Will Kelly be our 'Grant'?

[Revolver]

I hardly post anymore. My promotion finally went through. And between a different shift, my 4 and 6 year old playing baseball and spending time with my wife, I just don't have time. Good for you guys! Ha ha. But allow me this brief one if you would.

I am somewhat of a civil war buff. Well, military history in general to be honest. So many fascinating people, so many strategies. So many aspects to apply to one's own life.

Ulysses S. Grant is one of my favorites. In fact, I use some of his principles for my daily life. His straight forward, simple, aggressive, yet humble style is to be admired. These qualities, along with his brilliant taking of Vicksburg is what prompted Lincoln(the greatest man our nation ever produced) to proclaim 'Grant is my man'.

I posted the following Grant quote on my FB page: The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant

This received several comments. One in particular was Stoney stating how he felt it applied to politics as well. I agree. In fact, it applies to an awful lot of things in life. In cluding FOOTBALL.

In football, so many of us try to make it more complicated than it is. 90% of the time, the more physically gifted team will win. If equally matched, the team that blocks and tackles better will win 90% of the time. The above Grant quote reminds me of Jimmy Johnson's philosophy while coaching the Dallas Cowboys: Aquire talented players, put them in position to win, and keep it simple. They won. And they won alot.

For so long, Notre Dame has NOT won alot. They enjoy huge name recognition, their own TV network, a national recruiting and fan base, state of the art facilities and historical singificance. But despite this, they have not won big since the early 1990's. They have had incompetant, outmatched or too complicated and indecive leadership at the reigns.

The same could be said for the Union in the early years of the civil war. They had every advantage. However, Incompetant, timid and outdated generals such as McClellan were still fighting napoleanic wars while Generals such as lee, jackson and Stuart where just mopping the floor with them. Then, Grant rises in the west. First Shiloh, then Vicksburg, then Chattanooga. Lincoln appoints him Lieutenant general of all Union armies.(Only George Washington ever had this title!)

He immediately puts Sherman in charge of the western theatre. Grant takes command in the east. He implements a 'total war' doctrine. He uses his superior numbers and supplies. He keeps it simple, organized, smart, and aggressive. He proceeds to attack the invincible Lee....over and over again. Never letting up, never letting him rest. Winning 3 out of 4 battles against him. The 4th being a draw. Lee understands it's over. Grant is competent and effective, smart and unrelenting. He is not Napolian of course. But neither was Wellington.

I'm hoping Kelly is our Grant.
I'm hoping Diaco is our Sherman.

Weis was never able to put a staff together. He couldn't stick to one defense or keep a clear vision of things. As organized as he was personally, his program was not. Far too often, his teams would lose to vastly lesser programs. He finally was yanked from his command. And it was time.

I'm hoping that Kelly will create a program that is organized, well thought out, simple yet effective. Competent and unrelenting. A program that can take the advantages that the program naturally has and concentrate them into building a winner. A winner that Notre Dame deserves. A winner that the Notre Dame fanbase, Alumni and subway alike, deserve.

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Scorched earth policy.....burn E. Lansing, Ann Arbor, and LA to the ground.

I do think that BK is as aggressive as both Grant and Sherman were. Forget being tentative on offense, take the initiative!

[NDGirlzRock]

WOW Rev, I'm impressed! As I have a degree in history and one of my specialities is the Civil War, it is refreshing to see people remember the past and apply it to today. We must remember the past, for it is bound to repeat itself. NDs past is one of tradition, honor, and winning! Remember the past and attach the future!!!

[Sxy Mofo]

There is zero question in my mind about kelly. We will get this done and I'm excited about the future.

We have to get it done.. I already have a bet for the michigan game. Drinks the rest of that Saturday paid for by the losing team's fan. I also have to watch the game in denvers biggest michigan bar.

[Sxy Mofo]

There is zero question in my mind about kelly. We will get this done and I'm excited about the future.

We have to get it done.. I already have a bet for the michigan game. Drinks the rest of that Saturday paid for by the losing team's fan. I also have to watch the game in denvers biggest michigan bar.

[Revolver]

WOW Rev, I'm impressed! As I have a degree in history and one of my specialities is the Civil War, it is refreshing to see people remember the past and apply it to today. We must remember the past, for it is bound to repeat itself. NDs past is one of tradition, honor, and winning! Remember the past and attach the future!!!

You've made my day Girlz. It's really something to be able to impress an ND girl. :bigsmile:

[IrishinTN]

As long as Kelly isn't an alcoholic, then I agree that we will be in good shape. And their tenacity does resemble each other. And Vicksburg was the most underrated victory of the Civil War. I wrote my first novel about it and am still amazed that there are so few people who truly understand it truly brought about the downfall of the Confederacy. Pity, really.

