Toughness on another level.

Most Yankees were shot in the azz...…...running away.

I wonder if he was hit with a 9mm or 270?

6.5 Creedmoor

The pain that poor fella endured must have been on another level as well.

And yet we still kicked your asses.

Wow.....not in a 1,000 years would I have thought that could happen.

Simply not true.

Starving civilians, raping women, fighting children from the Citadel. All proud accomplishments. Yay you.

He was probably thinking of English troops in the Revolution or War of 1812.

And how's that working out for ya?

If that was true, the CSA would have lasted longer than it did.

Thanks for clearing that up Professor......

Yeah, we shot them running away back then, and then had to save their azzes from Germans.............not once, but twice.

Four years wasn't long enough[given the challenges such as lack of manufacturing from the start]

James has taken so many back shots his ass looks like a dartboard.

Wow JJ, you be a time traveler...or.....just ...(a legend in your own mind)?

Wow, what a set of balls.
Never heard this story before, though I’m a hardcore Civil War buff.
Thanks for posting.
7mm

Another example of hubris leading to failure.

Tag for later.

poor james .the intellect of a ash tray.

All the way to Appomattox.

I was at my local watering hole a few years back, and I heard this briton chattin' up a couple of our local cuties, so I asked the KJ to put this in the rotation for me. 20 mins later this jolly kid wasn't pleased. One of my best ideas so far...

The Southern boys were better marksman... Too bad so many of my Irish brothers late landed in joo york, if they landed in Florida I guarantee the South would have won.

In the Western Theatre the Confederacy was steadily losing, and retreating, from first to last, with a brief respite at Chickamauga. If ya wanted to be a moron you could claim them Rebs were “running away”.

In the East the Union invaded Virginia several times, got stopped in a major battle each time, turned around and went home.

Bobby Lee invaded the North twice, got stopped in a major battle both times, turned around and went home.

Then Grant took control in the East. Under Grant Union bodies piled up in windrows before Confederate works, thousands upon thousands of men who didn’t run, and Grant got it done.

What data makes you think that "The Southern boys were better marksman."?

I've read a lot of books on the American Civil War and don't recall that assertion being made in any of them.

25% of the Union Army was comprised of immigrants from Ireland and Germany fresh off the boat landing in Northeastern cities. If there was a disparity, and I don't know that there was, that could be the reason if you make the assumption that they had less experience with firearms than native born Americans.

Immigrant troops/manpower were one of the many reasons "Ya'll" won the war. It would be quite ironic if their descendants wind up with a tax increase earmarked for slavery reparations wouldn't it?

If that was the case there would be a Confederate States of America aka another backwards $hit hole in the world the industrialized north would have been supporting. LOL!!!

Oh wham a hard right hook to the jaw of the jr. Jr. Jimmy.

Interesting video. Thanks.

Indeed. Shame it could not have been left at that.

Only because we ran out of powder....and shoes!!

There's a civil war right in front of your nose... but let's forget about that one and discuss crap that happened 150 years ago.

Refighting the American Civil War is one of the favorite topics on this site.

Most Yankees don't seem to have many, if any, feelings about the American Civil War unless they are visiting a museum or a battlefield. Many people who still affiliate themselves with the lost cause of the CSA are forever coming up with reasons why the CSA should have won, but didn't, almost as if they lost because the USA somehow cheated them out of a righteous victory. One of the challenges of exercising 20/20 hindsight is that both sides have access to the information and both would surely do some things differently. I think that the closest the CSA came to victory was after 1st Bull Run/1st Manassas, when they might have forced the Union to concede to the Confederate demands for independence if P.T.G. Beauregard and Joseph E. Johnston's forces had followed the Union Army into Washington 159 years ago this week.

1st Bull Run/1st Manassas was fought 159 years ago TODAY, on July 21, 1861.

I don't think that there will be another American Civil War, rather this Country will continue its decline toward irrelevance, like the UK has been doing since the end of WW1.

The north had twice as many men, yet more yankees died than Rebels. 2 mil yanks killed 280K Rebels, and <1 mil Rebels killed 350K yanks. Similar for wounded, 275K yanks vs 135K Rebels, so I'd say that explains it pretty clear. Too bad lincoln was such a turd and wouldn't stand up against the (((war mongers))) and let the southern states go in peace. Instead he killed more Americans than all of our other wars combined, but they killed his arse anyways as payback for the greenbacks.

