Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

What Are You Reading?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I would also propose that the war could have been ended quickly if Jefferson Davis had not prevented Stonewall Jackson from doing what he wanted. Too many from the South were just trying to protect their land from invasion, while Jackson saw the need to go for complete victory (especially since Lincoln would not settle for anything less, unless defeated). The Union's problem early on was that Lincoln had a general in McClellan who did not want to fight, and the Condfederate's problem was Davis would not let Jackson go for complete victory and attack Washington DC and the Northern supply lines.

      I have a great admiration for Robert E. Lee as a man, but after he lost Jackson the success on the battlefield was not the same.

      I believe Jackson was like Patton and the guy you wanted in control on battlefield, while not the peacetime or administrative equals of of their contemporaries (Lee and Eisenhower).
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • I greatly admire General Lee as well, and while he absolutely lost a LOT when he lost Jackson, I don't think even Old Jack would've made much difference at Gettysburg. There's a very viable argument that no way in hell COULD Jackson have been at Gettysburg. Yes, he could easily have survived, but he wouldn't have been recuperated in time to be back to duty by July. It's utterly unthinkable to simply say "but if he hadn't been wounded at all..." because to keep him from getting wounded you'd have to keep him from doing the personal reconnaissance in front of his lines on that fateful night in May, and THAT wouldn't happen. It was his style. But even if we take that flight of fancy and put him on the field at Gettysburgn, about the only occasion he might have made a difference is on the first day, had HE been given the order to "take that hill if practicable" instead of the new-to-corps-command Ewell. With Jackson, it would've been seen as/made to be practicable and he'd have done his level best to do so. BUT would he have been in that position? It's very likely if he had lived that there would have still only been two corps under he and Longstreet. For the ANV to be as divided as it was pre-Gettysburg, control of a chunk of it would've had to devolve to...drumroll please...A.P. Hill or the recently-returned-to-duty Dick Ewell. Which one would've been in which position, to come in from the west or the north?

      Leaving day one as it occurred regardless of which general was in what position, move along to day two and three. Jackson would certainly have been better equipped as far as experience goes to coordinate attacks/demonstrations on the Confederate left with those of the right, the task in iteslf was an incredibly daunting one given the exterior lines of the Confederates. One aspect in which he may have made a difference is when Lee ordered Ewell to move most if not all of his forces to the right, abandoning their positions in front of Cemetery and Culps hills. Ewell begged off, saying the movements would be too dangerous. Jackson would very likely have made it happen and thus Lee would have had both a greater concentration of force and no exterior lines to deal with.

      I'm not a subscriber to the Longstreet-ruined-Gettysburg mindset, but the various delays which occurred, whatever reasons one attaches to them, wouldn't have changed with the presence of Jackson on the field. Before Jackson's death, while Lee knew Jackson was the more aggressive fighter, he placed great value on the counsel of both generals, so it's unlikely that Jackson could have persuaded him to change his plans and move around the flank or on Washington any more than Old Pete was able to do, which of course was not at all. Aggressive as Jackson was, he may well have agreed with Lee's plans or something even more aggressive. For whatever reason, Lee would not be moved from his decision to attack the Federals where they were, in spite of the lessons of slaughter taught at Fredericksburg, Malvern Hill, et al regarding attacking uphill at a fortified position.

      Last but FAR from least, factor in that Lee was flat-ass outgeneraled by Meade. Sure, Meade benefitted from a fair bit of luck, but that happened to any number of great commanders, and he had the good fortune that Hancock was in a position to do great things, as well as a bloody genius in charge of his artillery in Henry Hunt. However, Meade himself did an excellent job of managing the battle, especially when you consider that he had only been in command for three days before the battle commenced.

      Now as to what difference he might have made AFTER Gettysburg, who knows? We can extrapolate this out forever. But since it was the next major set piece battle in the east after Jackson's death, it's a place to start with speculation, and I don't think he'd have made a huge difference. As devastating as the loss at Gettysburg was the fat lady was starting to warm up her vocal cords not long after. Jackson's continued presence might have prolonged it.

      One other fun way to think is, if Jackson had lived, where would he have gone after his long recuperation from wounds? Very likely he could have been sent west to an army or department command. Can you IMAGINE if he and Forrest had been paired up? The most difficult hurdle to overcome would be Jackson overlooking Forrest's gambling and foul language.
      Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Grinder ().

    • Just finished A Stir of Echoes by Richard Matheson. It's a shortish, psychological book that is an easy and interesting read. It was made into a horror film but definitely isn't a horror book.

