horror unfolding? Yes, for sure. The floodgates opened with Gosnell and the atrocity is about to unfold.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After years of amateur study the one sad conclusion I have come to is that the Generals of WWI failed to learn any lessons from the American War between the states. I know it seems ridiculous a century on but it still turns my stomach when I read of the massive loss of life in Europe from 1914 -1918, when we had taught them what not to do in in the 1860's. The War Museum in London is amazing but chilling.

The war to end all wars didn't prevent World War II, which claimed even more lives. Technology changes; humanity doesn't.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war to end all wars didn't prevent World War II, which claimed even more lives. Technology changes; humanity doesn't.

Ahhh, sad but true. I hoped that the nuclear fear would limit our war hunger but now that the crazies all have the weapons I have no doubt we will see a nuclear exchange within the decade.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, sad but true. I hoped that the nuclear fear would limit our war hunger but now that the crazies all have the weapons I have no doubt we will see a nuclear exchange within the decade.

We all hope that you're mistaken. Look at India and Pakistan. The Hatfields had better relationships with the McCoys, and nukes haven't been exchanged at the sub-continent. Let's pray that the nuclear club stays miniscule. Who knows what Iran and Iraq would have done with nukes during their war. The former supplies lethal weapons to non-state allies. The latter gassed thousands of Kurds. With every positive hope, there's a negative doubt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all hope that you're mistaken. Look at India and Pakistan. The Hatfields had better relationships with the McCoys, and nukes haven't been exchanged at the sub-continent. Let's pray that the nuclear club stays miniscule. Who knows what Iran and Iraq would have done with nukes during their war. The former supplies lethal weapons to non-state allies. The latter gassed thousands of Kurds. With every positive hope, there's a negative doubt.

Amen brother and I hope you are right. I really, really do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a republican as much as a conservative. The GOP has p***ed me off way to many times and play the game like losers. Libertarians rub me the same way, play to lose but I am a conservative through and through and if they could toss out the leaders of teh gOP we coukd beat the criminals on the left. As far as the Nucky avatar, didn't have an avatar and just happened to run across Nucky, one of my favorite shows and decided to use it. Crime boss yes but a pragmatist as well. Boardwalk Empire is an outstanding series if you haven't seen it.

I'm looking forward to the new season as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.