"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.


Well,Total population of Union States was 22,000,000 ,Confederate States
only
5,000,000.
Union military forces outnumbered Confederates by more than 2,5 to 1.

So if you follow your way of thinking they should do whatever Union wants
them
to do,not they want to do,to conserve their scarce manpower resources.


Since in the end they lost and had to do exactly that you
could indeed draw that inference. However I was pointing out that
they could ill afford to squander their soldier's lives.


Heck,I wonder why some states are still issuing license plates "Live free
or
Die".logo.


That would be New Hampshire - not a confederate state you may recall.


he most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were

Most accepted figure is 20000 for Confederates.


Rather high even so

He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

Maybe Lee should have listened Longstreet,but even if Lee won at
Gettysburg it
would not change much,confederates were hopelessly outnumbered.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

You seem to repeat revisionist Civil War historian Rhea and trying to
rehabilitate Grant and Sherman.

You dont need to rehabilitate winners.

But its impossible to rehabilate persons whose achievements during Civil
War
are limited to terrorizing civilians.


And winning the war

Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

They only wanted to peacefully secede from the Union,but they were
outnumbered
so they had to accept "union by force" option to save lives.


They wanted to maintain slavery which was why they seceded.

I think EU could be created 65 years ago if Brits and other Europeans
accepted
a corporals' "Union by force" proposals and many lives could saved.
So they must be stupid too.


No we didnt want to be German slaves.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

Grant was a slaver too.

No he married a woman from Missouri who owned
slaves.

Grant and Sherman would be the first ones who get convicted in 20th war
crimes
tribunal.Besides being a barbarian,Grant was an anti-semite too.


Scarcely unsual for the time, note I have not proposed Grant
for beatification. He certainly had his faults but he was an
effective general.

Civil War only ended when Confederates run out of soldiers ,supplies and
everything.

Yep Sherman's march to the sea and the razing of the Shenandoah
valley cut combined with the Union naval blockade cut Virginia
off from its sources of supply. A succesful strategy in fact.

Heck, the "Master of Maneuver" even lost more than 6000 soldier within one
Hour
,but he did not have worry about.


Quite so, he won after all.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---