      Started reading The Complete Walker IV.
      In life there are no limitations. Except stupidity. If you're stupid, you're screwed.

      Stephan Pastis
    • The Path between the Seas by David McCullough. Perhaps the best book by an excellent writer. Great story about the creation of the Panama Canal. Covers both the failures by the French and eventual success by the Americans. Excellent examples for project management, along with plenty of interesting business, political, and history lessons.

      Only real downside is at the end when he covers the absolute stupidity of Woodrow Wilson giving $25,000 to Columbia for nothing and then Jimmy Carter giving the whole thing away. Far too reminiscent with another administration that I will not mention.

      But still a great book that is very interesting from multiple perspectives.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • Panama wanted their land back. Actually, Teddy the racist, told the rebels living in the district where he wanted the Canal, he would back them with US military so go ahead and kill the local officials. He then quickly accepted them as a separate country.

      After we attacked and arrested Noriega, a former buddy of the US, Panama asked for the two halves of their country to be united. So the Canal Zone was signed over to them so they would be whole again.

      If the book didn't mention that then the author lied.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      Panama wanted their land back. Actually, Teddy the racist, told the rebels living in the district where he wanted the Canal, he would back them with US military so go ahead and kill the local officials. He then quickly accepted them as a separate country.

      After we attacked and arrested Noriega, a former buddy of the US, Panama asked for the two halves of their country to be united. So the Canal Zone was signed over to them so they would be whole again.

      If the book didn't mention that then the author lied.
      No, you're either extremely naive or you're the liar. The Panama Canal Treaty was signed by Carter in 1977 way before Noriega was brought down in 1989. Among other things it called for the turnover of the canal zone in 2000. It was turned over Dec. 31,1999. I've been thru the canal more than 50 times beginning in 1969 and have known many people who were born there, grew up there, worked there and raised a family there. Let me tell you it was disgusting to watch the Stars and Stripes be replaced with that Panamanian rag.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      that bit I likely did get wrong. Most of my history knowledge is about 1954 and earlier.

      My apologies.

      But Panama was an American tool for many years. Likely they didn't like it. Most places we have as territories are mistreated as human beings.
      i'm not so much interested in ancient history (living in the past is not living), but recent history which directly affected me, i get a little pissed at revisionists. anyway i should apologize too and i do.
    • WanderingStovie wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      Danke.

      I try to be accurate but I'm only human.

      Note I'm not happy with many things from the past. Particularly how the Native Americans were treated. I realize there was good and bad on both sides. To forget the past is to make the same mistakes.
      The Trail of Tears is one notable atrocity.

      yup. Some of my ancestors are Cherokee.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • I finished 'Not Without Peril' today. I found myself getting angry with those who ignored warnings or went into the Whites ill-prepared and ended up dead.

      Then I remembered my decision to ascend a ridge when a thunderstorm was headed my way. I've never been more terrified in my life as lightning struck the ridge near me. The flash and boom were simultaneous. I made a bad decision but I was lucky.. The hikers killed in the Whites? Not so much.

      Started reading 'Playing to the Edge' to learn more about the US intelligence organizations. A good read so far...
      Trudgin' along the AT since 2003. Completed Sections: Springer Mountain to Winding Stair Gap NC, Max Patch to Franconia Notch NH and the Gale River Trail to Crawford Notch NH.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      it ain't hate just facts.
      From Woo... I am not here to take sides. But I had no trouble finding what Jim was referencing, just poorly presented. American History unfortunately when I studied as a young man, found lots of "embarrassing stuff" left out of books back when I was in school.


      Here are the excerpts I found taken from multiple sources that appear to agree with each other.

      In 1899, the Isthmian Canal Commission was set up to determine which site would be best for the canal (Nicaragua or Panama) and then to oversee construction of the canal. After Nicaragua was ruled out, Panama was the obvious choice. A few problems had arisen, however. With the U.S.' solidified interests in Panama (then a small portion of Colombia), both Colombia and the French company that was to provide the construction materials raised their prices. The U.S., refusing to pay the higher-than-expected fees, "engineered a revolution" in Colombia. On November 3, 1903, Panama (with the support of the United States Navy) revolted against Colombia. Panama became a new republic, receiving $10 million from the U.S. alone. Panama also gained an annual payment of $250,000, and guarantees of independence. The U.S. gained the rights to the canal strip "in perpetuity". Roosevelt later said that he "took the Canal, and let Congress debate". After Colombia lost Panama, they tried to appeal to the U.S. by the reconsidering of treaties and even naming Panama City the capital of Colombia.

