• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gettysburg[W:176]

dear right wingers,

we don't makes excuses over here; post any glossary of terms you want.

excuse me, but I thought this was a discussion of the battle of Gettysburg? Trying to apply some left/right ideology or litmus test to it is a fool's game in my opinion. Indeed, today's "left" wing party was the party of the South that wished to protect the institution of Slavery, while today's "right" wing party were the folks trying to free the slaves and trampling all over the Constitution in the process.

How bout we discuss the war and leave the pointless left/right bickering to other threads? Does anyone here think that those men on either side were thinking about political bulltwinkle as they threw their bodies into the meat grinder?
 
Last edited:
Here is a contrast;

Is it possible the confederate assault force could have cut the federal forces in two and potentially achieved a victory that day if,

they had made better use of their artillery?


Possible, but unlikely. Is it possible that if Jackson had been alive and in command that the battle would have went differently? How bout if Chamberlain had not opted to attack as his final gambit on Little Round Top? How bout if the attack on the Union positions would have continued through the first night or had resumed much earlier the second morning? What if Stuart had not went MIA? As I mentioned before, shoulda, woulda, couldas and a buck might get you a cup of coffee, not much more.
 
In your opinion concerning what, specifically? I am going to assume you are referring to "Pickett's charge", in which case I would tend to agree that was one of many factors that contributed to the failure of an effort that was doomed before it began.

what were some other factors?
 
excuse me, but I thought this was a discussion of the battle of Gettysburg? Trying to apply some left/right ideology or litmus test to it is a fool's game in my opinion. Indeed, today's "left" wing party was the party of the South that wished to protect the institution of Slavery, while today's "right" wing party were the folks trying to free the slaves and trampling all over the Constitution in the process.

How bout we discuss the war and leave the pointless left/right bickering to other threads? Does anyone here think that those men on either side were thinking about political bulltwinkle as they threw their bodies into the meat grinder?

tell Them to post a glossary of terms, or be full fallacy and can stay in the reserve for as long as they want.
 
Possible, but unlikely. Is it possible that if Jackson had been alive and in command that the battle would have went differently? How bout if Chamberlain had not opted to attack as his final gambit on Little Round Top? How bout if the attack on the Union positions would have continued through the first night or had resumed much earlier the second morning? What if Stuart had not went MIA? As I mentioned before, shoulda, woulda, couldas and a buck might get you a cup of coffee, not much more.

I agree with you about Jackson.

Stuart being missing, was a vagarity of war.

In my opinion, since the federals already had a giant anaconda plan, a midget anaconda plan, may have worked to shorten the war.
 
Back
Top Bottom