Charlie Reese on Jefferson Davis

[KFC911]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
.... it seems a cpl of good 'ol boys (never meanin' no harm) were fightin' back the law since the day they were born....

You should write a 'country song' about them...

[Nathans_Dad]

Actually the Duke boys would be considered libertarians, wouldn't they?

Pat's lying, he has a full size cardboard cutout of Bo and Luke Duke in his bunker...

[bigchillcar]

Just the good ol' boys,
Never meanin' no harm,
Beats all you've ever saw, been in trouble with the law since the day they was born.

Straight'nin' the curve,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em, but the law never will.

Makin' their way,
The only way they know how,
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.

Just good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood


best i can do on such short notice, keith..

[Nathans_Dad]

You missed the big finish...


YYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-------HAW!!! (as the General Lee flys through the air)

[Nostril Cheese]

I remember going to Universal Studios in the 80's and seeing 30-40 wrecked orange Dodge Chargers on the backlot tour. Wonder if this had something to do with the current value of Mopars?

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Actually the Duke boys would be considered libertarians, wouldn't they?

Pat's lying, he has a full size cardboard cutout of Bo and Luke Duke in his bunker...

BAH--everyone knows the real duke boys were coy and vance.

bo and luke were poseurs.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
Just the good ol' boys,
Never meanin' no harm,
Beats all you've ever saw, been in trouble with the law since the day they was born.

Straight'nin' the curve,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em, but the law never will.

Makin' their way,
The only way they know how,
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.

Just good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood


best i can do on such short notice, keith..

Not bad, not bad at all....Somehow, I can just imagine 'ole Waylon (RIP) doing it justice...

[VenezianBlau 87]

Is this a new tactic employed by the less genteel?

Oddly, I agree with the original writing.

-Bob
(Emulating Tabs by wearing a smoking jacket, sipping gin from a teacup, arranging my prints slightly askew so as to appear aloof; all the while wearing a lampshade on my head.)

[Moses]

Originally posted by Eric 951
That honor would go to either U.S. Grant or William Tecumseh Sherman.

Ridiculous. U.S. Grant may have been one of the worst generals ever to command an army. He always fought with vastly superior numbers and munitions, yet his army sufferred extraordinary casualty rates. He was a blunderng incompetent at best. At the time of his ascension, he was Lincolns only general who appeared willing to attack. That was his ONLY gift.

The Army of the Potomac, commanded by MacLellan was the largest fighting force ever assembled, yet he had to be relieved of his command because he refused to attack anyone. THAT is the cloud under which Grant rose to "greatness".

Grant was an idiot and Sherman was guilty of war crimes beyond description. He was the first U.S. general to target civilians specifically.

[KFC911]

Originally posted by Moses
.... That was his ONLY gift.

Nonsense...he could really hold his liquor

[dduclaux]

Moses -- absolutely agreed.
-- Duane

[Moses]

Originally posted by KC911
Nonsense...he could really hold his liquor

True, dat!

If anyone has even a passing interest in the Civil War, I highly recommend The Civil War, A Narrative by Shelby Foote. It's a three volume series and it's wonderfully written.

Foote's trilogy is available at Amazon.com for $33, in hardback! Add it to your library. You won't be sorry.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Moses
...Sherman was guilty of war crimes beyond description. He was the first U.S. general to target civilians specifically.

Several towns around here were completely destroyed as Sherman came through. Amazing.

Mike

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by Moses
Ridiculous. U.S. Grant may have been one of the worst generals ever to command an army. He always fought with vastly superior numbers and munitions, yet his army sufferred extraordinary casualty rates. He was a blunderng incompetent at best. At the time of his ascension, he was Lincolns only general who appeared willing to attack. That was his ONLY gift.

The Army of the Potomac, commanded by MacLellan was the largest fighting force ever assembled, yet he had to be relieved of his command because he refused to attack anyone. THAT is the cloud under which Grant rose to "greatness".

Grant was an idiot and Sherman was guilty of war crimes beyond description. He was the first U.S. general to target civilians specifically.

Balderdash.

I agree that McClellan's was an ineffective combat leader. Little Napoleon was more of a pompous pretty-boy than a fighter. The best thing he did was re-organize the army afetr Scotts' departure. But, Grant didn't immeadiatley ascend to the rank of commander-in-chief, you are forgetting Burnside, Hooker, Meade, and Halleck --all holding title of commander of union army prior to Grant. Grant was relentless in his pursuit of the rebels and was determined to pursue them untill they were exhausted of all of their resources in manpower and supplies and completely de-moralize them. He was keenly aware of his superiority in numbers and mfg. and used them to his advantage which culminated in ultimate victory. He knew he would gain the upper hand even in battles which had no clear-cut winner(Wilderness campaign, and Pittsburg landing) he would emerge victorious,a s the rebs couldn't repalce what they lost. He and Lee held a mutual respect for each other--something which couldn't be said for Grant's predecesors, and Grant was gracious in victory.