      Teddy Roosevelt did not give up on the canal project just because Colombia said "No!" He knew that many people in Panama wanted to break away from Colombia and form a new, independent country. Roosevelt sent a message of support to leaders of the revolt, because he knew an independent Panama would want the canal built.

      President Roosevelt sent some American warships to the area as a show of force. They never fired a shot. Just
      by being there, though, the ships sent a clear message to Colombia to let Panama alone.



      Some of Roosevelt's critics started calling his actions Big Stick Diplomacy. Taken from his writings "Speak softly and carry a big stick and you will go far" It was a sarcastic way of criticizing the president for using a show of force, instead of normal diplomacy (talks) between nations.


      In 1914 Teddy Roosevelt said that, “criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them.” It was, of course, no mystery as to who the “citizens of the wrong type” were. Roosevelt once referred to Africans as, “ape-like naked savages, who…prey on creatures not much wilder or lower than themselves.” In a 1905 statement he asserted that Caucasians were “the forward race” destined to raise “the backward race” through “industrial efficiency, political capacity and domestic morality.” Whites, he felt, needed to reproduce in abundance or else risk “race suicide.” Black people were not the only targets of his racism. He had this to say about American Indians: “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of 10 are, and I shouldn’t like to......

      While Roosevelt only represented one dimension of the progressive movement he certainly embodied his generation’s thirst for power and its contempt for other races.
      Be wise enough to walk away from the nonsense around you! :thumbup:
    • the Nicaragua problem was caused by a postage stamp. A group against that nation getting the canal sent letters to all members of the US Congress saying what a great idea a Nicaragua canal was... With the volcano stamp on the letters. The politicians fell for it and turned down the idea of a Nicaragua canal.

      All this was taught in my public school history classes.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • Wise Old Owl wrote:

      From Woo... I am not here to take sides. But I had no trouble finding what Jim was referencing, just poorly presented. American History unfortunately when I studied as a young man, found lots of "embarrassing stuff" left out of books back when I was in school.
      Unfortunately with Texas being the 900 lb gorilla regarding textbook sales nationally, most publishers listen intently when the Bubbas of the Texas state school board textbook selection committee object to historical, scientific, literature, and at times math textbook content. I've read US, state, and world history textbooks with woefully inadequate interpretations of primary source material. Furthermore the debate still ranges on how publishers approach climate change. As far as literature goes, several texts do not include the works of Mark Twain, Langston Hughes, or material attributed to Buddha.

      An acquaintance is considering her doctorate dissertation on revisionist history and I'm urging her to go for it.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • JimBlue wrote:

      the Nicaragua problem was caused by a postage stamp. A group against that nation getting the canal sent letters to all members of the US Congress saying what a great idea a Nicaragua canal was... With the volcano stamp on the letters. The politicians fell for it and turned down the idea of a Nicaragua canal.

      All this was taught in my public school history classes.
      Once again, I'm gonna call bs. They had concerns for volcanos in Nicaragua, because there had been recent eruptions, not because of a stupid stamp. Maybe you got on the short bus by mistake.
    • chief wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      the Nicaragua problem was caused by a postage stamp. A group against that nation getting the canal sent letters to all members of the US Congress saying what a great idea a Nicaragua canal was... With the volcano stamp on the letters. The politicians fell for it and turned down the idea of a Nicaragua canal.

      All this was taught in my public school history classes.
      Once again, I'm gonna call bs. They had concerns for volcanos in Nicaragua, because there had been recent eruptions, not because of a stupid stamp. Maybe you got on the short bus by mistake.
      Chief is correct about the recent valcanoes at that time, and thus the stamp. It was a valid concern, and using the stamps just helped drive the point home.

      But the most important point though is that we built the thing, which was a great accomplishment that benefitted everyone and it was stupid to just give it away.

      Read the book if you want to know more. :)
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • Dan76 wrote:

      Wise Old Owl wrote:

      From Woo... I am not here to take sides. But I had no trouble finding what Jim was referencing, just poorly presented. American History unfortunately when I studied as a young man, found lots of "embarrassing stuff" left out of books back when I was in school.
      Unfortunately with Texas being the 900 lb gorilla regarding textbook sales nationally, most publishers listen intently when the Bubbas of the Texas state school board textbook selection committee object to historical, scientific, literature, and at times math textbook content. I've read US, state, and world history textbooks with woefully inadequate interpretations of primary source material. Furthermore the debate still ranges on how publishers approach climate change. As far as literature goes, several texts do not include the works of Mark Twain, Langston Hughes, or material attributed to Buddha.
      An acquaintance is considering her doctorate dissertation on revisionist history and I'm urging her to go for it.

