|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I love I goes to fight mit Sigel but this is the best one. 1943 likes 998 dislikes, someone's mad.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfHigPsC_s
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
lol at the one token black guy with the stars and bars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
butthurthillbilly.mp3
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Speaking of recruitment in the ACW, you all need to understand how big of a deal Lincoln's call for volunteers was. Fort Sumter surrenders on the afternoon of April 14. On April 15, the very next day, Lincoln puts out a call for 75,000 men to put down the rebellion. His government even specifies exactly how many people it's asking from each state. Now this was taking the crisis and pouring loving jet fuel on it. 75,000 men is an absolutely unprecedented number. An army like that had never been seen in North America before, and it's being called for the specific purpose of killing other Americans. Do any of you see how that could cause somebody to join the Confederate army, even if they didn't own slaves?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Speaking of recruitment in the ACW, you all need to understand how big of a deal Lincoln's call for volunteers was. Fort Sumter surrenders on the afternoon of April 14. On April 15, the very next day, Lincoln puts out a call for 75,000 men to put down the rebellion. His government even specifies exactly how many people it's asking from each state. Now this was taking the crisis and pouring loving jet fuel on it. 75,000 men is an absolutely unprecedented number. An army like that had never been seen in North America before, and it's being called for the specific purpose of killing other Americans. Do any of you see how that could cause somebody to join the Confederate army, even if they didn't own slaves? No, but I can see how secession and the shelling of Fort Sumter would make it easy for recruiters in America to find those 75k volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No, but I can see how secession and the shelling of Fort Sumter would make it easy for recruiters in America to find those 75k volunteers. The call for 75,000 was the proximate cause for the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. You may not be able to see how the federal reaction to Fort Sumter might motivate people to fight for the Confederacy, but the evidence suggests that it did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No, but I can see how secession and the shelling of Fort Sumter would make it easy for recruiters in America to find those 75k volunteers. I'm not asking you to agree with what they did, I'm trying to talk about their motivations. A person can attempt to see the world from other viewpoints without advocating them, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm not asking you to agree with what they did, I'm trying to talk about their motivations. A person can attempt to see the world from other viewpoints without advocating them, goddamn. dublish posted:The call for 75,000 was the proximate cause for the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. You may not be able to see how the federal reaction to Fort Sumter might motivate people to fight for the Confederacy, but the evidence suggests that it did. Edit: I already mentioned my favorite ACW song, it's "Join The Cavalry If You Want To Have Fun," but it's really hard to find decent versions on Youtube. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:32 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:I completely agree with you two. It's also possible to protect an evil system without yourself desiring evil. Ah, the 1861 remake of the 1622 classic "Join the Landsknechts if you want to have fun and plunder literally everybody you come across"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Ah, the 1861 remake of the 1622 classic "Join the Landsknechts if you want to have fun and plunder literally everybody you come across" Edit: I do remember one of my dudes asking another one why he became an arquebusier zu pferd, and the answer was "Vor Rauberey" HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:There was also strong opposition to secession in East Tennessee, which got them voter suppression until secession and then military occupation (are rights). Areas without much slavery weren't keen on secession at all. See also the entire reason why West Virginia is a state now and not a part of Virginia any more. Mountains don't make good slave plantation territory (but are handy for evading the people trying to conscript you).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:See also the entire reason why West Virginia is a state now and not a part of Virginia any more. Mountains don't make good slave plantation territory (but are handy for evading the people trying to conscript you). So why is there a West Virginia but no East Tennessee?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:So why is there a West Virginia but no East Tennessee? West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the war. East Tennessee attempted, but wasn't successful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:So why is there a West Virginia but no East Tennessee? East Tennessee was different: first of all, there was still Kentucky in the way and the fate of Kentucky was in a balance during the start of the war. Although I believe the state itself sided with the Union (as IIRC the Confederates were actually the first to march an army into the state), there was still a lot of popular support in Kentucky for the Confederates. Even after Kentucky was controlled, it was difficult for the Union to get into East Tennessee, since there were only a few passes to that part of the state and usually they could be defended even by relatively small armies. Lincoln had always wanted to liberate East Tennessee but it never really came to pass until the entirety of Tennessee had been conquered already, and thus there wasn't the political necessity to create a new state like West Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Yeah, West Tennessee, the wealthier, plantation based area was occupied fairly early in the war after Fort Henry and Fort Donelson and Shiloh. Eastern Tennessee and Eastern Kentucky weren't occupied until late 1863.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:No, but I can see how secession and the shelling of Fort Sumter would make it easy for recruiters in America to find those 75k volunteers. Is this a serious answer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
dublish posted:The call for 75,000 was the proximate cause for the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. You may not be able to see how the federal reaction to Fort Sumter might motivate people to fight for the Confederacy, but the evidence suggests that it did. This is putting the cart before the horse. By February 1861 7 states had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America with an elected president and legislature in place. The attack on Sumter and the call for 75,000 didn't happen until April. That Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee all seceded within two months of Sumter and the call up are interesting correlations, and surely great fodder for newspapers headlines and rhetoric, but the cause? The reason? Bullshit. They had all been well on their way to secession for 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
"I can see how Fort Sumter being attacked would make it easy to recruit people. Their country was being attacked." Ok, now imagine you live in a Southern state, and the the US has just called up 75,000 men to invade your homeland. Do you see why average people might volunteer for the confederate army? "That doesn't make any sense."