[NDGirlzRock]

Hey TN what's the name of the book, I'd love to read it!!!

[lowayne]

Posts like these make this Notre Dame football site better than the rest of the internet.

[Revolver]

As long as Kelly isn't an alcoholic, then I agree that we will be in good shape. And their tenacity does resemble each other. And Vicksburg was the most underrated victory of the Civil War. I wrote my first novel about it and am still amazed that there are so few people who truly understand it truly brought about the downfall of the Confederacy. Pity, really.

It was very crushing. It split the confed in half. It opened up the Tennessee valley. It also came the day after Gettysburg, giving them a double whammy.

It gave the Union full control of the Mississippi River.

It assured Lincoln's re-elecion.

The taking of Vicksburg has been said to be as brilliant as any napolian victory.

It, along with Gettysburg, ended any thoughts of European powers recognizing the Confed or worse, demanding trade with them.

You'll have to send me a chapter or two of your book, like you sent me your vampire story.

[Revolver]

Posts like these make this Notre Dame football site better than the rest of the internet.

I appreciate the comment. It's always nice to receive positive feedback.

[Irish#1]

Rev,
I too am a Civil War buff, not a fanatic, but very interested. While I was born and raised in Indiana, I always felt more of a connection to the South. Probably because they were the underdog and came very close to winning.

You are 100% correct about Grant. A drop over drunk, he recognized a second chance when given to him and wasn't afraid to fail like the previous generals. He used the most basic tenents of war. Find you opponents weakness and keep attacking it. In this case, it was the South's inferior size and lack of supplies. I consider Lee to be the greatest general in US history and possibly ever. Lee knew his armies limitations and recognized the weakness of the north generals and used it to his advantage. He dominated the war until Grant took over and unleashed his superior numbers. If Lee would have had Grants army and supplies the war wouldn't have lasted six months and we'd all be whistling Dixie right now.

From what I've read, Kelly is going back to the basic tenents of football. Let's hope he's built a staff the same way Grant and Lee did. Surround yourself with a superior staff who aren't afraid to speak up and aren't afraid of failure. Weis showed Kelly he already has a superior army (athletes).

BTW...Don't know where you've been and what you've seen, but if you haven't been, get to Andersonville. I've visited twice. A very sobering and thought provoking place. I've also been to Manassas. What an amazing story about the doctor who moved from Bull Run to avoid the war. For those of you who don't know, I encourage you to look up the rest of the story. Rev, If you like to read historical novels, Gods and Generals is a great read as is the rest of the trilogy. The movie didn't do the book any justice.

Sorry guys, didn't mean to ramble.

[Revolver]

Rev,
I too am a Civil War buff, not a fanatic, but very interested. While I was born and raised in Indiana, I always felt more of a connection to the South. Probably because they were the underdog and came very close to winning.

You are 100% correct about Grant. A drop over drunk, he recognized a second chance when given to him and wasn't afraid to fail like the previous generals. He used the most basic tenents of war. Find you opponents weakness and keep attacking it. In this case, it was the South's inferior size and lack of supplies. I consider Lee to be the greatest general in US history and possibly ever. Lee knew his armies limitations and recognized the weakness of the north generals and used it to his advantage. He dominated the war until Grant took over and unleashed his superior numbers. If Lee would have had Grants army and supplies the war wouldn't have lasted six months and we'd all be whistling Dixie right now.

From what I've read, Kelly is going back to the basic tenents of football. Let's hope he's built a staff the same way Grant and Lee did. Surround yourself with a superior staff who aren't afraid to speak up and aren't afraid of failure. Weis showed Kelly he already has a superior army (athletes).

BTW...Don't know where you've been and what you've seen, but if you haven't been, get to Andersonville. I've visited twice. A very sobering and thought provoking place. I've also been to Manassas. What an amazing story about the doctor who moved from Bull Run to avoid the war. For those of you who don't know, I encourage you to look up the rest of the story. Rev, If you like to read historical novels, Gods and Generals is a great read as is the rest of the trilogy. The movie didn't do the book any justice.

Sorry guys, didn't mean to ramble.

Oh you didn't ranble. That's what message boards are for.

Grant needed war to be successful. Like patton needed it. Like Macarthur needed it. Some men just thrive under it. Grant was very successful in the war with mexico. The years between that war and the civil war was where he was not. Obviously after the civil war he became a two term president. He was considered a poor president. I believe that to be mistaken. Yes, he had corruption in his cabinet but he oversaw reconstruction. When you think about it, Grant defeated the south.....then he rebuilt it.

