"Causes of the Civil War?" Topic

He must have removed his name from his profile. I'm sure any competent hack could track him down.

John are you asking to speak to him? He said if someone wanted to, I could ask if he wanted to give them his email.

Pascal Maĥe is the name "hi EE ya" HAD on his TMP Profile before he was banned!!!

Doc, Lee's army was on its last legs no matter who was President, IMO, sustained effective fighting capacity was nearly exhausted. Combined with Sherman's campaign, Grant's relentless pressure and overwhelming advantage in resources made it clear that the end was in sight. Mac was all hat and no cattle when it came to fighting, but he would have been happy to take credit for winning the war, I think. But most people voted for Lincoln to finish it.

75% of the Union soldiers voted for Lincoln, no doubt influencing voters back home. It was a ringing endorsement – they intended to see the war through. Lee could not have seen otherwise as he took stock of his army in 1865.

@35thOVI:
No. Not really. I found him rather annoying with his inability to accept facts, and propensity for bluster. And I mean that in a nice way.
I'm good.

^ Ditto!

Tort, we are assuming McC wins the election. That requires a shift in the voting, which would require a shift in northern attitudes.

L was certainly planning for what to do if he lost, in the four plus months before the change of administrations. But we must also assume a shift in Confederate morale and also perhaps in strategy. WE KNOW guerrilla warfare was being considered for adoption. And that is precisely what you do when facing conventional defeat but retaining the will to resist.

Doc, I don't think Mac ever promised to make peace, he made sure the platform included continuing the war. He was out to get the credit, not negotiate….

It wouldn't be the first time a Presidential candidate behaved "Yeah, whatever" about the party platform. Nor would it be the last.
Mac wouldn't be leading an army in the field, had he been President. Well, maybe he would? Who knows?
Let's not forget that in this time period, new Presidents were not inaugurated until late March, not January 20 like today. "Lincoln's War" was almost completely wrapped up by then.
As an exercise for the student, look up the date of inauguration, Appomattox and Lincoln's assassination.

^ 04 March,1865; 09 April and 14/15 April 1865.

Add the date that Sherman started north from Savannah.

The perfect situation for Mac, glory, parades, etc. Big battles over.

mahdi1ray, there was no name on hi EEE ya's profile the time I looked well prior to the ban.

^ What can I say ?

One can edit their profile at any time and change it. Even if LOCKED ACCOUNT. Trust me. I know. 😄

I stayed out of this conversation because it has been rehashed several times. But I don't understand the beat on against hi Yee ya. So what if he is a bit pedantic in his approach. He is certainly not the only one posting on this subject that is pedantic. And I think it is quite disrespectful to disparage his point of view by dismissing it with comments like "I hope he finds time to read a few books on the ACW." On what basis does a comment like this get made? Unless one knows first hand the reading background of a person I think we should presume the best and not the worst.

One mistake people make is that they tend to only read recent historical works. So we quote James McPherson etc.. To have an informed opinion one needs to curry the full range of historical writing on this topic over several generations because every generation has its blind spots including our own.

Marcus,

You are right. We should always watch what we say. However, often he asked a question of the group after giving his thoughts. He would get an answer for several posters, ones based on a knowledge of the war, and he would then post his exact same views. Don't ask a question looking for an answer then totally ignore the answers one gets. That is what, I feel, has rubbed some the wrong way.

Fair enough Grattan. It is the line between the two that is bothering me a bit and our tendency to merge one into the other. Rightly challenge him on his in ability to respond intelligently to other comments. That is good. But to besmirch his knowledge or point of view is not so good. And who cares what his name is?

MB +1

I personally had no issues with his questions. If he questioned my responses or had a different view than I might have, that's just what discussion is supposed to be.
Oh and Marcus, I miss a lot of yours.

and Yes he is from France. And the name given earlier by others is his name.

If I may be permitted to explain my animus towards M. Hi YEE etc, without engaging in a "personal attack"…
In my opinion, he wasn't really interested in facts. He clearly wished to antagonize people.
He would ask questions and then reject the answers.
He was asked to "read a book" because his "questions" were easily accessible in very simple works on the ACW. But he rejected that.

Again, in my opinion, he was a typical "keyboard warrior", being deliberately antagonistic, knowing that he couldn't really be relied on.
Did you ever meet the "brutally honest" type? The ones who take pride in insulting people? "I'm just being honest!" 🙄
"Oh, but John! You have to understand! That's just the way he is!"

And that's all I'm going to say.

Oh and Marcus, I miss a lot of yours.

That is so sweet 35thOVI. Thank you.

I sort of agree with John the OFM that hi Yee ya was being deliberately antagonistic. At least that would be a reasonable inference. But come on, that is hardly unique to him especially when talking about ACW. I have personally experienced the deliberate antagonism of others. I have been accused of being a closet racist or promoting the Lost Cause narrative (whatever the hell that is!) because I take a slightly contrarian point of view on some of these matters. I have felt people intentionally caricature my argument to make a point. But I am big boy and I can take it. I just find that it takes so much time to layout a real argument (especially when it goes against the prevailing view) that it sometimes is just easier to take a pass than go down this path again.

^ The fact is that Pascal Mahe has been banned by TMP.

^ The fact is that Pascal Mahe has been banned by TMP.

Do you know why he was banned? What is the point in any event?

Yes I do. He told me. But it has nothing to do with anybody in these posts.

@ MB: Q One: No! Q Two: Ask TMP!!!

Marcus, I go back to the Moynihan classic: "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Hi EEE ya kept repeating as fact things which demonstrably weren't true, and demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge of the period. When he was called on these things, he'd repeat his initial statement rather than check his facts. You really can't hold much of a discussion under such conditions.

Robert, can give me one example of what Hi EEE ya was repeating that was clearly, demonstrably untrue? Just curious.

"I have been accused of being a closet racist or promoting the Lost Cause narrative (whatever the hell that is!)…"

The Lost Cause narrative is an interpretation of the American Civil War that attempts to preserve Southern honor by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light. It attributes the loss to the overwhelming Union advantage in manpower and resources, so the Confederacy never stood a chance of winning and it downplays or altogether ignores slavery as the cause of war. The narrative was developed to obscure the role of slavery in the Civil War and was perpetuated by groups sympathetic to the Confederate effort.

" It attributes the loss to the overwhelming Union advantage in manpower and resources"

Can anyone honestly really argue this part was untrue?

^ I can not!!!

Yes, the North did have more manpower and resources. But the Confederacy was defeated on the battlefield. It lost the war. Lost Causers like to downplay this and make it ONLY about manpower and resources.

Grattan

But without all those men and resources, would the Union have won on the battlefield? Even with them, they lost on many fields, well more so in the East than the West of course, but we Mid Westerners couldn't be everywhere. 😉

So it is only speculation that the Union could have won, if all things had been equal. What was said was not untrue. I don't see anything lost cause about that specific argument.

I'd counter that argument with, yes you knew that when you started the war or you should have. It was stupid to do and you let your egos blind you to reality.

The Same can be said of the Japanese in WW2.

There is no one factor. Army of Potomac commanders were much better as a whole in the last year of the war than at the start. The South had lost many good commanders by then. In a game, I would take USA over CSA leadership in an equal numbers fight by then if each side played their best leaders.

Yes the influx of the midwestern Generals really increased their effectiveness: Grant and Sheridan. 🤔 what was their home state? … Oh yes, Ohio. That other great Union leader, Sherman 🤔 … Well darn!! Ohio too!

Your welcome.

We only sent you are less effective ones early in the war. Needed to win the West first. Bobby Lee wasn't going too far in the meantime. 😉