      Texas used to have a good quality educational system. But they broke it.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • Dan76 wrote:

      Wise Old Owl wrote:

      From Woo... I am not here to take sides. But I had no trouble finding what Jim was referencing, just poorly presented. American History unfortunately when I studied as a young man, found lots of "embarrassing stuff" left out of books back when I was in school.
      Unfortunately with Texas being the 900 lb gorilla regarding textbook sales nationally, most publishers listen intently when the Bubbas of the Texas state school board textbook selection committee object to historical, scientific, literature, and at times math textbook content. I've read US, state, and world history textbooks with woefully inadequate interpretations of primary source material. Furthermore the debate still ranges on how publishers approach climate change. As far as literature goes, several texts do not include the works of Mark Twain, Langston Hughes, or material attributed to Buddha.
      An acquaintance is considering her doctorate dissertation on revisionist history and I'm urging her to go for it.
      Well aware and I agree - one of the best moments of Abraham Lincoln's life was when he was challenged to a Duel early in life... He said " I accept" allow me to choose the weapon. Cow pies at ten paces. Won't find that in any text book... Here is another, Everyone remembers Paul Revere's ride... One by land, Two by Sea... Nobody was ever in school informed back in the 60's, 70's and whatever why the British were invading in the first place. They were routed several times prior and were attempting to mass confiscate farmers guns, ammo, and powder. Leaving the settlers with no means to feed themselves. Cleverly left out of the books. If you are part of my Facebook page I post regular images as backgrounds of the Revolutionary war. Most of it though is the Granddaughter as relatives in Ohio want to see pics of her.
      Be wise enough to walk away from the nonsense around you! :thumbup:
    • Revere got arrested early on. Two men and a teen age girl warned Concord and Lexington.

      and they shouted 'the regulars are out !' not the British are coming as they were still British at that point. The show America Facts vs. Fiction is very informative. Along with Forgotten History.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by JimBlue ().

    • chief wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      the Nicaragua problem was caused by a postage stamp. A group against that nation getting the canal sent letters to all members of the US Congress saying what a great idea a Nicaragua canal was... With the volcano stamp on the letters. The politicians fell for it and turned down the idea of a Nicaragua canal.

      All this was taught in my public school history classes.
      Once again, I'm gonna call bs. They had concerns for volcanos in Nicaragua, because there had been recent eruptions, not because of a stupid stamp. Maybe you got on the short bus by mistake.
      History is what it is, but history class is taught whatever the teacher want to teach based on their view...it's too bad recorded history is always written by the victor, with their viewpoints.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      I do watch 'America facts vs. Fiction' and they have a show on the Panama Canal. I'll watch and see what they say.
      TV can be interesting, but in the case of a conflict I would go with David McCullough and the 700 page book (50 of notes and sources).

      Multiple Pulitzer Prizes, Presidential Medal of Freedom, National Humanities Medal, National Book awards, etc..
      Yeah I think he has a little more credibility than a TV show.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • What's botherson is when I hear someone's rendition of history paralleling a movie or TV show rather than from a peer reviewed journal or book. Lonesome Dove and various films and programming on JFK's assassination are recent examples I've heard from folks.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • I'm reading The Last Days by Joel C. Rosenberg. Here's the description from his web site.....Osama bin Laden is dead. Saddam's regime is buried. Baghdad lies in ruins. Now the eyes of the world are on Jon Bennett and Erin McCoy, two senior White House advisors, as they arrive in the Middle East to offer a historic Arab-Israeli peace plan and the American president's new vision of freedom and democracy. But in the shadows lie men whose hearts are filled with evil—men for whom the prospect of peace goes against everything they believe. And soon one terrifying scheme after another begins to unfold. As Jon and Erin face a battle for control of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and an Iraqi plan to rebuild ancient Babylon, they can't help but wonder: Are such signs evidence that they are living in the last days before the return of Christ?
    • Dan76 wrote:

      What's botherson is when I hear someone's rendition of history paralleling a movie or TV show rather than from a peer reviewed journal or book. Lonesome Dove and various films and programming on JFK's assassination are recent examples I've heard from folks.

      I cannot afford peer reviewed journals. I looked into them when I was at university and they were not for me. Too expensive. Too stiff necked and frankly boring. Computer Science.

      As for the fact vs. Fiction show it is there to show the myths in high school history class for what they are. He talks to experts in the various fields to show what is correct.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.