Lee was obviously brilliant. I actually have a higher opinion of Jackson and Stuart. Without these two, the war ends quickly. Neither would have attacked Gettysburg. You simply go around the army of the potomac and force them to move.

The thing is, the south was fighting harder in the early years to save their homeland. Also, the Northern cavalry could not ride. The north simply was not ready for WAR. The south was. Once the cavalry of the north got it's act together, things were a little different.

I have not been to andersonville. I have been to gettysburg, Stones river, The Battle of franklin and Chatanooga(very cool to go up lookout Mountain. where the confed cannons are still standing). i saw gods and Generals and was somewhat disapointed.

I plan on reading 'Grant takes command' soon.

Thanks for the input!

[NDgrandson]

Maybe BK can be our Ryan Grant. Ryan Grant had the talent, but it wansn't really seen until he got his shot at the NFL. Maybe BK can take CW's talent and win with them now.

Consider me a bit under educated on the Civil War, but wouldn't racists or "pro slavery" be about the only people upset the North won?

[Irish#1]

Oh you didn't ranble. That's what message boards are for.

Grant needed war to be successful. Like patton needed it. Like Macarthur needed it. Some men just thrive under it. Grant was very successful in the war with mexico. The years between that war and the civil war was where he was not. Obviously after the civil war he became a two term president. He was considered a poor president. I believe that to be mistaken. Yes, he had corruption in his cabinet but he oversaw reconstruction. When you think about it, Grant defeated the south.....then he rebuilt it.

Lee was obviously brilliant. I actually have a higher opinion of Jackson and Stuart. Without these two, the war ends quickly. Neither would have attacked Gettysburg. You simply go around the army of the potomac and force them to move.

The thing is, the south was fighting harder in the early years to save their homeland. Also, the Northern cavalry could not ride. The north simply was not ready for WAR. The south was. Once the cavalry of the north got it's act together, things were a little different.

I have not been to andersonville. I have been to gettysburg, Stones river, The Battle of franklin and Chatanooga(very cool to go up lookout Mountain. where the confed cannons are still standing). i saw gods and Generals and was somewhat disapointed.

I plan on reading 'Grant takes command' soon.

Thanks for the input!

I've stopped at Chattanooga as well. Haven't been to Gettysburg or Stones River.

Jackson & Stuart were great generals as was Longstreet. They may have not fought at Gettysburg, but if the officer of the South (name escapes me) maintains the one vantage point upon first arrival, the North never gets the advantage of Little Round Top and the other premium locations and the South probaby wins at Gettysburg. There are so many of those incidents of "if they" throughout the civil war that make it so interesting, which you obviously are aware of. I wouldn't let the movie discourage you from reading Gods & Generals. I think you will find it very entertaining.

NDGrandson,
To the South slavery wasn't the reason for the war. It was a part of it, but their main premise was each state wanted to maintain independance and be able to make their own decisions such as the right to own slaves. To the North, the right to remain as independant states was simply a veil to cover the slavery issue. Regardless of how you look at it, the South was much more passionate about their position and is the biggest reason the war lasted so long even though the North was superior in almost every way. The North population just couldn't understand. It wasn't until Lee invaded Pennsylvania that the North really got into it. Up until then, the war had been fought on South soil, so there was no real threat against their homes until Gettysburg. At the battle of the first Bull Run (Manassas), civilians actually came to the battle field to watch. According to newspapers, the North and its citizens expected this battle to be over in a manner of minutes and order restored. They had obviously under-estimated the Souths passion. Grant and Sherman never did.

[IrishinTN]

Maybe BK can be our Ryan Grant. Ryan Grant had the talent, but it wansn't really seen until he got his shot at the NFL. Maybe BK can take CW's talent and win with them now.

Consider me a bit under educated on the Civil War, but wouldn't racists or "pro slavery" be about the only people upset the North won?

Ugh, Grandson...for all the reasons Irish listed above, the answer to your question is no. In fact, Many confederates were not necessarily pro-slavery, either. they just wanted their own right to decide rather than a strong-armed central government telling them they had to. I believe it was Longstreet who complained that had the South abolished slavery before the war began, they would have won. And he was right. Had they abolished slavery, England and France would have supported the new government and provided weapons and ships.

Rev, I have been to all the battlefields you listed, except Andersonville Prison. Gattysburg is by far the best preserved. It is a terrific place to visit, even if it is just once in your life.

[Irish#1]

Ugh, Grandson...for all the reasons Irish listed above, the answer to your question is no. In fact, Many confederates were not necessarily pro-slavery, either. they just wanted their own right to decide rather than a strong-armed central government telling them they had to. I believe it was Longstreet who complained that had the South abolished slavery before the war began, they would have won. And he was right. Had they abolished slavery, England and France would have supported the new government and provided weapons and ships.