Hubris (arrogance) has obviously kicked you squarely in the ass.

Most historians of the time stated explicitly that had the Confederacy obtained European aid (mainly British and French economic aid) that the outcome of the Civil War would have been significantly different than how it played out. For the most part, poor Southerners fought for their homes and state's rights with resources that could not be replaced. Yankees fought for "the end of slavery", especially the large numbers of those who paid for their own replacements from the ranks of the poor to fill in for them to "end slavery" when enlistment in the Union Army became an issue for them.

Just for your own information, most modern-day ancestors of southern Civil War era people who still live in the south feel much like their ancestors did at the time. At the time most southerners didn't object to the outcome of the war nearly as much as they did to how the North "Reconstructed" the South after the war. And that's the craw that ticks in most minds even today. Don't be confused by what you learned in 11th grade American History.

https://lawaspect.com/advantages-north-south-civil-war/

Read the bit here about the burning of Brenham, TX in 1866.......Reconstruction.........One year after the war ended........

https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMVKBK_4_Early_Brenham_The_Burning_of_Brenham_in_1866_Brenham_TX

The overwhelming majority of Yankees fought to preserve the Union. Abolition was a divisive issue.

The yanks fought to keep the taxes coming from the southern, productive states and prevent them from leaving the sinking ship that was/is the New Amsterdam locale. State's Rights was the divisive issue, and the Federalists stole many lives to achieve their goal. The same game is played today if one has a keen eye. I'm not surprised that, yet again, I have to educate a teacher about the Truth. Though it's typical as it was 20 years ago when I was there, and boy do they get sideways when you prove them wrong... I've been removed from more classes from pointing out their fallacies than I have absences.

None of the preserved letters that my ancestors sent home said anything about freeing the slaves. They wrote about the same things that all soldiers write home to their families, crappy food, stupid officers, and demanding NCOs.

I doubt me and you are related.

As to the marksmanship issue, certainly those from rural backgrounds, especially Scots-Irish, on average were better marksmen, this included a larger proportion of Southern men who found themselves fighting very similar ilk when they went up against Union troops from Wisconsin, Minnesota and other more-recently settled areas.

Overall though, the Springfield and Enfield rifled muskets and their parabola trajectories required exact range estimation and practice, a thing in short supply in both armies. That and tactics, as actually deployed in battle the practical range of the rifled musket was scarcely greater than that of the smoothbore musket, which is precisely why some Union regiments preferred the old .69 cal smoothbores a loaded with buck and ball.

Ironically, England at that time was far ahead of us in formal marksmanship training. Part of the reason the US on both sides was flooded with Enfields is that these had been civilian-owned weapons of various quasi-military competitive shooting clubs. Shortly before our War of Secession the British government announced that none of these citizen militias were eligible for acceptance into the Army unless they were equipped with Enfields actually made in the Enfield armory, hence guys were unloading their knock-offs to re-equip.

It was Confederate General Patrick Cleburne, formerly a Corporal in the British army, who incorporated formal British Army-style marksmanship training for his men at the end of 1863 as a result of their dismal marksmanship.



Who fought the most battles on the defending side? When the South did go on the offense such as Shiloh, Gettysburg and especially the bloodbath at Franklin their losses were also heavy also.



Guys like you always talk like Lincoln could somehow compel two million pro-Union guys to throw themselves time and again into hailstorms of Southern lead.

Even in the midst of the unremitting slaughter suffered under Grant in 1864, those exact same troops gave Lincoln his victory in the election that year, one Lincoln fully expected to lose.



“They”? You mean the degenerate John Wilkes Booth and his pathetic ragtag crew? IIRC he got no assistance at all from his fellow Southerners during his flight, assassination was and is a repugnant tactic.

If Lincoln had let the southern states "go in peace," that would not have been the end of it. the precedent would have been established. Very soon, Texas or some state would have seceded from the confederacy. California, New England, or some other region, distant from the main part of the North, could have seceded from the USA. Just imagine Illinois threatening to secede if the Feds didn't bail out their corrupt pension system. The nation could not exist with secession.

If it had turned out differently, the Germans would probably have won WWI. Well, at least there would not have been WWII.

