Mr. Mercanto
-
Posts
684 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mr. Mercanto
-
The War of the Rebellion is super cool....but, believe it or not, like all other sources, its nor perfect. Case in point, it records the overall dead of the war at 628 000, when new studies show it was actually closer to 750 000 That's the tricky thing abut history...history is all the complexity of the modern times, plus myth and forgetfullness . The more you study it, the messier it all gets, believe me. -
These are all critical and excellent questions. The United States government originally needed 2 345 698 snakes. However, when the President realised that Snakes could be fed a steady diet of Bostonian Crab and mule meat, he was able to fatten the snakes up and only 1 875 376 were needed. Stephen Mallory, Confederate Secretary of the Navy, and James Bulloch, the head Confederate naval contractor, realized that the only way to beat a snake was to be a snake. As a result, they commissioned the construction of an Emperor Snake-clad, known as the C-Hiss-Hiss Mississippi. This mighty iron and scale ship was sailed to the snake-enclave in 1862 off the coast of Virginia, the crew having been taught the ways of the snake. The crew and ship were soon so successful, that the C-Hiss-Hiss Mississippi was accepted in to Snake culture by the other snakes. However, as the crew of the C-Hiss-Hiss became a friend of the snakes, they soon came to believe that they too were snakes. Soon, the C-Hiss-Hiss was subsumed in snake culture, and the ship, nor its crew, ever seen again. After the war, the some snakes returned to their native homes. Others were hunted by coastal fisherman, and sold to the Irish of New York as affordable snake-meat.
-
I have to reject that assertion, its not an impossible standard at all. Plenty of academic work is available for free or very little. One doesn't have to subscribe to periodicals. David Blight and Gary Galagher both have lecture series on YouTube, Blight can also be found on iTunes University (also free). Several books are also highly affordable, often costing little ore then $20-$30. Battle Cry of Freedom is an excellent and highly accessible book to start with. I'm happy to provide more . These books are no more expensive then the poorly researched ones. They are less popular and more intellectually demanding however. Its all available, what you need to do is learn to discern good sources, and have the intellectual rigour to digest them. You seem to be a very intelligent person, so I hardly think this is impossible standard. It is, however, a much higher one then is often applied in forum discussions. Indeed, that was the purpose of this forum, to apply a much, much higher standard. As for secondary sources, at no point did I refuse to accept them, I explained why they didn't work the way you were employing them. A good historian will either explain how they do indeed work, or seek out better sources. History is one hell of a tough subject. You've got to love it and challenge yourself if you wish to grasp it. I'll take a look at Tagg if he seems profitable and appears to be using his sources well. I'm very selective but there are so many excellent Civil War scholars hiding throughout the literary world that one should be always open. However, I hate wasting time and money on poorly researched works.
-
Lol don't worry, Hood was a Kentuckian Is there any Bluegrass here....?
-
What the hell happened!? Lmao If this General-in-Chief was named John Bell Hood, then this would amazingly funny...
-
There actually is some good stuff on YouTube...but always be careful .
-
Yeah it kind of depends on how you define higher rank. The tricky thing here is that the Federals only ever had two Lt. Generals during the war, and not concurrently, whereas the Confederates had six full Generals and several Lt. Generals . A.S. Johnston as a "full general" in the Confederate army was the highest ranking to die, if we consider Confederate rankings to be equal to Federal rankings. It might be easier to use their command as a criteria. In which case, as army commanders, A.S. Johnston and James B. McPherson share the dubious honour being the only major army commanders to die on either side (unless I'm forgetting someone).
-
If its any consolation, that ground took one hell of a lot of Confederate officers... Seriously, Pickett's command lost every regimental and brigade officer when they charged across that valley, and he wasn't the only one to hold job interviews after the long walk from Seminary Ridge.
-
What level of officer is dying? Brigade, Division, Corps?
-
Command Levels Reference Guide??
Mr. Mercanto replied to Andre Bolkonsky's topic in General Discussions
I just discovered this by accident This is hilarious and flattering -
I learned that lesson the hard way :(. The Spencer is seriously underpowered... I must remember to complain about that sometime...
-
Ok so I've got a question! As many of us know, Federal soldiers often private purchased repeater firearms in the late war period (the Spencer and Henry spring to mind). So my question is, does anyone know where they procured their ammunition?? The brass cartridges were expensive, and a repeater required several times more then a muzzleloader! Surely they couldn't have been expected to furnish the funds for the rifle and the ammunition? Does anyone happen to know?
