What is the republic's policy towards Tories?

laz wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:A very concisely argued presentation. Unfortunately, Lyonheart is wrong about where the 37th is going to be fighting.

Just wondering but are you currently editing the book to shoot down Lyonheart's ideas?


laz

Nope. Too late for that sort of frivolity.

Replies to numbered points:

1 - Its True Name was
"The War For Slaveholders' Privileges."

2 - "intended" not "expected" to fight there,
but note that Lee did take it into Maryland in 1862,
and into Pennsylvania in 1863.
Still, this has the Best Support of all these points.

3 - The Army of Tennessee was in Georgia,
for all the time that Joe Johnston commanded it.

4 - McPherson and Sherman commanded the
(Union) Army of the Tennessee, which Grant had
formed there and taken to Vicksburg, Miss.
It was dependent on the Tennessee River for supplies,
but was in Georgia during McPherson's tenure.
NOTE: it did recruit some soldiers in Mississippi.
Almost all of them were black.

The Union Army of the Mississippi was Pope's outfit.

ColonialBoy wrote:[snip - htm]
1 - During the "War between the States" (aka "The ACW", although official US Army histories label it "The War of the Rebellion" [see: U.S. Army counterinsurgency and contingency operations doctrine, 1860–1941 http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-66-1/CMH_Pub_70-66-1.pdf]),

a Confederate General (R. E. Lee) commanded the
2 - Army of Northern Virginia (named so,
as that was where it expected to engage in combat).
Another Confederate General (J. E. Johnston)
3 - was commander of the Army of Tennessee,
which held off a flanking attack by Union General
4 - James McPherson's Army of the Mississippi
(I can guarantee it's soldiers didn't come from Mississippi ) which happened to be
Union General W. T. Sherman's former command.
[snip - htm]

Just call it "The Slaveowners Revolt".

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Replies to numbered points:

1 - Its True Name was
"The War For Slaveholders' Privileges."

2 - "intended" not "expected" to fight there,
but note that Lee did take it into Maryland in 1862,
and into Pennsylvania in 1863.
Still, this has the Best Support of all these points.

3 - The Army of Tennessee was in Georgia,
for all the time that Joe Johnston commanded it.

4 - McPherson and Sherman commanded the
(Union) Army of the Tennessee, which Grant had
formed there and taken to Vicksburg, Miss.
It was dependent on the Tennessee River for supplies,
but was in Georgia during McPherson's tenure.
NOTE: it did recruit some soldiers in Mississippi.
Almost all of them were black.

The Union Army of the Mississippi was Pope's outfit.

ColonialBoy wrote:[snip - htm]
1 - During the "War between the States" (aka "The ACW", although official US Army histories label it "The War of the Rebellion" [see: U.S. Army counterinsurgency and contingency operations doctrine, 1860–1941 http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/070/70-66-1/CMH_Pub_70-66-1.pdf]),

a Confederate General (R. E. Lee) commanded the
2 - Army of Northern Virginia (named so,
as that was where it expected to engage in combat).
Another Confederate General (J. E. Johnston)
3 - was commander of the Army of Tennessee,
which held off a flanking attack by Union General
4 - James McPherson's Army of the Mississippi
(I can guarantee it's soldiers didn't come from Mississippi ) which happened to be
Union General W. T. Sherman's former command.
[snip - htm]

Hello RunsForCelery,

The frivolity of it all is quite amusing.

I should have realized that the green Cove trace is too obvious for the MWW, my original guess was Shiloh province before the clarification regarding the 1st Glacierheart Volunteers skewed my thinking, so back to Shiloh, though the Branath canal must be dealt with sooner or later.

Thank you too, Laz, for not piling on; you two made me smile.

L

runsforcelery wrote:

laz wrote:**quote="runsforcelery"**
A very concisely argued presentation. Unfortunately, Lyonheart is wrong about where the 37th is going to be fighting. **/quote**

Just wondering but are you currently editing the book to shoot down Lyonheart's ideas?


laz

Nope. Too late for that sort of frivolity.

DrakBibliophile wrote:Just call it "The Slaveowners Revolt".

Yes, the slaveholders were quite revolting! I hold with Heinlein (Citizen of the Galaxy), that slavery is one of the worst sins!

[quote="DrakBibliophile"]Just call it "The Slaveowners Revolt".

I prefer the War of Southern Treason and am of the view that the country would've been better served if our ancestors had pushed the rebels into the sea.

It's often forgotten that the rebels attempted to conquer Northern Territory....

Gracious, not a lot of promoting reconcilation on THIS thread...

Don

n7axw wrote:Gracious, not a lot of promoting reconcilation on THIS thread...

Don

Unfortunately, many of the issues that fueled that war are still with us today. Some have been replaced by the modern equivalent, but most of the original reasons still exist. States Rights, Tariffs and Taxes. Civil Rights for minorities and Immigration just to name a few.

KNick wrote:

n7axw wrote:Gracious, not a lot of promoting reconcilation on THIS thread...

Don

Unfortunately, many of the issues that fueled that war are still with us today. Some have been replaced by the modern equivalent, but most of the original reasons still exist. States Rights, Tariffs and Taxes. Civil Rights for minorities and Immigration just to name a few.

Indeed they are. Both succession and nulification are current topics in some political circles.

Don

Shorthand way of irritating everyone if you are far south of the Mason-Dixon line, or are in the Shenandoah Valley, is to call it The War of Southern Aggression. Bonus points if you can pronounce the capitalization like some of the neoconfeds can with the so called War of Northern Aggression.