|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2017 20:09:50 GMT
Dave: I do not doubt for a moment the authenticity of the papers found on Dahlgren's body. They were either the work of Dahlgren alone or in conjunction with two other members of the lunatic fringe of this mighty Union of ours, Kilpatrick and Stanton, both of which make me prefer the company of bowel excrement to theirs.
The Kilpatrick raid, never had a prayer, again the contrivance of raving lunatics.
War is best left the purview of only moderate level lunatics.
##################################################
I am going to assume here that you would not favor the whacking of Mr. Davis and company on moral grounds.
Recall an earlier conversation on the North Korea thread where you enquired as to the feasibility of essentially doing the same thing to Baby Snooks. Regardless if the discovery of that unsavory plan had anything to do with the later motivations of Wilkes Booth or not, when you go down that road it always bites you in the ass. If you try it and fail, like Dahlgren evidently did, you hand your adversary an invaluable gift. If you try it and succeed in your efforts, you will forever have a black mark next to your name in the eyes of decent men, and it does not matter how despicable your target is.
##################################################
Now for the third order of business. John Dahlgren was the commandant of the Washington Navy Yard during the first half of the ACW. He was both Captain of the Yard and Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance. Ulric was wounded during the war, maybe at Brandy, or sometime during the middle of 63. Sources vary that he either lost a foot or lower portion of his leg. I recall my father telling me (he worked there for half his career) that Ulric's detached member was buried in the wall of one of the building in the Yard, and so marked. I think he showed the place to me when I was very young, maybe 8 or 9, but I can find nothing on it. Do you have any record of this?
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 3, 2017 20:27:12 GMT
The weapons lab is named for his father, who unlike the son, did accomplish something. Even among the honored dead you find the occasional ass hole, and Ulric Dahlgren proved the rule. John Adolphus Dahlgren.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 3, 2017 20:37:08 GMT
Lived there as a Navy Junior from about 1966-68. Played on the base Little League Team. Dad was in charge of the construction of a mile long Conical Shock Tube. Think of a giant spyglass 1 mile long with the largest section 40 feet wide and the smallest maybe 1-2 feet wide. Its purpose was to absorb of an atomic blast I believe. Used to enjoy Armed Forces Day as we could go into the restricted area, watch the guns get fired off (50 calliber MG was loud enough, bailed after the 3" gun was fired) and always enjoyed a patrol boat ride on the Potomac. Lots of good memories. Dad made a point of taking us to many historical sites such as Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, Williamsburg, Mount Vernon, Monticello, Manassas, Antietam, Harpers Ferry, Jamestown, etc. Not sure where I went wrong after childhood 😉. Now leaving Memory Lane and on the road back to Chancellorsville discussion.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 3, 2017 20:45:53 GMT
WELL SO WHAT? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
My connection with that wonderful out of the way place, consists of falling in love with the assistant O Club manager, one romantic moonlit night as we strolled under the stars. The affair lasted about a half an hour until I found out she was engaged, and I decided that the better part of valor was to bid her adieu, followed by the delivery to her of a dozen roses the next day, telling her how much I enjoyed her company. Damn that was fun
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 4, 2017 12:02:20 GMT
Dave, you mentioned coming here for a wedding, Chuck mentioned "The Wilderness." See if you can find the time for a round of golf in the Fredericksburg area, at Fawn Lake, on your way to the club you will pass through a very shady road, part of the battlefield, well marked stops. You will then know of which Chuck speaks!
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 4, 2017 12:07:56 GMT
Essentially the latter. The lost the ability to perform operational maneuver. There was much more to it, the supply situation and so forth, but the loss of the ability to move operationally is the root cause of their defensive posture in the waning days of the war. Tom is about fifteen miles from downtown Fredericksburg. Within a twenty mile radius from there, is Chancellorsville, Salem Church, Spotsylvania Court House and the Wilderness. Expand that a little further and you encompass Kelly's Ford, Brandy Station, Cedar Mountain, and a host of small actions that never make the history books. Have to ask if Tom is familiar with Dahlgren VA and the US Naval Surface Weapons Laboratory. My daughter-in-law is the director of personnel there. Beautiful location, the Navy has quite a number of them.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 4, 2017 16:59:02 GMT
QC If you recall my inquiry was a question not a request for action. Were the attempts on Hitler's life morally correct or not or should his demise be far more important than a moot discussion of honor? What is your opinion? If it was a righteous decision to kill Hitler would it be the same for Davis? or Kim Jong-Un?