Rev, I have been to all the battlefields you listed, except Andersonville Prison. Gattysburg is by far the best preserved. It is a terrific place to visit, even if it is just once in your life.

IrishTN,
I believe you are right about Longstreet. At that point in time, England was still mad at the US for the butt kicking they received. I'm hoping to get to Gettysburg in the next year or two. My wife always wants to take vacations in Florida, so it makes it a little difficult. The last time I was at Andersonville which was about 12 years ago they were just starting to put up a replica of the stockade barrier that was originally there. I'm assuming it is up by now. It's a little off the beaten path, but worth the visit as I'm sure Gettysburg is.

[IrishinTN]

IrishTN,
I believe you are right about Longstreet. At that point in time, England was still mad at the US for the butt kicking they received. I'm hoping to get to Gettysburg in the next year or two. My wife always wants to take vacations in Florida, so it makes it a little difficult. The last time I was at Andersonville which was about 12 years ago they were just starting to put up a replica of the stockade barrier that was originally there. I'm assuming it is up by now. It's a little off the beaten path, but worth the visit as I'm sure Gettysburg is.

Andersonville really isn't that far away, and I would love to see it. Of course neither are Shiloh, Vicksburg, or a host of other battlefields. I really ought to just take a long weekend a visit a bunch of them.

Oh, and I read Gods and Generals and saw the movie and you're right, that movie was okay, but not nearly what it could have been. Takes a little to get used to Jeff Shaara's writing style as he seems to use no punctiation but commas, but after you get into the flow it is a good read. Gettysburg (or The Killer Angels) were both pretty good, though, and his father's style was slightly different and easier to read IMHO.

[Irish#1]

Andersonville really isn't that far away, and I would love to see it. Of course neither are Shiloh, Vicksburg, or a host of other battlefields. I really ought to just take a long weekend a visit a bunch of them.

Oh, and I read Gods and Generals and saw the movie and you're right, that movie was okay, but not nearly what it could have been. Takes a little to get used to Jeff Shaara's writing style as he seems to use no punctiation but commas, but after you get into the flow it is a good read. Gettysburg (or The Killer Angels) were both pretty good, though, and his father's style was slightly different and easier to read IMHO.

That's funny you mentioned his fathers style to be a little easier to read. Wasn't it the second of the trilogys when the father died and Jeff finished the book before writing the third one himself? Personally, I really couldn't tell a difference in the writing, but then I'm not a real stickler for punctuation.

Andersonville is off the beaten path in Georgia. My wife and I were going from Albany to Atlanta on 29(?) when I saw the sign and decided to make a detour. I'd like to take a weekend like you said and visit a few other sites.

Cold Mountain is also a good read for fiction. The movie was pretty good, but fell a little short of the book. Save your Dixie cups, the South shall rise again. :-)

[IrishinTN]

Ha! When I first moved here from Pennsylvania 16 years ago, I thought it was a joke to hear people say the South was still fighting the Civil War, then I read the pamphlet at the Battle of Franklin that called the war the "The War of Northern Aggression" and I realized in a lot of ways it is true. but I also learned in almost all ways, the war is often depicted as Grandson stated. It wasn't until I moved down here that I finally got a good understanding of the Souths true reason for fighting it.

[Revolver]

Just watched a special on Fredericksburg.

Dipshit Burnside. Meade should have been in charge.

[NDgrandson]

If the South knew then what it knows now... and what our country has come to be... would it still have fought and lost so many lives to fight for their individual independance? Or would they be satisfied with what the United States became following the Civil War? If the South won, what are some of the differences we would see from certain states?

I am learning here. I lived in Frederick, MD for 3 years and drove past many battlefields in MD, PA, WV and VA. While I was never really taught much about the war, I enjoy the movies and always imagined being there back in time when looking at that land. I don't even remember what grade the Civil War was taught. I know many people that grow up around those parts totally take the history for granted. What is wrong with our schools?

[IrishinTN]

Burnside was a disaster, but we do maintain the term "sideburns" from him. Forever remembered for two things.

Grandson, it is hard to say because the roots of the Civil War go all the way back to 1820 when the South felt they were already being treated unfairly by the North in regards to trade and exports. If you base it on two things, I think the South would have been happy to avoid war, but felt it had no choice any more in order to fight what it felt was "preferential treatment" towards the North. The first thing is that there have never been any real rumblings of Civil War since then. No overt effort to continue to undermine the Federal government.
The second thing is that there was no real guerrilla war that continued on after the Civil War. There were pockets of unrest, but they collapsed quickly and the entire country moved on to healing. A major partt of this can be directly attributed to Colonel Joshua Chamberlain (my favorite Civil War figure) who was chosen by Grant himself to lead the color guard outside Appomattox courthouse while the surrender was being signed. He was chosen over every other junior officer in the army and it was another excellent decision by Grant. When Lee emerged with his staff, Chamberlain had the color guard salute him and his adjutants. One simple sign of respect they say that allowed the country to move past the war without any major resistance from the South.