-
I wanted to add this last part in a second post, because this is important. If we must debate, and honestly, I don't want to, you would not believe how boring it gets to disprove the same old arguments. I must insist on a few things. Try to keep your evidence strictly relevant to the questions at hand, and please avoid anecdotal evidence. Evidence ought to be from scholarly sources. Most of all, connect your evidence and be selective with it. Your allusion to Garrison makes no sense, and is also really problematic, since he was really quite fringe. I'm trying to hold this thread to a graduate level academic standard. I don't want this to become like the "War for Abolition Thread," so if your next response isn't a bit more intellectually rigorous, I may respectfully ask you to refrain. I want to facilitate and contribute to a shared learning discussion about the war. This means we all need to hold ourselves to a high intellectual standard. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something. All I ask is that when you claim to know something, make sure you've really investigated it! The evidence you've produced here...doesn't quite reflect that. (I do not know who Larry Tagg is so I'm giving him a quick look. The publisher is not a University Press...though in the states a good deal of scholastic literature is published by popular publishers, so it might still be good. Most books critical of Lincoln fail to stand to academic scrutiny, but a few, such as Bill Marvel's work, make muster) To be really, really blunt (and I haaaattee doing this because I want this thread to be super friendly and inviting), its kind of clear your not quite posted in the delicate art of historical research. There are a good deal of blunders here which remind me of the undergraduate papers I have graded in the past. I'm not sure it would be productive to proceed with a debate. We'll both get frustrated and I'll spend more time explaining the problems in your case then actually discussing the war with everyone else here. Most of all, it will suck for everyone else, and at the end you may end up being known as the 2ndVermont :P. (You actually make better arguments then him, but I couldn't resist lol) Anyway, let's just not.
-
Yeah :p. When people reference the popular support Lincoln enjoyed in 1860 it's usually meant to be a bit misleading . 39.8 seems pretty bad until you realize there were three other parties lol
-
The states could determine who would be on the ballot. The Slave states (except Kentucky) would not allow their citizens to vote Lincoln. Despite this, Lincoln enjoyed the plurality of votes. nothing wrong with using these numbers, I have as well. The issue I have is how he is using them, which is highly misleading. Lincoln had 39.8. The other three candidates split the remaining 60.2 Aetrius implied this was some kind of defeat. It's actually a contextual landslide. Not mentioning that it was a four way election is a problematic and misleading omission.
-
This getting a smidge anti-intellectual and a bit pedantic. You are making some statements that are hard to support, such as claiming that people who voted for Lincoln didn't support him, without explaining how you could possibly know this. You also draw conclusions which aren't really supported by the evidence, such as assuming that threats to assassinate Lincoln somehow reflect his unpopularity. Speaking of evidence, anecdotal evidence really isn't helpful here. Also, Levine is an excellent scholar with excellent research. His work shouldn't be simply dismissed. Union soldiers occasionally feared black Rebs, but rarely. Many more feared that Jackson had captured Washington in 1862. In WW2 there were rumours that Hitler had flying tanks. Just because people are afraid of something doesn't mean it's real. Again, this kind of evidence is anecdotal and unhelpful. I think you need to be more selective. Lincoln enjoyed the plurality of support. In a four way election, a simple majority is nearly impossible. 39.8 is pretty impressive for a man not on 14 state ballots. His popularity despite his lack of presence on those state ballots rather reinforces my point. The people knew he firmly believed in a perpetual Union and elected him. He enjoyed more votes then any other candidate. This alone should prove his ideas were not fringe. He also participated in a long history of Written evidence would be things like ballots cast in votes supporting Lincoln. His Union party in 1864 won the overwhelming support, more so then in 1860. I feel like you are ignoring this. In lieu of this evidence, you really haven't provided much of substance. Please avoid anecdotals. Garrison's views are extremely complicated and not really relevant here. Yes he wanted Northern Secession, he also opposed resisting Southern secession...until the EP, at which point he supported the war. Regardless, its a bit absurd to claim that Lincoln was part of a minority fringe movement when he was the president, and then act as if Garrison was representative of vasts swaths of people. By the Civil War, Garrison was an outcast even within the Abolitionist movement, which remained fringe until after the guns sounded on the coast of the Palmetto State. Unlike Lincoln, he actually was a fringe leader. Even his biographers acknowledge that he had little impact. His relevance to your point is nebulous. I also would appreciate it if you worked from your evidence more concretely, and drew conclusions from them more carefully. Lincoln was smuggled into Washington. This was because there were threats to assassinate him. It is silly to then simply assume that this was because his ideas were universally unpopular. When Lincoln was actually assassinated, he was at the height of his political fame. You may also have heard of Kennedy and Reagan, two rather popular fellows who were also the targets of assassination. Assassination, by its very nature, is really only about one person's opinion of the target.
