In polite company, defending slavery is considered a major character flaw.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
86 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15698 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
~~In polite company,~~ defending slavery is considered a major character flaw.
I would snarkily reply that that was the joke, but since federation you know, we shouldn't risk it, who knows what might happen
Damn if he's so smart why'd he join the losing side, and then lose?
Lee and every member of the southern aristocracy should have been executed.
and their lands redistributed to their former slaves
deganerate
Bullhorn dogwhistle.
Doghorn? Bullwhistle?
lol, really is a shame West Point didn't have courses on not being a racist, slavery-defending piece of shit then isn't it?
General Grant was not an alcoholic. He drank missing his wife. He never drank while in battle. That's one of many slanders of the Lost Cause that victimizes the South as well as proposes the South to be superior in many aspects.
Grant was by far the better general. While Lee fought a mostly defensive Virginia campaign, Grant was out completing the North's military objectives in aggressive, modern strategies. His rally and subsequent victory at Shiloh, despite his mistakes. His Vicksburg Campaign that is still studied to this day. Grant's ability to fight the war that Lee could not win when Grant finally took over the army of the Potomac and hounded Lee, when previous generals would turn, until he had nothing but a ragged army.
He never drank while in battle
damn fr? that sucks, it'd be fucking hilarious if he'd whupped the confederates like he did while drunk
I mean, if Ulysses S. Grant had a problem, it was that he had no clue how to run a country, but that's every single president
He sucked at administering the state but his political priorities were some of the best of any US president
"unimpeachable character" idk the slaves he was fighting to keep probably had a different take on his character
I remember Matt Christman on radio war nerd talking about how all the westpoint grads in the American Civil War were hobbled by their education and were unable to think outside the box strategically, and how guys like Willlich (the German Communist general) was able to shake up the war by bringing over different tactics. He might have been overstating his case a little, but still. It is interesting when people make appeals to shit like "graduated with good marks at the nepotism factory"
literally who cares about graduating top of the class? pure cope. grant did way the hell better where it actually counts
my racist general was better at homework
Same energy as a twenty-something year old bragging about their SAT scores.
Maybe they should have settled their differences in the octagon then? Can't change history.
grant needed none of that fancy book learnin' to kick the shit out of lee
i say with absolute certainty the commander and president of the Union could've beaten the shit outta their confederate counterpart barehands
confederate defenders stop pretending "defending his home state" is a meaningful distinction from "defending the institution of slavery"
Is this what people mean when they say the south had "better generals"?
Yeah and its mostly bullshit. I think part of why some of the northern generals appear worse is because many of them were ideologically against following up victories and capturing the confederate capital. MacClellan the first Commander of the Army of the Potomac was very against it and if I'm remembering correctly ran for election against Lincoln because of their disagreements over the war. But, there were also these supposedly "better" Southern generals who just charged soldiers into meetgrinders overcamd over for no reason, so it doesn't hold up anyway
lmao the person in the replies posting the Tony Snell stat line