[Revolver]

We can also thank Chamberlain for holding on to little round top at Gettysburg and then counter-attacking via the 'swinging gate'.

[Irish#1]

We can also thank Chamberlain for holding on to little round top at Gettysburg and then counter-attacking via the 'swinging gate'.

You beat me to the punch Rev. That single act by Chamberlain is probably what finally decided Gettysburg. If he hadn't done that, the battle of Gettysburg probably would have went on for several more days. The interesting part about the swinging gate, is that manevuer was something you would expect from the South and not the North. Up until then, the North fought most of their battles according to old military strategies the British used in the Revolutionary War, while the South used tactics more like Washington did against the British.

Good questions Grandson. It's really hard to say what we would look like now. TN is right, the South was still holding onto principles the US used to justify the war against the British. The North had a tendancy to forget that.

We always hear people talk about over population, crowding, not enough tax money to take care of everyone. A question I always think about. Given the huge number of lives lost in the Civil War, I wonder how large the population of the US would be today and what affects it would have on the country if all those lives hadn't been taken?

[NDgrandson]

We can also thank Chamberlain for holding on to little round top at Gettysburg and then counter-attacking via the 'swinging gate'.

Is that where Willingham got it from?

[IrishinTN]

Is that where Willingham got it from?

No no. Ty perfected the Golf Club swing, not the swinging gate.

[Revolver]

This is a pretty cool video on youtube. The civil war in 4 minutes. 23 told me about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN85StJ2mTU

[Irish#1]

That is pretty neat.

[sonomairishfan]

I hardly post anymore. My promotion finally went through. And between a different shift, my 4 and 6 year old playing baseball and spending time with my wife, I just don't have time. Good for you guys! Ha ha. But allow me this brief one if you would.

I am somewhat of a civil war buff. Well, military history in general to be honest. So many fascinating people, so many strategies. So many aspects to apply to one's own life.

Ulysses S. Grant is one of my favorites. In fact, I use some of his principles for my daily life. His straight forward, simple, aggressive, yet humble style is to be admired. These qualities, along with his brilliant taking of Vicksburg is what prompted Lincoln(the greatest man our nation ever produced) to proclaim 'Grant is my man'.

I posted the following Grant quote on my FB page: The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant

This received several comments. One in particular was Stoney stating how he felt it applied to politics as well. I agree. In fact, it applies to an awful lot of things in life. In cluding FOOTBALL.

In football, so many of us try to make it more complicated than it is. 90% of the time, the more physically gifted team will win. If equally matched, the team that blocks and tackles better will win 90% of the time. The above Grant quote reminds me of Jimmy Johnson's philosophy while coaching the Dallas Cowboys: Aquire talented players, put them in position to win, and keep it simple. They won. And they won alot.

For so long, Notre Dame has NOT won alot. They enjoy huge name recognition, their own TV network, a national recruiting and fan base, state of the art facilities and historical singificance. But despite this, they have not won big since the early 1990's. They have had incompetant, outmatched or too complicated and indecive leadership at the reigns.

The same could be said for the Union in the early years of the civil war. They had every advantage. However, Incompetant, timid and outdated generals such as McClellan were still fighting napoleanic wars while Generals such as lee, jackson and Stuart where just mopping the floor with them. Then, Grant rises in the west. First Shiloh, then Vicksburg, then Chattanooga. Lincoln appoints him Lieutenant general of all Union armies.(Only George Washington ever had this title!)

He immediately puts Sherman in charge of the western theatre. Grant takes command in the east. He implements a 'total war' doctrine. He uses his superior numbers and supplies. He keeps it simple, organized, smart, and aggressive. He proceeds to attack the invincible Lee....over and over again. Never letting up, never letting him rest. Winning 3 out of 4 battles against him. The 4th being a draw. Lee understands it's over. Grant is competent and effective, smart and unrelenting. He is not Napolian of course. But neither was Wellington.

I'm hoping Kelly is our Grant.
I'm hoping Diaco is our Sherman.

Weis was never able to put a staff together. He couldn't stick to one defense or keep a clear vision of things. As organized as he was personally, his program was not. Far too often, his teams would lose to vastly lesser programs. He finally was yanked from his command. And it was time.

