War Hypothesis Revisited

I didn't say they created the Civil War. I said once the war was on if they were inclined they could have decided the outcome. To create the war I said would take a bunch of people working together to finance and create news events and stump for war and such.
So, again I ask you. Would it be possible for two generals commanding two opposing armies to between them decide the outcome?

So, if you are willing to believe that they "were inclined they could have decided the outcome", why not that they created the war in the first place... maybe to make Grant president?



So, again I ask you: Why can't you believe that the Lord of the Rings is a real story about an alternate universe/world and J. R. R. Tolkien wasn’t an author of fiction, but really a transuniverse historian?

He may have been. JRR Tolkien fought in WWI alongside C S Lewis. Possibly they were building stories to show some other aspect they observed during that time. Something like the stories in the Bible might show. That really isn't what I was getting at. As far as just the two generals creating a war I'd say no way. It would take many more people than that. Perhaps if they each had a large cult following. The figurehead leader of the Stalwarts, the Republican faction the elevated Grant to president, was Senator Roscoe Conkling R-NY

Or maybe the stories were about an alternate universe/world.




Why not?




This isn't in line with historical fact.

It isn't in line with REPORTED historical fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_J._Guiteau
However, I didn't say, didn't insinuate, and in fact said definitively that I doubt the two of them manufactured the Civil War. What I said was it would take a large cadre to create a war. But, once the war was started it would have been possible for them to manipulate the outcome. I would also say they could make the war last or end at their whim within reason.
As far as the stories being about an alternate reality, sure it's possible. The stories may alternatively be metaphorical adaptations of what was observed or heard.

Correct. It is a fanciful SciFy story line.


> Grant didn't come into the picture until after the Battle of Gettysburg, which was essentially won by the Union Army. While some might like to argue that point, it was devastating for the Confederate Army.

So... why would Lee choose to work with Grant to end the war?

Lee could just as easily pulled the proverbial plug shortly after Gettysburg.

Why wait and then enter into some conspire with Grant at a later date?

Ok so what you're doing here, a lot, is putting words in my mouth. I think you should re read what I said, slowly and carefully. I didn't say any of this happened. I was using a historical situation to make a point about mass control. I did not say any of this happened.
Did you read the wiki?
cause you replied awful quick there

No, I am not.



No. You are making massive leaps and assumptions just because Grant and Lee went to the same military academy and you want to present a global conspiracy theory.



You were making huge leaps in reasoning.



Nope. No need to.

The Civil War is pretty well documented. Honestly I don't need Wiki to tell me what happened.

As it turns out I have a 10 Volume encyclopedia on the Civil war: Photographic History of the Civil War: In Ten Volumes...

>>> And other texts <<<

This all goes to the statement "a little knowledge is dangerous"...

Because a "little knowledge" is what people use to make up conspiracy theories, which typically fly in the face of fact and reason.

I didn't make any leaps at all. And I'm going to say that you didn't read it closely enough.
It is also extremely arrogant on your part to say that I have "a little knowledge." Because you have no idea if I do or not. I find your conversations reminiscent of a Fox news reporter or fascist politician trying to divert attention away from points being made by making up the things you "say " I said. It is juvenile and annoying.

As to your Civil War books that's great. Charles Guiteau wouldn't be in them however because he is the guy that assassinated or tried to assassinate ( there's argument over whether he succeeded or not) President Garfield. That happened long after the Civil War. As far as the things I post go, I put up the facts, some of my opinions and some knowledge, and put up readings for people to research. They can make up their own minds what to believe.

So far in my time here you have tried to say that I was a Trump supporter, which I am not.
You tried to say I was a Christian with no background in any other religious studies, which you found was not true.
And now you seem intent on distracting from my posts in this thread as if something about it bothers you.
I'm sorry it bothers you but I do intend to proceed if that's ok.

The book I suggest people read is The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. After one reads it and compares it to the history courses presented in high school, one understands how whitewashed official history is. There is a troubling trend in higher education to under finance history colleges ( and philosophy and liberal arts in general) in favor of science and engineering schools. The result is technocrats lacking a well rounded education. I believe this is unhealthy for democracy.

Hmmm.



That isn't "arrogant"... I merely read your posts and observe what you present... nothing more.

And thus is irrelevant to Lee & Grant.

Now it is you changing topics.