March of 1864 was a different era and time when the South was literally bleeding to death yet there was still a code of honor between enemies that later was strained by the slaughter of the Overland Campaign. There is no evidence that Lee, Grant or military leaders planned or advocated for assassinations. Stanton and Kilpatrick on the other hand hand no moral scruples and would attempt to assassinate Davis in a heart beat.
You have often mentioned that a war should be fought to win as quickly and cheaply (cost of lives) as possible while obtaining strategic goals. If you can win by the use of Regicide with less loss of life and expense do you act? What if it was Hitler? Would Korea be reunited ala German if Kim Jong-un were assassinated? If so do you OK an assassination attempt on Baby Huey?
Now back to your original question? Would I approve an attempt on Bubble Butt Kim? I just don't not know enough about the DKPR and who would assume leadership after but I would shed no tears if he went straight to Hell to join his Pawpaw and Daddy. Osama bin Laden's mode of death bothered me not one bit and though he was not the "elected" leader of an organized nation, he certainly operated and funded a large loosely formed confederacy. America seems to have no second thoughts or regrets with his death and I suppose there would be few tears over Kim III passing. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2017 17:44:18 GMT
I do so recall, as indicated by my use of the word feasibility.
Killing Hitler was an internal German attempt. and that is not what I am talking about. If the NK's want to off Baby Snooks, be my guest. It is when you as a nation try to bump off the leader of your adversary that it transcends war and becomes murder. Soldiers may have to kill in the course of their duties, but they are not assassins. When a soldier loses his code of honor, he loses his soul.
Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, but more importantly an unlawful combatant, and what he got was completely appropriate, and within the Law of War as it applies to unlawful combatants, and is upheld by international conventions.
There is a moral line to all of this, and the line is very fine. The killing of one may be murder, while the killing of another is well within set boundaries.
It is completely against the interests of the United States for there to be a unified Korea.
It is completely against the interests of the United States to meet with, praise, coddle, recognize, or to have any dealing with the leader of North Korea, until such a time as he verifiably gives up all nuclear weaponry, ceases to support international terrorism, ceases to threaten his neighbors in any way shape or form, and probably a hundred other things that do not readily come to mind. When and if that day ever comes, the quid pro quo should be to guarantee North Korea, that no offensive action will be taken against them by the United States or its allies, as long as he maintains a policy of mending his evil ways.
North Korea should be maintained long into the foreseeable future as a buffer state between China and the west, if we are interested in World peace, and peace throughout the Asian littorals.
Other things that must be addressed in the region are
1) Encouraging through legal and above board means the Republic of the Philippines to rid themselves democratically of the ass hole they currently have in charge.
2) Play hardball with China over the Spratley Islands.
3) Forge a bond and alliances with Viet Nam. Build them up militarily and economically to about the status of South Korea and Japan. Make them a preferred trading partner with the United States. All this as a hedge against Chinese expansionism in that same littoral region of the world.
DIMES are far better than the bullet of the assassin. But never frigging blink. We do that all too often.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 4, 2017 22:00:29 GMT
I like your thinking here QC. The Spratley thing has been brewing a long time and has resource implications but may just be some Chinese paranoia as well. Surrounding the region with strong economically sound democracies makes a lot of sense as a win/win and pressures China to open up more.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 4, 2017 22:02:30 GMT
Interestingly I did not realize that the Battle of Chancellorsville extended this far . Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 4, 2017 22:23:41 GMT
All battle is related Mac. This however is just a brief interlude until my clothes dry out from mucking about in Rappahannock and Rapidan swamp having missed the turn for Kelly's Ford. That will teach me to try to follow the sound of the ANV Army Band playing "Old Joe Hooker Won't You Come Outta Da Wilderness"
Do you think 99 and 9/10ths of America knows where the Spratley's are or their strategic importance. I don't.