-
This is the best comment on the thread
-
We're hot, folks!
.thumb.png.9a7103947faebb16b2e7f441278a18d2.png)
-
Unlike Aetius's first comment, I find nothing disagreeable about this summary of the 12 Amendments. Though I think its important to note that while Article 11 AoC article II, it does not make a claim for State sovereignty. Aetius did not claim it did, I just want to make that clear
-
This may the first time "bugfix" has ever been applied to a discussion of Constitutional history... I love it.
-
This is an interesting comment. I disagree with many of the details :p, or at least don't think they quite prove your point. Thank you for including sources by the way . I wrote out a lovely response to each of these points....then my laptop crashed....I generally don't write things twice, so you're getting the point form now lol. Sorry Stauffer's article is interesting but highly problematic. Kevin Levine, a leading historian in the field of the Black Confederate myth, responds in this brief essay. http://cwmemory.com/2015/01/20/john-stauffer-goes-looking-for-black-confederates-and-comes-up-empty-again/ Focusing on the collation of editorial views on secession, though interesting, is not really reflective of the question at hand, that being the legality of said action. As it happens, the people voted overwhelming for Lincoln, despite his declarations that secession was illegal as early as 1859. Speaking of which, claiming Lincoln's views of the perpetual Union is honestly at odds with the history. Madison, Jackson, and several others on both sides of the aisle had stated in no uncertain terms throughout the history of the nation that the Union must be preserved. In 1813, Madison called out federal troops to shut down the secessionist Hartford Convention. In 1832, Jackson did the same to the Nullification Crisis. In "Disunion: The Coming of the Civil War: 1787-1859" Elizabeth R. Varron chronicles the the debates over "Disunion." While proving the broader complexity of the issue, Varron also demonstrates that the concept of is illegalisty was not so "minority a view." Finally, the overwhelming elections of Lincoln and his party, as well as cross-party co-operation in preserving the Union, does rather demonstrate that Lincoln's feelings on secession's illegality were anything but in the minority. I think your last point on the Articles is an interesting one. The Constitution eschewed such language about state sovereignty because it was designed to create a perpetual Union, which kind of proves my point . Broadly speaking though, the Articles are kind of irrelevant legally after 1787.
-
Don't apologise! That's what this thread is for!
-
Gods and Generals is an excellent example of the modern Lost Cause historiographical romanticism. The best example by far is "Gone with the Wind." Ah! Yes presentisim makes much more sense here! Presentism is a slippery thing. In the case of the Civil War, its really not at all presentist to recognise the fundamental role of slavery within it. The war did not begin strictly speaking to "free the slaves," however the war was inescapably caused by slavery, and by 1863 it became clear that slavery would need to be harmed severely or outright destroyed to win the war. By 1864, slavery and Union were indissoluble. Its actually more presentist, in my opinion, to see the war as Federalism and resistance to it. State's Rights and Federalism have almost always been very fluid ideas politically. Political factions support State's Rights when it suits them, and Federalism when it suits them. For example, in modern America Leftists have championed Federalism as a tool of pro-choice and Gay rights, while using State's Rights as a vehicle for cannabis legalisation. Conservatives have used State's Rights to restrict sexual equality and women's right to choose, but have been rabid Federalists on the issue of gun control (or lack there of). Such has always been the case. In the Antebellum, the Slave-holding South was pro Federalist when it suited expanding slavery (making Kansas open to slavery, mandating a Federal slave code, repealing Northern Personal Liberty Laws, implementing the Federal Fugitive Slave Act) and were in favour of State's Rights when it suited slavery (allowing for slavery's expansion based on state laws, and claiming the right to secede in order to form a slave nation). The Civil War is not Federalism vs Resistance to it. The North called upon State's Rights to oppose slavery as much as the South called upon Federal supremacy to maintain and empower slavery. The notion that it was a binary Federal vs State crisis is really manufactured in order to make sense in the context of America's current Federal vs State questions. History rhymes in our memories.
.png.a28680cd65cc1088d6aeb95a55113f8e.png)