Nazi Germany did the first mass privatization of state property in modern history.
I read it in Botkins anthology of civil war folklore (https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Treasury-Tales-Legends-Folklore/dp/0883940493), let me see if I can dig it up. I'll reply in a seperate post with a transcript once I dig it up
This is a book I recommend looking into if you are curious to learn more. The author is a history professor, and the last third of the book is an incredibly sourced bibliography. He got access to a lot of documentation from the period, and whenever he makes a claim, there's a citation. https://www.amazon.com/Searching-Black-Confederates-Persistent-America/dp/1469653265
Of course! How inconsiderate of me. I don't really know how to do reddit links, so here's Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Abe-Abraham-Lincoln-His-Times/dp/159420604X
When I read this book in 2020, it was in my top 10 books of that miserable year, the author explains how the Civil War cemented Christmas and Thanksgiving onto the American Psyche because before, Christmas was seen as more catholic and associated with the South while Thanksgiving was mainly a New England thing. And it was Gigachad Grant who made it a Federal Holiday
There's a theory that she had Syphilis, looking to account for a lot of her generally unpleasant disposition and sometimes erratic behavior.
That's not quite accurate about West Virginia. West Virginia was a fabricated state, by which I mean that half the counties had actually voted with the rest of Virginia to secede from the US and were made part of the new state for territorial purposes. Those counties only gave 7% of the vote in favor of statehood. Also, a recent hand count of WV soldiers, Union and Confederate, by Shepherd Univ. over a 10 year period, found that WV gave about equal amounts of men to the Confederacy and Union, about 20-22,000 to each side. The 30+ thousand figure comes from large numbers of Ohio and Pennsylvania men joining Union Virginia regiments in 1861 when their own states had filled their quotas. You can find most of this information in Mark Snell's "West Virginia and the Civil War", pgs.28-29. Mark Snell "West Virginia and the Civil War"
I wonder how much of this is based on Longstreet himself, who outlived Lee by decades.
His memoir reads like a bunch of "If only Lee had listened to me...", which is a little self indulgent.
I have read it twice, and it was excellent. Foote was from Mississippi, but when I read it, I didn't notice any bias.
I researched that, but that seems to be false. They seem to have confused the New York (Daily) Times with the New York (Daily) Tribune
You are one persistent Lost Causer. Anyone reading actual history books written by actual historians knows you and your fellow neo-conferates have been wrong ever since the Lost Cause was invented.
Real History written by real historians. The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History
I read an interesting dual biography of Grant and Lee years ago, and this was pretty much the sum of it. Lee represented the old way, both in the fact that he was born into wealth and expected to be a great general and the way he approached war. Grant represented the way of things to come. He has from a modest background and became a great general through determination and persistence. He also took a more modern approach to war.
It's called Crucible of Command if anyone is interested.
Give "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove a read.
TLDR is some time travelers with an agenda gift Robert E Lee and the Confederacy some special repeater rifles they call "AK-47's".
Hmm, this is the book, and, uh, it's been a long while since I read it. I really need to read again.
In all fairness, I have to admit she didn't play a particularly pivotal role; she went undercover in the South, got some worthwhile military information out to the Union Army (but nothing at the Antietam-cigar level), but got captured, and a lot of her adventures were around her escape.
The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat. Its not the only or the first study challenging the idea. But in my opinion it’s the best.
Civil War Infantry Tactics touches on the rifle musket’s role, but as the title suggests is really a broader study on tactics. This helps debunk the overblown idea that the tactics were way behind the technology, or that officers were stuck in their old ways.
And yea I was skimming through the JFC Fuller book again, and another main argument of his is the oft-repeated idea that Lee was only seriously concerned with Virginia. I’m not sure if Fuller misunderstood the command responsibility or what. But that’s just a ridiculous claim to me. It’s like arguing that Bragg was unconcerned about Virginia, or that Grant was unconcerned with Richmond during 1863. He was focused on his responsibility as he should have been.
Grants he argues, was able to look toward attacking various strategic points in the Confederacy, while Lee did not. But Grant was not dealing with the same circumstances. Grant was not defending his own “nation” (if we’ll allow them to be called separate nations for the simplicity of the argument here). Grant could chose his target, within his department, and attack it. The Confederacy on the whole did not have the military initiative. They were forced to respond to Federal thrusts. Lee tried his best to seize the initiative within his department to throw these Federal thrusts off. But ultimately he was not going to be able to just choose his target the way Grant could.
He went in expecting to find Lee the better general, but his research instead found Lee terribly mismanaged logistics, politics, and the overall command structure of the Confederate Army. For example, in 1865 the Confederates had a huge ration stockpile in Richmond that Lee, who had been given near-dictatorial power by this point, had failed to have allocated to the army before he was cut off. His army was starving and they were sitting on rations because Lee failed to manage the logistics.
"First published fifty years ago, this analysis of the generalship of Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee remains one of the most readable histories of the Civil War. The author began his research sharing the generally held assumption that Lee was a great general and Grant a clumsy 'butcher.' By the time Fuller completed his project, however, he regarded Grant as the greatest general of his age and one of the greatest strategists of any age. Grant and Lee is a compelling study not only of two remarkable men but also of the nature of leadership and command in wartime."
I’d argue the relationship between grant and Sherman won the war, not one over the other. I’m stealing this idea from Richard flood and his book explains it better than any Reddit comment could
>Switzerland and Lichtenstein are land locked and surrounded by other countries
You keep leaving out the Alps. The Alps are very important.
> Iceland is protected by the US & UK
And the icy waters surrounding them, their isolated location and the fact that nobody wants to invade Iceland!
> if America just stuck to the eastern coast then it simply wouldn't have became a superpower
> which means that there wouldn't have been a counter balance to the Soviet Union during the 20th century and to China today
>a powerful America is needed to contain such countries and America wouldn't be where it is right now without west ward expansion both in terms of economy and military might
This is straight up out of a PragerU video...
>I think we can all agree that an American dominated world is a much better alternative than a Soviet or Chinese one
See again about the Butterfly Effect
Related info (amazon book link: "How Robert E Lee lost the civil war")
this isn't the confederate flag, not even remotey
if you want the most recent one here it is: 3x5 Foot Solid White Flag - Plain White Flags https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YW8MR9J/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_91PJ7069WBYXCW5JTW0X?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
na, some dude: https://www.amazon.com/How-Robert-Lee-Lost-Civil-ebook/dp/B003O68EUK/
Well cited though, goes through his entire career.
Comes down to "Lee always Prioritized VA and had no theatre level strategic sense".
Also includes a section on his early campaigns, which were an embarrassment, but he did get better.
basically the prequel to the book by babara tuchman.......https://www.amazon.com/Proud-Tower-Portrait-Before-1890-1914/dp/0345405013
This book claims that southern Unionists outnumbered Confederates, if you add up Unionist guerillas, white Union troops from border states, and of course black Union soldiers escaped from the south.
> As a side note, that book is an excellent point-by-point refutation of Confederate apologia
That's as fine endorsement as I've read about it, I'll add it to my reading list. Just gotta finish this one first.