The South was stupid. If they had stayed in, they would have had enough votes to prevent the 13th Amendment, that outlawed slavery, from passing. Then they could have gradually emancipated the slaves without the excesses of Reconstruction. Does anyone seriously believe that slavery and all the "moonlight and magnolia" stuff could have survived until 2020?

Nothing to say about the civil war, but I've found in life that if you want to lose a friend or make an enemy, prove them wrong. It will work almost every time.

"If" Europeans had supported the CSA there might still be a CSA, but they didn't support the CSA, probably because they were unable to get over the moral hurdle of supporting the continuance of slavery in the CSA when they had already abolished it themselves.

Heck, if I knew the winning number for tonight's Mega-Millions drawing I'd buy a ticket with that number and win some portion of a jackpot estimated at $113,000,000.

I enjoy your bike travels and so on, but you've overloaded your ass with this statement.....

No doubt, some northerners fought to preserve the Union as well as some fought to end slavery. Two totally different POLITICAL reasons why the north went to war.

Your statement about most fought to preserve the Union is not correct. A vast majority of Union troops were recent immigrants who got off a boat from Europe who were broke as hell with no jobs, little to no food, and no place to sleep the next night. Many of them ended up in the Union army for two reasons that had nothing to do with either of the two above political issues. They were literally recruited right off the boats.

1. The military offered them three meals and a bed which they otherwise didn't have. So they enlisted in droves.......

2. Many rich Yankee who did not feel that saving the Union or ending slavery was important enough to go to war over paid replacements to take their places in the military.

The Union army was made up with many of those immigrants in the ranks but for two reasons cited just above, again which neither one had anything to do with preserving the Union or ending slavery. Most of them were simply trying to survive. Some got a "job and a roof over their head" in the military while some literally got paid up front to be soldiers so some rich kid didn't have to be a soldier and fight "to preserve the Union and end slavery".

If preserving the Union and ending slavery is what you teach your HS students when they ask why did the Northern people actually fight the Civil War, you need to tell them the entire story...... Once Lincoln saw that "Preserving the Union" wasn't a catchy enough political phrase strong enough to keep the populace motivated to fight, he politically interjected the other questionable option which was "to free the slaves" And he only did that after the Union victory at Antietam literally kept the vultures from the front door of the White House. And all it did in spite of 11th grade history saying it "freed the slaves" was to free slaves in lands already secured from the Confederacy. In essence, it was a shallow political statement to rally the people that really didn't mean anything at the time. But it bought Lincoln more time to survive politically at the expense of immigrant soldiers.

Was that your experience while you served, or do you just have old letters to rely on for your modern day opinions?

btw - what you quoted of me, I was saying that many in the north who had money didn't see slavery as a big enough issue to risk getting shot in the ass over.

Served for seven years.

Obviously, neither that nor your letters from ancestors have made you an expert on the Civil War.

You get the casualty numbers right, and then are so far off on this? I think you’re BSing here on purpose



Sorta like how if you had twenty slaves you were excused from the Confederate draft, the fear being there wouldn’t be enough White guys left around to control the slaves.

Which brings up another point; part of the disparity in numbers between Confederate and Union armies was made up for in the large numbers of slaves the accompanies Confederate armies, even into Pennsylvania where Lee’s troops were rounding up escaped slaves and Free Blacks alike. The largest single haul was make by JEB Stuart; most of the 140 Union supply wagons he captured on his idiot end run around the Union army in PA were driven by Free Black teamsters, subsequently carried off into slavery.



Certainly from the Southern end, in their own words “preserving slavery” was a prime motivation. In the North, Abolition, like Pro-Life today was a viewpoint and moral imperative held by a dedicated minority viewed by many as dangerous radicals. Certainly being an outspoken Abolitionist would tank your career for most Union Officers.

The generally accepted view is that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political master stroke by Lincoln to preclude formal recognition and support of the Confederacy by the British and their Empire. Queen Victoria was a fervent Abolitionist, and while not an absolute Monarch her influence on British Policy was enormous. Lincoln woulda done it earlier but he needed a credible victory (ie. Antietam) first or else it would look like an empty gesture.

As for Lincoln’s views on slavery (as opposed to Black people) one only has to look at his unceasing labors on his final masterwork; the 13th Amendment which DID end slavery, everywhere in the United States, serving notice to the fading Confederacy that there would be no compromise.