It is also a win/win for China, as it would open markets even more for them. Played right it could also be a long term solution for a post Kim, but still hermit North Korea, in much the way Perry opened Japan nearly two centuries ago. Strategy is not for tomorrow. You never know how its going to work out until your grandchildren have grandchildren.
The Spratley's are to the China Sea what North Island is to San Diego Bay. The resources are one thing, but hegemony over the China Sea is the strategic objective. That is why a strong, economically viable littoral surround is so much in all of our interests and especially in the interests of Australia.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 5, 2017 4:01:26 GMT
It seems to me that a key factor in this battle was not just that the Union right flank was hanging but was basically undefended. This seems odd/amazing at this point in a war and in a region that is ideal for surprises. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2017 15:16:36 GMT
Mac: There were a lot of factors that contributed to the success of Jackson's attack into Howard on the right.
1) XI Corps had stopped and was not dug in. That is a terrible mistake at any time or place.
2) Hooker had detached most of his cavalry, and the roads and trails surrounding Dowdall's Tavern, the clearing that XI Corps occupied were not patrolled, nor was there a cavalry screen out. Either patrols or screening the position would have provided all the early warning needed to prevent what happened.
3) The confederate movement around the flank was detected at least twice. After the first time Hooker messaged Howard that, while he thought Lee might be retreating, he might also not be, so look out for your flank. Howard paid lip service to Hooker but largely ignored the warning. The second detection included Union forces moving to Catherine's Furnace, to the rear of Jackson's column, and a rear guard action ensued. Hill had to reinforce the rear guard by turning two of his brigades around to face the threat, which was mitigated thereafter.
4) When Jackson arrived in the area that he intended to launch the attack from he discovered that the axis chosen would lead only to XI Corps front, and the whole purpose of the movement around the flank would come to naught. Fitz Lee, leading Jackson's screen led Jackson further on to another road, which did lead into Howard's flank, and Jackson chose to use it instead.
5) The reselection of axis caused a delay of a couple of hours in launching the attack. This brought into play two more factors, one good for the attacker, the other not so much. Jackson launched the attack at supper time and caught an already unprepared corps, even more so. The delay in launching though meant that Jackson was fast running out of daylight, daylight he would need to completely fulfill the attack's objective of driving Hooker back across the Rappahannock.
6) XI Corps was the red headed step child of the AoP. There were ethnic tensions abroad. The corps in its previous battles had never really had any adult leadership. It was considered next to useless by Hooker. Lots of things far to numerous to go into here. All that said, the popular vision is that XI Corps ran like a bunch of rabbits. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were some outstanding performances turned in by parts of XI Corps including that of Carl Schurtz and Hubert Dilger, MOH. The fact that the confederates only advanced about a mile and a half and were completely disorganized themselves before nightfall indicates tha most of XI Corps made a fighting withdrawal.
In short Jackson's attack was very good, but it was far from the masterpiece of execution and result made of it by the Masked Malevolent Musketeer in his many disjoined ramblings on the matter,
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 8, 2017 2:28:13 GMT
I see now that the Wilderness battle is a revisiting to this area but with a more determined commander in Grant. Terrible battle environment to go back to, had lessons been learned from first time around? Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 8, 2017 15:00:58 GMT
Mac Grant refused to let go of the Army of Northern Virginia as Hooker had and just keep moving to the left. He continued moving South till he forced Lee into a siege at Petersburg which he could not win. Grant was strangling Richmond by preventing supplies and information reaching the Confederate capitol as inexorably as a Anaconda.
I regret that I have never studied Australian history whereas you are very knowledgeably about various American military actions which I admire. Regards Dave
|
|