OK go nuts, fat American fucks. ::)
I'll get the ball rolling:
The North could have easily ended the war in '63. Discuss.
Nay, Gen'l Lee would have stopped em cold.
Squee!!! We need lettow!
I'm not fat. >:( >:( >:(
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2009, 12:55:57 PM
OK go nuts, fat American fucks. ::)
I'll get the ball rolling:
The North could have easily ended the war in '63. Discuss.
How? Are you saying Meade should have attacked on July 4th?
Yes, of course. Why, don't you agree?
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2009, 12:55:57 PM
The North could have easily ended the war in '63. Discuss.
There were fears that too much bloodshed could turn the public opinion against the war. It took a ruthless leader (such as Grant), not to mention a complete bastard (such as Sherman) to prove to many that only by ignoring casualties could the war be decisively won.
Remember, by late '62 Fredericksburg cost the Union 15,000 casualties and Lincoln said that "the country cannot afford such losses".
By '64, Grant literally sledgehammered Lee back in the Spotsylvania campaign at the cost of 50,000 Union casualties. Such numbers would have been unacepptable less than a year earlier.
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2009, 12:55:57 PM
OK go nuts, fat American fucks. ::)
I'll get the ball rolling:
The North could have easily ended the war in '63. Discuss.
Why would they drag it out till 1963?
Quote from: Syt on March 10, 2009, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 10, 2009, 12:55:57 PM
OK go nuts, fat American fucks. ::)
I'll get the ball rolling:
The North could have easily ended the war in '63. Discuss.
Why would they drag it out till 1963?
Imbecile! It's 1863.