While the North was trying to advance themself with mechanical automation the retards from the south were still stuck on slave labor.

Even worse, for the previous forty years ALL the Southern Leadership had been members of the “Plantation Aristocracy” making short-sighted decisions designed to preserve the cotton/slavery economy for their own benefit to the detriment of all else.

The same people were stupid enough in 1861 to try and blackmail England into recognition by withholding their own cotton exports, a move which backfired badly as public opinion across England turned against them as well as prompting the Brits to develop their own sources in Egypt and India.

Yep, pretty amazing.

Understandable though since apparently many of them fought in the civil war, claiming "we" did this or "we" coulda done that if...and "won the civil war". Never knew there were so many civil war veteran survivors still around. They'd have to be what, 170 yrs old or so by now? Stolen Valor on a grand scale.

I never claimed to be an expert on the American Civil War, rather I'm the keeper of my ancestors' treasures that I have the honor to preserve. I've read all of the letters, made photocopies of them, and transcribed them, as the paper that they were written on is very old and very fragile. I haven't looked at the actual letters since the last time that I read them to my Grandmother, on July 4, 2002. None of the letters mentions slaves or slavery, mostly gossip and in a couple of them complaints about the leadership of Burnside, Hooker, and Mead between Fredericksburg and the downtime between Gettysburg and Bristow Station.

Among my ancestors who were abolitionists was Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury from 1861 to 1864 and Chief Justice of the SCOTUS from 1864 to 1873.

What did your ancestors who served in the Confederate military write home about?

Pretty much the same things. And yes there are family records that have been preserved.

My grandfather's family were share croppers in South Carolina after coming from Europe. My grandfather was born here. I do remember from experience listening to him that my Grandfather and his older brothers had no real animosity about losing the war, but he distinctly remembered with a lot of passion what his family endured under Reconstruction as he was a young man when their land was confiscated and sold by northerners who had no authority to take the land other than having the Union Army "on the take/getting a percentage" to back them up.

I mentioned the Brenham, TX issue as it is near where I now live. So Reconstruction and its consequences on the South weren't isolated instances. They were a systemic pattern of behavior on the part of an occupying army and its political cronies fed by corrupt politicians in the north. I carry pretty much the same opinion of the Civil War and its consequences that they held. The south lost.....No big deal in the long run, but Reconstructin was an unneeded vengeance against people who now were considered to be part of the once-again restored Union.

Today people want to tear down Confederate monuments and erase everything that some families still hold dear. Kind of like old letters but more public, huh? I'm not in that "cancel culture" crowd. History is what it is. Learn from it and respect it. I have seen the graves of two older brothers of my grandfather (he was the youngest of 7 brothers) who have had stones turned over on their graves at night in recent years because the stones recognize their military service in the SC Infantry. Neither died in the war but the Civil War was forever a part of their lives, and as a result its part of my family's history. One of them, who was my grandfather's oldest brother, had a thumb shot off at the Battle of Honey Hill which was a small/minor battle in comparison to other Civil War battles. Still its part of my family's history.

Interesting story, I had seen his photo. Quite the determination to surive! The buckshot falling out was different! Jacob was from the time of wooden ships, and iron men!

your grandfather was in the Civil War? mine was born in 1885....

That's not what I said. Two of his older brothers were however. He was old enough to remember Reconstruction and that the land that they sharecropped on was seized to profit the Yankees who took it. Among other things.

I'm 100% against tearing down any monuments in an attempt to be politically correct, but I can see how anything associated with the Confederacy might make black folks uncomfortable.

My paternal grandmother's ancestors had come to American while it was still a British Colony, settling in the town of Oyster Bay, NY, in the early 1700's. They were Crown Loyalists and instead of morphing into U.S. Citizens, they decided to remain British Subjects and were relocated to New Brunswick, Canada. I'm sure that they felt put upon, having to give up the land that they had been on for over 70 years, but by the time I knew people on that side of the family they had lost most of their memories/stories of that part of family history. The artifacts that the ancestors had brought with them had been scattered, but I remember that they had a Brown Bess that interested me more than anything else on their family dairy farm.