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This is putting the cart before the horse. It really wasn't bullshit at all. The 75k were being raised for a very specific purpose: "the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places and property which have been seized from the Union", but the southern states interpreted it as an army set to invade southern territory. Several states still hadn't yet formally decided to secede were still sent requests to furnish regiments to include Virginia, and it is generally acknowledged that this action was the thing that forced Virginia's hand. This is a pretty good overview. It is probably right to assume that secession for the remaining states was inevitable, but the call for volunteers certainly accelerated the process for those that remained. For reference, 75,000 soldiers was almost 5 times the size of the standing army at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This probably isn't the first example of indirect fire but it gets quoted as such fairly often. Eh, mortars are, by their nature, indirect fire weapons and had been in use for a long time previously, since the 15th century. I find it hard to credit that no one had thought to try and hit something they couldn't see before hand, or hide behind a wall or terrain effect, and parabolic arcs had been understood for a LONG time by the 19th century. According to wikipedia there is a documented case of observer directed indirect fire at Waterloo. As far as the ACW goes there is evidence of ships blocking Vicksburg using flag hoists (captured in the ships logs) to direct Union artillery lobbing shells over the fortifications and that was May-June 1863 so at least coincident with Sgt. What's-his-name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
ACW music, you say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSZgLLqPy8
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This probably isn't the first example of indirect fire but it gets quoted as such fairly often. quote:It was immediately apparent that Humphreys possessed three innate qualities that made him an outstanding gunner: exceptional eyesight, with an extraordinary degree of depth perception; an engineering inventiveness; and unshakable courage under fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Eh, mortars are, by their nature, indirect fire weapons and had been in use for a long time previously, since the 15th century. I This wasn't really true until the 20th century; indirect fire means that the gunner can't see his target, and mortars didn't have the range to go beyond line of sight until after the ACW. Even the giant siege mortars of the era barely ranged longer than a mile. HEY GAL posted:This is nifty, but what the hell do they mean by this: That reads like "former artilleryman writes piece using words he doesn't have a firm grasp of" although it was true that having good eyesight was a nice thing to have when you were sighting direct fire artillery pieces. Also it is really cool some of you had Glatthaar as a professor; I've exchanged some emails with him a handful of times and it was incredibly cool how engaged and patient he was with someone whose only connection to him was "some guy who wrote you an email because he liked your book and had some questions". bewbies fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It is probably right to assume that secession for the remaining states was inevitable, but the call for volunteers certainly accelerated the process for those that remained. Virginia's delegates discussing secession had already been discussing not of if they would secede but if they would preemptively take action to secure stores and facilities by the 15th. No, it's too much, "Oh, we were just defending ourselves from Northern Aggression" lost cause bullshit. That's it's OK for 7 states to secede and take action with military force but not OK for the Federal Government to seek to secure and retain it's property using the same means is utterly disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If it was inevitable, i.e. it would have happened regardless of the call up, then it wasn't the cause. It's just a correlated data point. The term used was "proximate cause", which is absolutely correct. The ultimate cause for secession of all of the CSA would of course be the schism over slavery, but for VA, AR, TN, and NC, the call for volunteers played a significant role in the endgame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
If your historical imagination doesn't reach far enough to realise that a lot of ordinary people fought for the South for a lot of reasons beyond slavery then it doesn't extend very far. If you were already in the military already, for example, and you were obliged to serve in one of the two armies, not a lot of people were not willing to pick the side of their home state. That doesn't make them or the South right, or mean that the war wasn't about slavery. It's just about understanding the complex of reasons that might make a given individual want to fight, which is often somewhat divorced from high politics.