I'm hoping that Kelly will create a program that is organized, well thought out, simple yet effective. Competent and unrelenting. A program that can take the advantages that the program naturally has and concentrate them into building a winner. A winner that Notre Dame deserves. A winner that the Notre Dame fanbase, Alumni and subway alike, deserve.

i just hope kelly doesn't drink as much as grant did!

[sonomairishfan]

Ugh, Grandson...for all the reasons Irish listed above, the answer to your question is no. In fact, Many confederates were not necessarily pro-slavery, either. they just wanted their own right to decide rather than a strong-armed central government telling them they had to. I believe it was Longstreet who complained that had the South abolished slavery before the war began, they would have won. And he was right. Had they abolished slavery, England and France would have supported the new government and provided weapons and ships.

Rev, I have been to all the battlefields you listed, except Andersonville Prison. Gattysburg is by far the best preserved. It is a terrific place to visit, even if it is just once in your life.

the english and french may have supported the south with weapons, i agree. and if the south would have won the war, the british would have been on their way over here with an armada and it's army to retake this land for the queen. especially if the south would have abolished slavery because the freed slaves would have more than likely been nuetral. the british could have given two craps about the south and their freedom, they wanted this hemisphere back. the same with the french.
it's a damn good thing it ended the way it did or democracy would no longer exist in this hemisphere.

[sonomairishfan]

great thread by the way!

[notredomer23]

You beat me to the punch Rev. That single act by Chamberlain is probably what finally decided Gettysburg. If he hadn't done that, the battle of Gettysburg probably would have went on for several more days. The interesting part about the swinging gate, is that manevuer was something you would expect from the South and not the North. Up until then, the North fought most of their battles according to old military strategies the British used in the Revolutionary War, while the South used tactics more like Washington did against the British.

Good questions Grandson. It's really hard to say what we would look like now. TN is right, the South was still holding onto principles the US used to justify the war against the British. The North had a tendancy to forget that.

We always hear people talk about over population, crowding, not enough tax money to take care of everyone. A question I always think about. Given the huge number of lives lost in the Civil War, I wonder how large the population of the US would be today and what affects it would have on the country if all those lives hadn't been taken?

If he didn't do that we would have lost the battle. The rebs would have controlled Little Round Top and would have been able to fire down on the rest of our army. Losing Gettysburg could have meant losing the war, so that single action really could have been the deciding factor in the war.

[Domer Dog]

"... the same with the french.
it's a damn good thing it ended the way it did or democracy would no longer exist in this hemisphere."

Have you seen the healthcare debate? Forced to buy insurance? Significant taxes? Bribes? Upsidedown polls for Congress and the Plan? Socialism at its finest. Democracy apparently doesn't exist here anymore. Politics today is not what our forefathers expected or wanted. By the way, I agree Lincoln was fabulous (one of my favorites), but if you take some time to read Jefferson, he was incredibly brilliant and forward thinking. His comments on democracy, big government, and responsibility foretold the concerns of many today. He, Adams, Franklin, and others had incredible foresight in framing a new government. If you think about the Constitution and when it was made, its really an unbelievable and profound document.

[IrishinTN]

If he didn't do that we would have lost the battle. The rebs would have controlled Little Round Top and would have been able to fire down on the rest of our army. Losing Gettysburg could have meant losing the war, so that single action really could have been the deciding factor in the war.

Actually, losing Vicksburg spelled the end of the war, and the South knew it. they had it so heavily fortified, they thought they would be able to keep it and the Mississippi. When Vicksburg fell, and with it any hopes of controlling the Mississippi and supply lines, Confederate leadership knew it was just a matter of time. Ironically, Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan worked just like he set it up, yet he gets no credit for winning the war.

Without the ability to re-supply the western theatre, any advance North would have had to stop so those troops could be pulled back to defend the homeland. Losing Gettysburg and Vicksburg within successive days was catastophic for the South. Vicksburg didn't celebrate the 4th of July for 70 years after their capitulation. That's how hard the citizens took losing their city. Joe Johnston really needed to grow some hair on his ass to help them out, but luckily for us, he didn't.

[IrishinTN]

the english and french may have supported the south with weapons, i agree. and if the south would have won the war, the british would have been on their way over here with an armada and it's army to retake this land for the queen. especially if the south would have abolished slavery because the freed slaves would have more than likely been nuetral. the british could have given two craps about the south and their freedom, they wanted this hemisphere back. the same with the french.
it's a damn good thing it ended the way it did or democracy would no longer exist in this hemisphere.