One of my maternal grandmother's ancestors who fought in the American Civil War was wounded at Kennesaw Mountain. While he was recovering he met a local woman who was employed by the U.S. Army in some capacity. The wound must have been quite severe, as he didn't return to duty until February 1865 somewhere in South Carolina. When the War ended, he mustered out, returned to Georgia and got married. He, his Wife, and some of her Brothers bought land around Vinings. As far as I know, he was the only member of the family who didn't return home to live or returned home and then headed west.

And very much in need of raw materials from the agricultural south for their factories.......and tractors had not been invented yet.......idiot.

No, but horses would have been pulling McCormick reapers by that time.

Maybe but it takes time for new things to go mainstream....in any era much less back then. The concept of the computer was invented in the 1950's.......I didn't have one until the late 1980's and that was because I worked in the industry.......every swinging Richard didn't have one at home until around Y2k. I once paid $4000 for a PC.....I think it was 1987ish.....with the idea of using it to make money. It had much less capability than a modern day disposable phone. Can you imagine what one of those reapers probably cost in the 1850's or 60's?

I also have no idea how that machine would have been applied to picking and seeding cotton. Don't know much about farming. I can tell you that my Grandaddy was still plowing with a mule as a teenager......he was born in 1903. That was likely in part due to lingering after effects of reconstruction. Old folks here used to say everyone was poor in those days......just didn't know it.

I have said before that if the north and south could have waited about 25-30 years and just continued to bitch at each other, technology would have solved the problem. I really believe that.

Obviously my comment about most Yankees getting shot in azz while running away was meant as a wisecrack, art least to a certain extent, however it sure did rile the Northern aggressors on here up..........lol. With that being said, and not to keep rehashing it, we all know that the victors write the history, so that's that. But, what is true, and indisputably true, is that the Southern soldier was a better fighting man than his Northern counterpart. Time and time again, numerically smaller Southern armies defeated numerically superior Northern ones. Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were two of the best examples of that.

But, being a better soldier does always translate into winning, as that soldier must be equipped to fight as well, or better, than those he comes up against. As an example, the average German soldier was better trained and in most cases, a better fighting man than his Allied counterparts were. That held true pretty much throughout the war, and ended when the huge number of Allied soldiers and material was too much to overcome. The same thing happened to the South, as the North had the advantage of much more in the way of men and materials. It is somewhat surprising that the War Between the States lasted as long as it did, and had it not been for the Southern solider being as good as he was, it wouldn't have.

IMO, the senior officer corps of the CSA was generally better than the USA, with a few exceptions like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. The enlisted soldiers and company grade officers were, as a whole, equal. This USA military had superior logistics and numbers, so they could better stand a war of attrition. They could afford to lose more men and material than the CSA and that is what finally led to victory and defeat.

In WW2 the Germans had been preparing for war since the mid-1930's, while the elected governments of France, UK, and USA didn't embark on military upgrades until it appeared that war was inevitable, so the Germans were more successful at first. The USSR didn't prepare for a war with Germany because they had signed a non-aggression pact and only entered WW2 against Germany when they were invaded in 1941. I don't believe that the individual German soldier was better, on average, than their American and British counterparts.

Some things that the U.S. didn't do has surprised me, such as:

Why didn't we copy the MG-34 in inch specs, chamber it in 30-06, and issue it at the squad and platoon level in place of the much heavier Browning 1917/1919 machine guns?

Why didn't we upgrade the Sherman M4 main gun to be comparable to the Panzer V's high velocity 75mm gun? It was probably due to the physical size restrictions necessary for shipping them from US manufacturing site via ship to Europe, but perhaps they could have been upgraded at in-theatre depots.

Why didn't we produce more tungsten core kinetic energy anti-tank rounds and produce them earlier in the war, as we had access to a much greater supply of tungsten than the Germans did?


Yet another exercise in 20/20 hindsight.

The MG 34 was over engineered and difficult to manufacture. We did try to copy the MG 42 but had problems getting it to work with the slightly more powerful 30-06. Those problems could have been solved, but by then we were winning with the equipment we already had...so it was shelved.

We did modify the Sherman.

I learned something as a result of this conversation. Both North and South allowed paid substitutes, and both sides stopped this practice in 1864 due to the negative perception of “poor men fighting a rich man’s war”. Also both sides found paid substitutes as a group to be the worst and most unreliable of their soldiers but the financial incentive was substantial, essentially a year’s salary for a laborer.