Sherman was a great soldier and perhaps the greatest general in US history. He was a great advocate of total war and completely understood how to wage war. His march to the sea was brilliant in accomplishing his goals of bringing as much destruction to all aspects of the southern army and CAUSE as possible. He felt almost personally compelled to wage a crusade agianst the rebs and their agricaulture, homes, towns, mfg. and supply base. He wanted all rebs and symapthizers to harbor a great distaste for war and practiced a scorched earth policy--deep in enemy terriory with no supply lines. His campaign was as brilliant as Sheridan's in the Cumberland valley.

My votes stand Grant and Sherman.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Yeah, well, what about REALITY tv?? huh? huh? huh???

No, not even that, but don't let that stop you from watching, Rick .

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
Ridiculous. U.S. Grant may have been one of the worst generals ever to command an army. He always fought with vastly superior numbers and munitions, yet his army sufferred extraordinary casualty rates. He was a blunderng incompetent at best. At the time of his ascension, he was Lincolns only general who appeared willing to attack. That was his ONLY gift.

The Army of the Potomac, commanded by MacLellan was the largest fighting force ever assembled, yet he had to be relieved of his command because he refused to attack anyone. THAT is the cloud under which Grant rose to "greatness".

Grant was an idiot and Sherman was guilty of war crimes beyond description. He was the first U.S. general to target civilians specifically.

An accurate account. Sherman finally admited to the burning of Columbia, South Carolina (including the University) and that had he been on the losing side he'd have been hung for war crimes in his memoirs. In his official after action report, Sherman had blamed retreating Confederate soldiers for Columbia's destruction.

We mustn't leave out Sheridan's pillaging rampage through the Shannandoah Valley, burning homes and actual murders of women, children, and old men.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Eric 951
Balderdash.

I agree that McClellan's was an ineffective combat leader. Little Napoleon was more of a pompous pretty-boy than a fighter. The best thing he did was re-organize the army afetr Scotts' departure. But, Grant didn't immeadiatley ascend to the rank of commander-in-chief, you are forgetting Burnside, Hooker, Meade, and Halleck --all holding title of commander of union army prior to Grant. Grant was relentless in his pursuit of the rebels and was determined to pursue them untill they were exhausted of all of their resources in manpower and supplies and completely de-moralize them. He was keenly aware of his superiority in numbers and mfg. and used them to his advantage which culminated in ultimate victory. He knew he would gain the upper hand even in battles which had no clear-cut winner(Wilderness campaign, and Pittsburg landing) he would emerge victorious,a s the rebs couldn't repalce what they lost. He and Lee held a mutual respect for each other--something which couldn't be said for Grant's predecesors, and Grant was gracious in victory.

You're a failure at history too, I see. Figures.

Sherman was a great soldier and perhaps the greatest general in US history. He was a great advocate of total war and completely understood how to wage war. His march to the sea was brilliant in accomplishing his goals of bringing as much destruction to all aspects of the southern army and CAUSE as possible.

Sherman was a disgrace to the uniform, and will always be remember as a disgrace who belonged in a mental institution.

He felt almost personally compelled to wage a crusade agianst the rebs and their agricaulture, homes, towns, mfg. and supply base. He wanted all rebs and symapthizers to harbor a great distaste for war and practiced a scorched earth policy--deep in enemy terriory with no supply lines. His campaign was as brilliant as Sheridan's in the Cumberland valley.

Right, I'm glad you've posted the above, so everyone can see your advocacy for murder, rape, and cultural genocide out here in the open.

You're in good company with the thugs you've picked as your personal heroes.

[Eric 951]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]You're a failure at history too, I see. Figures.


what praytell is historically inaccurate other than my mistaken typing of cumberland valley for shennandoah? and your inclusion of "too" is quite laughable and points to your own self-doubt and misgivings of your chosen path in life.


[b]
Sherman was a disgrace to the uniform, and will always be remember as a disgrace who belonged in a mental institution.


So says you.



Right, I'm glad you've posted the above, so everyone can see your advocacy for murder, rape, and cultural genocide out here in the open.

You're in good company with the thugs you've picked as your personal heroes.

I will gladly heap accolades upon Grant and Sherman. Knowing your vehement opposition to them only reinforces the correctness of the choices.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by Eric 951
I will gladly heap accolades upon Grant and Sherman. Knowing your vehement opposition to them only reinforces the correctness of the choices.

Nice work Eric, I was kind of thinking the same thing.

[Rearden]

I hope FastPaste chose the Confederate Flag pattern when he had his targa top refinished.