As far as slaves fighting for the confederacy had they freed them first, there were thousands who fought for the confederacy WITHOUT freeing them, and hundreds of thousands who provided logistical support for the South. this was due to the same mindset that had so many anti-slavery Whites, like Lee himself, fighting for the South- state pride. Had they freed them, and then England tried to take America again, they would have failed again.
http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/mobile.html

Remember, too, after the Revolutionary War and especially the bad losses they took in the War of 1812, including with popular support amongst their own population for "fighting a war so far away" (sound familiar?), the Revolutionary War could be considered England's Vietnam. Men like John Wilkes (a very popular English politician amongst American, so much so he has two cities named after him and is probably the namesake for John Wilkes-Booth) spoke out openly about how disadvantageous the war in America was, and that Americans deserved their freedom. What England and France really wanted was a more de-stabilized America becuase they knew how powerful a United States could become.

[Irish#1]

As far as slaves fighting for the confederacy had they freed them first, there were thousands who fought for the confederacy WITHOUT freeing them, and hundreds of thousands who provided logistical support for the South. this was due to the same mindset that had so many anti-slavery Whites, like Lee himself, fighting for the South- state pride. Had they freed them, and then England tried to take America again, they would have failed again.
http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/mobile.html

Remember, too, after the Revolutionary War and especially the bad losses they took in the War of 1812, including with popular support amongst their own population for "fighting a war so far away" (sound familiar?), the Revolutionary War could be considered England's Vietnam. Men like John Wilkes (a very popular English politician amongst American, so much so he has two cities named after him and is probably the namesake for John Wilkes-Booth) spoke out openly about how disadvantageous the war in America was, and that Americans deserved their freedom. What England and France really wanted was a more de-stabilized America becuase they knew how powerful a United States could become.

The Vietnam comparison is interesting except the US was fighting for the SVN government, while the British were fighting for themselves. Still interesting thought.

[Revolver]

I'm not of the opinion that a loss at Gettysburg spelled doom for the Union. Embarrassing and demoralizing, yes.

Vicksburg gets taken the very next day, which was just as or even more catastrophic to the South.

The South was simply trying to buy time after that. Trying to make the war as bloody as possible to make the Union simply give in and leave them alone.

Atlanta falling made the war over period. Lee was too stubborn, proud and had to much faith in his army of northern virginia to admit it. Lee was a great commander but a foolish man. he really was. His allegiance to virginia was beyond ridiculous.

At least he finally surrenderred and let his boys go home when he did instead of resorting to a guerrilla campaign in the appalachians like he thought about doing.

Grant kicked his ass.

[BigIrish]

I keep clicking on this thread expecting it to turn back toward ND football. Interesting, sure, but can we move this out of the football forum if it's going to focus strictly on American wars/politics?

I know there hasn't been much to talk about lately, but spring practice is starting very soon and there's sure to be some football related conversation to be had there.

[Irish#1]

I'm not of the opinion that a loss at Gettysburg spelled doom for the Union. Embarrassing and demoralizing, yes.

Vicksburg gets taken the very next day, which was just as or even more catastrophic to the South.

The South was simply trying to buy time after that. Trying to make the war as bloody as possible to make the Union simply give in and leave them alone.

Atlanta falling made the war over period. Lee was too stubborn, proud and had to much faith in his army of northern virginia to admit it. Lee was a great commander but a foolish man. he really was. His allegiance to virginia was beyond ridiculous.

At least he finally surrenderred and let his boys go home when he did instead of resorting to a guerrilla campaign in the appalachians like he thought about doing.

Grant kicked his ass.

I was born and raised in Indiana, and I don't have any allegiance one way or the other or feel any strong ties, but given how we are today, I would say its good the North prevailed. IMO Lee was a much better general than Grant was. Grant did indeed kick his butt, but any of the north generals that came before Grant could have done the same thing, given the strength of numbers and resources available to him. Grant and Lee were very similar in styles in that they took their planning and strategy down to the basic levels, never trying to be elaborate. Lee had an uncanny knack for knowing what his opponent was going to do before they did it. He always beat them to the punch. His records showed he even knew what Grant was going to do. He just didn't have the resources for a full out face to face winner take all confrontation.

If Lee had those resources, the South would have won the Civil War. It's like the Colts playing a college team and not really trying until the fifth head coach came on board. The South struggled early as well until Davis finally appointed Lee. Lee did exactly what he was asked to do. Make the war as long and as painful for the North as possible in order for them to finally give in. How many times have we read that if Lee had led the North the war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long. I'm not so sure the South wouldn't have won the war if they had won Gettysburg. Per all accounts for the South, the next step after Gettysburg was D.C. and the prevailing thought was if they were camped outside the capitol, the North would have been forced to surrender or at least agree to a truce. I believe the North hadn't left a large enough army in D.C. to hold off the South. So the North takes Vicksburg, but the South has D.C.. A truce gets worked out and both sides release the others city.