But here’s the really interesting part; the proportion of paid substitutes on either side was about the same, around one in ten of their soldiers See.....

https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/conscription.html

and

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72737875.pdf


Fascinating info 😎



Given the fact that the Confederacy initiated conscription a whole year ahead of the Union when the supply of volunteers dried up and continued to expand the age range of conscription all the way up to age fifty by the end of the war, it’s a no-brainer they woulda used immigrants in droves if they had ‘em, but they didn’t.

Nobody immigrated to the South because thanks to forty years of short-sighted Planter Aristocracy leadership and the fact that cotton was 80% of their economy, they had no industry and more than anything an immigrant woulda had to compete with slave labor.

There were immigrants wearing grey though, I have recently learned that the Louisiana Tigers, conscripted from the New Orleans docks, mostly consisted of Irish immigrants.

On the topic of the Irish in general, was it you who said the Confederacy woulda won if they had more?

In that light, the History of Ireland itself is generally written in terms of to what degree they were or were not getting their a$$es kIcked by the English in any given year

WHAT!!!!! The 100+ free Black Teamsters in that Union supply train carried off by JEB Stuart’s cavalry in the Gettysburg campaign became PRISONERS OF WAR??? 😮 Sir, if you keep this up I’m gonna start thinking you’re just making schidt up

OK, trying for brevity here, “returned” Black folks were valuable contraband and held in confinement until “recognized” by their owners, proof of said ownership being a fungible commodity. Follow the money.

Only one third of Southern families owned even one slave, and yet slaves comprised one quarter of the whole Southern population and slaves OUTNUMBERED free folk in the states of South Carolina and Mississippi.

IIRC slaves comprised like 80% of the entire capital wealth of the collective South. The fact that a small minority of Southerners owned even one slave merely points out the enormous economic disparity between the wealthy ruling Planter Class who set policy and your average Southern small farmer.

How important was the slavery issue in precipitating secession? Refer to the Compromises of 1820 and 1850, and then read the Statement of Causes put out by the self-identified “Slave States” in there own words...

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

...and then there’s that pesky “Cornerstone Speech” given by CSA Veep Alexander Stephens, bane of Lost Causers everywhere...

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech

So, did some Black folks fight for the Confederacy? Ya some snuck by in contravention of official policy. Patrick Cleburne TRIED to make it official but was met with an awkward silence, after all if your whole economic system was based on a presumption that Black folk were unworthy of freedom then giving them a gun and having them fight for BOTH yours and their freedom weren’t kosher.

But did some Black folk fight for the Confederacy? Consider this, an enslaved woman owned neither the rights to her own body nor to any children she bore, a LOT of slave women got knocked up by their owner or his family to a degree such that almost no Black Americans today do not have White blood.

For many slaves, their owner’s family was also their immediate blood kin. Would you fight for your family?

Sir, you are missing the point entirely. The 13th Amendment, freeing ALL slaves everywhere in America, was a politically risky gambit on Lincoln’s part, laying the groundwork for which was initiated early in his first term.

Total abolition was an unpopular and divisive issue, with widespread resentment that “the niqqer” had landed us in this bloody mess in the first place. Even outside the South there was widespread apprehension about what the economic and social impact of a million plus suddenly freed slaves was gonna look like.

Lincoln’s stated goal from first to last, was preserving the Union. His conviction that so long as slavery persisted anywhere in the US it could still destroy the Union was strong enough that even in the crisis and election year of 1864, when he fully expected to lose and to lose the Union when McClellan was elected, he continued on with this divisive issue.

Final triumph, he lived to see it pass into law.

Two months later he was shot in the back of the head by that guy you appear to admire. The irony being that if Lincoln had served out a second term, Reconstruction would have probably looked different.

The Shermans with 76mm HV guns didn't see combat until after D-Day, more than 31 months after the U.S. entered WW2. The funny thing is that the Ordinance Corp wanted to put a HV gun into production so that the Sherman would have a better chance for success in tank on tank battles, but U.S. tactics didn't focus on tank on tank battles like the Germans and Russians were engaged in on the Eastern Front, rather on punching through the front lines and rolling up logistics and support units in the rear. The short 75mm gun worked OK until the Allies broke out of the hedge rows during Operation Cobra. I wonder how many U.S. tankers would have opted for a U.S. rework of the Panzer V or VI in lieu of any of the pre-M4A3HVSS Shermans?