Disinterested fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If it was inevitable, i.e. it would have happened regardless of the call up, then it wasn't the cause. It's just a correlated data point. I'm sorry, I was wrong. The only reason anyone fought for the South is because they were hands-rubbingly evil and had probably been plotting against the federal government for years. I apologize. I should have never said that secession was okay in my post about Lincoln's call for volunteers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm sorry, I was wrong. The only reason anyone fought for the South is because they were hands-rubbingly evil and had probably been plotting against the federal government for years. I apologize. I should have never said that secession was okay in my post about Lincoln's call for volunteers. It's good character-building to recognize when you're wrong. That being said, secessionists had a bunch of different reasons they enlisted en mass, and the advent of federal reprisal was by no means the primary motivator. Some of you folks seem to be painting the picture of a bunch of disaffected, non-slaveowning Southerners whose only interest was defending their home state from a War of Northern Aggression. You can readily understand why that narrative is pretty immediately suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I think pretty much everyone said that there were a lot of reasons why southerns joined the Confederate army. Also, just because they joined because of what they saw as Northern Aggression it doesn't mean that it was , in fact, actual Norther Aggression. EDIT: edited it for clarity because I butchered that last sentence Tekopo fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
The level of misinformed reactionary anti-Lost Cause posting in these threads continues to surprise me though it probably shouldn't anymore at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:: I do remember one of my dudes asking another one why he became an arquebusier zu pferd, and the answer was "Vor Rauberey" If you don't include this in your dissertation you are doing history wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The level of misinformed reactionary anti-Lost Cause posting in these threads continues to surprise me though it probably shouldn't anymore at this point. See you say that ... Tekopo posted:I think pretty much everyone said that there were a lot of reasons why southerns joined the Confederate army. Also, just because they joined because of what they saw as Northern Aggression was, in fact, actual Norther Aggression. And yet this is what people actually believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Dude, one of my last avatars was pretty much an avatar of Sherman with 'Southern Tour' written below it. It is not playing into the hands of the Lost Causers to say that there were southern soldiers that believed that they were fighting against northern aggression while the war was on-going. You are deluded if you think otherwise. This doesn't mean that the soldiers were actually correct in their thinking or that the war itself was one of northern aggression. It's not loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:If you don't include this in your dissertation you are doing history wrong. Edit: Also, I bet the part where wheellock carbines are pretty loving sick helped his decision along, it would have definitely influenced me. Tekopo posted:Dude, one of my last avatars was pretty much an avatar of Sherman with 'Southern Tour' written below it. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:It is not playing into the hands of the Lost Causers to say that there were southern soldiers that believed that they were fighting against northern aggression while the war was on-going. You are deluded if you think otherwise. This doesn't mean that the soldiers were actually correct in their thinking or that the war itself was one of northern aggression. It's not loving hard. You literally just wrote the opposite. Maybe it was a typo or something? quote:Also, just because they joined because of what they saw as Northern Aggression was, in fact, actual Norther Aggression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
I think it's partially my fault because re-reading the last sentence I wrote, it's easy to take it the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:This is nifty, but what the hell do they mean by this: I think they might mean "ability to estimate range". Like, most people can look at a thing and say "that's, oh, about two miles away," whereas a guy like Humphreys there could look at the same target and go "hmm ... 3400 yards," and bracket it with the first two shots. I think the main thing here is different definitions of indirect fire -- they were shooting mortars over walls in the 16th century, but the ranges were such that you had a spotter on the parapet yelling corrections down at the gunner; by some definitions that's direct fire with an arc. True indirect fire requires a forward observer, although as has been said, Humphreys wasn't the first: Wikipedia posted:The earliest example of indirect fire adjusted by an observer seems to be during the defence of Hougoumont in the Battle of Waterloo where a battery of the Royal Horse Artillery fired an indirect Shrapnel barrage against advancing French troops using corrections given by the commander of an adjacent battery with a direct line of sight. Of course the modern definitions since around the 1920s are more clear-cut -- direct-fire guns like the ones on tanks have trajectories like a laser, anything pointed up has a range over the horizon and is thus indirect by default. On the subject of indirect-fire artillery, I hope/prefer to think that the 155mm self-propelled gun M109's nickname was inspired by the TV show that was running at the time it was introduced.   In other news, I recently saw on Tumblr a post about how the A-bomb was used on Japan rather than Germany because racism. I mean, racism was definitely a part of justifying doing such a terrible thing to the Japanese, but the main reason it wasn't used against the Nazis was less "fellow white people" and more that the war in Europe had been over for about four months before the Bomb was ready, no? Dresden pretty much disproves the "going easy on Germany because white people" theory. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:14
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
I still say that it is possible to discuss the motivations of the people who fought for secession without endlessly fighting over whether the idea of secession had merit or not, but this page seems to prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
The only thing missing with the excellent musket chat we had a page back was Hegel explaining how musket balls were cast and the amazing arrival of the humble paper cartridge.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 17:16
|
|