Good stuff.

[Revolver]

The thing is, yes the north had more resources but they didn't have the intangibles. The south had all the great, badass generals. Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Longstreet, Johnston, ect.

The south was able to fight a defensive war. They were protecting their way of life, their land, women, crops, ect.

Most of the north wasn't even really into the war untill 1863. The north was soft.

The army of northern virginia was no college team going against the colts. I would put that army up against any army on earth at the time.

If Grant is leading the Army of the potomac, however, the war is probably won by the end of 1862. Unfortunately, the north had to wait for a grant to develope.

And this is for Bigirish. Let's hope that Grant forces the teams on our schedule next year to unconditionally surrender! :ridinghorse:

[Irish#1]

The thing is, yes the north had more resources but they didn't have the intangibles. The south had all the great, badass generals. Lee, Jackson, Stuart, Longstreet, Johnston, ect.

The south was able to fight a defensive war. They were protecting their way of life, their land, women, crops, ect.

Most of the north wasn't even really into the war untill 1863. The north was soft.

The army of northern virginia was no college team going against the colts. I would put that army up against any army on earth at the time.

If Grant is leading the Army of the potomac, however, the war is probably won by the end of 1862. Unfortunately, the north had to wait for a grant to develope.

And this is for Bigirish. Let's hope that Grant forces the teams on our schedule next year to unconditionally surrender! :ridinghorse:

I wouldn't mind if Kelly is part Grant and part Lee. :aggressive:

[Revolver]

I wouldn't mind if Kelly is part Grant and part Lee. :aggressive:

Offensively, he can be Grant. Defensively, Lee. Ha ha.

It will be interesting to see how/if he turns it around. Jimmy Johnson wrote a book called 'turning the thing around'. It was pretty interesting.

If Michael Irvin was 5 minutes late getting to the airport after a road game, he would leave his ass there. Even if he could see him running to the plane. He kept his stars in line like this, imagine how common players felt.

I don't think Weis would have done this to one of his stars. I think Kelly would.....if he could. He'll find other ways.

[Revolver]

Grant takes command!

Time to make our enemies howl!

[HillbillyIrish]

Charlie may have been Braxton Bragg.

[NDisNCin2010]

Offensively, he can be Grant. Defensively, Lee. Ha ha.

It will be interesting to see how/if he turns it around. Jimmy Johnson wrote a book called 'turning the thing around'. It was pretty interesting.

If Michael Irvin was 5 minutes late getting to the airport after a road game, he would leave his ass there. Even if he could see him running to the plane. He kept his stars in line like this, imagine how common players felt.
I don't think Weis would have done this to one of his stars. I think Kelly would.....if he could. He'll find other ways.

what was Jimmy's punishment when Irvin was in his hotel with hookers doing blow till 8in the morning?

[oronhey]

Well hopefully the loss of Pete Carroll is like the loss of Stonewall Jackson and will help expedite the fall of the South as in SOUTHern California.

[Revolver]

what was Jimmy's punishment when Irvin was in his hotel with hookers doing blow till 8in the morning?

Probably the same punishment that Parcels would give Lawrence Taylor for doing the same thing.

Irvin was never late for practice. LT was always late for practice.

Irvin knows he has a problem and has done his best to become a decent man.

LT doesn't give a shit.

[NDisNCin2010]

Probably the same punishment that Parcels would give Lawrence Taylor for doing the same thing.

Irvin was never late for practice. LT was always late for practice.

Irvin knows he has a problem and has done his best to become a decent man.

LT doesn't give a shit.

well played Rev...ya got me there.

[Revolver]

Kelly sure is recruiting like Grant.

Aggressive
Relentless
Dogged
Determined
Flanking
Closing

Alford playing the Sherman role here.

[KamaraPolice]

WOW Rev, I'm impressed! As I have a degree in history and one of my specialities is the Civil War, it is refreshing to see people remember the past and apply it to today. We must remember the past, for it is bound to repeat itself. NDs past is one of tradition, honor, and winning! Remember the past and attach the future!!!

All I remember reading about the Civil War was General Washington crossing the Rubicon, fending off the Panzer tanks he encountered, and becoming the first president of the US.

[HoffVir]

All I remember reading about the Civil War was General Washington crossing the Rubicon, fending off the Panzer tanks he encountered, and becoming the first president of the US.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. That's how World War I got started.

[IrishinTN]

Morons. It was George Washington Carver discovering electricity and building e-bombs to defeat the panzers that helped win the War of English Aggression.