This

Really? Explain Appomattox. Who surrendered to whom?

The problems of 160 years ago and many of our problems today boil down to this: Southerners were too damn lazy to pick their own cotton and tobacco. Listening to my nephew who moved from NY to South Carolina and who manages a large electrical contractor business, they are still lazy.

So, why don't you tell your damn nephew to move back to NY is it's so much better there..............but that's the catch isn't it......Southerners don't move North, but Yankees sure as heck like to move South.

I'll add to that by saying that I've worked with some Yankees in my day, and their idea of hard work was running to the union and complaining about something.

I-95 has at least two northbound lanes and Delta is ready when he is.

Thank goodness you won. They may well be lazy, but the aren't set on destroy the nation like you cuckolds. What a disgrace you are.

How's you tranny Surgeon General and liberal ass governor doing?

I'm pretty sure a LOT of Yankee mom's were sucking on that black root after the war ended. You best check your woodpile.

How ya doing there ol' Steelhead?

It seems ol' Cooper must've taken one between the eyes hisself, judgin' by some of what he's asayin'. Wash yo mouth out wit soap, suh. Nevuh thought Ah'd see the day when a Yank would bad mouth a Prez'dent from his own neck o' de woods, and us poor ol' Rebels would be left to defend said Prez'dent.

Hey Steelhead er, RemModel8, I'm going to put you on my ignore list like I did under your original moniker. Wonder why you're using a new name. Did ya get banned? Anyway. Buh bye.

Personally I'm glad that Mr. Cooper would never want to live among us lazy, low-life scum.

Now if we can just get him to tell all of his neighbors about how bad life is in the south, maybe fewer of them will load up the 1998 Caddy with 12 quarts of oil in the trunk to hopefully keep the engine intact for the trip, and come south to "help" us see the light.

I tell lots of people up here not to go South. I tell 'em you'll never be accepted, you won't be able to get a good pizza, you can't find a decent deli and they all move and talk in slow motion. The only good thing about my Father in Law passing away last year is that I won't have to travel down to SC again. I'd rather shovel snow 9 months a year than live in the South. "Have a blessed day!"

You're a true credit to your family.......

Southerners who go North either pass out in a snowbank and die from exposure or skid off a snowy road and hit a tree. Darwin at work. We call it "Winter Kill".

You know, suddenly I've never been more proud of my GG Grandfather who fought with the 15th NY Cavalry and who was at Appomattox Court House and who named one son Grant and another Lincoln. He had a farm and picked his own damn crops. You da man Gramps!!

Dang..... I've never seen anyone who is so proud of being from any part of New York.

You da real man....

Thanks. From my 5X Great Grandfather who was a French-Canadian, and who fought the English with Gen. Montcalm in the French-Indian war, and who later volunteered to again fight the English as a Capt. with the 2nd Canadian Regiment with Gen Washington and Gen. Lafayette at Brandywine, Germantown and Yorktown, to my Father who was a WWII vet, I am very proud of my NY ancestors and to be from here. I wish NY wasn't so liberal and anti-gun, but I am proud of my NY heritage and my fore-fathers who fought for liberty and freedom and against slavery and oppression.

Johnny Reb should have used more powder.

To a degree not commonly realized elsewhere the history of New York and adjacent regions rocks 😎. Start with the Iroquois League (from which my sig line derives), politically savvy power-brokers playing off two European Empires. The Moncalm Campaign and Roger’s Rangers. A generation later Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne and the Saratoga Campaign, American Citizen Soldiers defeating an army from the most powerful country in the world.

Topographically speaking, their ain’t hardly a dud area of ground in the whole State, it’s all beautiful, divided up into beautiful regions, with a climate to die for IMHO.

Unfortunately it has always been attached to NYC, destroying the politics, which is why I left. When I rode my bicycle up there six years back, by far the largest rebel flag I saw flying anywhere the whole trip was out in the country outside of Corning NY. Just like everywhere else, outside of urban areas rural NY is Red State America.

I guess they ran backwards through Atlanta and all the way to the sea,,,,

You mean like when they sacked Washington DC?

I guess the Sharpshooters up on Little Round Top didn't get that memo....

The one who made the shot on old Jacob was pretty good.........or lucky. Potential stunt shooter.