Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
OK, I see that we're done here. Seriously, I really enjoy an intellectually honest, thoughtful, well-informed debate. I am willing to concede when I am wrong and not argue every single point. However, I can't think of any way to respond to the above that isn't dismissive, snarky, or preachy, so I'll just stop right here.
Or here:
Dude, how do you define "MAJOR ENGAGEMENT"?
Shiloh (1861) was a MAJOR ENGAGEMENT, and a Union victory.
http://www.americancivilwarstory.com...r-battles.html
There are others as well. |
I actually enjoy your posts. I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. That's not my intention. I just feel that too many people place too much "faith" in the "power" of government. Guns make the populace safer ONLY AS LONG AS THE POPULACE DOES ITS PART. I can see The US breaking down under the stress of trying to provide for everyone and everything the government has promised aid to. Guns alone don't make you safe. Like every tool, they can't use themselves (yet). In the end, it is the population which will "allow" a Tyranny to occur, or prevent it. I believe that we shouldn't rule out the ingenuity of the human animal when he feels the need to commit harm for any reason. I have seen people murdered by cars, knives, bricks, boots, baseball bats, electricity, poison, bombs, and a microwave. You don't need guns to create mayhem; All you need is the determination.
You are correct sir. Shiloh was a victory. Why? Look who was commanding the Union Army. Ulysses S. Grant, another strong and innovative leader like Sherman. Imagine if he had been in charge of The Grand Army of The Republic at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe the war would have been MUCH shorter (with a lot less "General sacking" by Lincoln). This is what I was referring to when I talked about strong leaders being force multipliers.