• 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]

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?
 
Usually, people who want be critical of different aspects of any given concept, ask enough questions to make sure they are on the same page.
 
danielpalos said:
Usually, people who want be critical of different aspects of any given concept, ask enough questions to make sure they are on the same page.
Click to expand...

And then there are those who ask the same question over and over again, no matter how little sense it makes.
 
danielpalos said:
In my opinion, there was not adequate artillery support for the confederate assault force.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom