Grant US Grant ethics?

[uaskme]

This thread has prompted me to read through Grant's letters to Julia Dent during the Mexican War period. I've been using "My Dearest Julia: The Wartime Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Wife," Library of America, 2018. If I understand correctly, the letters in this book are a selection published with permission from the Ulysses S. Grant Association. That being the case, it could well be that there are other letters or papers that speak to Grant's feelings about the war while it was going on. I don't read anything in these particular letters saying that he was explicitly against the war at the time.

In post #35, @Belfoured does quote one letter in which Grant expresses abhorrence at some atrocities committed.

I do wonder whether an officer at the time could have felt free to express explicit opposition to a war he was participating in, even in private letters to his fiancé. One question I'm toying with is how strong his opposition to the war truly was during the 1840s. Was this just a privately-held opinion that might not be discoverable in contemporary primary sources? Or is it possible that he exaggerated his opposition in order to make a rhetorical point in his later memoirs?

ARB

I would go with your last sentence. However one should study and come to their own conclusions.

There are a few studies about Grants memoirs. I've posted some of it. Biographers who Favor Grant admit it.

Another consideration. Some authors attribute Grant as having a more friendly Racial Attitudes toward Blacks, Native Americans, Asians and here the Mexicans. Member DanSBHawk tells us the Historian White is his Grant Biographer of Choice. This is part of White's and others narrative. Quite frankly, 99% of Whites didn't have those attitudes. Most assuredly Grant, who we know owned 1 Slave, leased and rented others. Murdered Native Americans for Sport, evidenced by Cozzens work on the Sioux. Plus, Grant as President, defined all Chinese as Slaves so as to give basis for Chinese Immigration Exclusion. Grant also talks about the beauty of Mexico. Calls the inhabitants poor etc. Surely, Grant never had these attitudes. So, some of this just don't pass the smell test.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Another consideration. Some authors attribute Grant as having a more friendly Racial Attitudes toward Blacks, Native Americans, Asians and here the Mexicans. Member DanSBHawk tells us the Historian White is his Grant Biographer of Choice. This is part of White's and others narrative. Quite frankly, 99% of Whites didn't have those attitudes. Most assuredly Grant, who we know owned 1 Slave, leased and rented others. Murdered Native Americans for Sport, evidenced by Cozzens work on the Sioux. Plus, Grant as President, defined all Chinese as Slaves so as to give basis for Chinese Immigration Exclusion. Grant also talks about the beauty of Mexico. Calls the inhabitants poor etc. Surely, Grant never had these attitudes. So, some of this just don't pass the smell test.

And this is the problem with these discussions about Grant. Things get exaggerated all out of proportion. "99% of Whites" and "Murdered Native Americans for Sport" are prime examples.

Ron White is a good biographer, but I believe I mentioned others as well, such as Jean Edward Smith and Brooks Simpson. The writers who are horribly slanted against Grant - such as Rose, Varney, Moore, Leigh - have their own agendas.

 

[Belfoured]

This thread has prompted me to read through Grant's letters to Julia Dent during the Mexican War period. I've been using "My Dearest Julia: The Wartime Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Wife," Library of America, 2018. If I understand correctly, the letters in this book are a selection published with permission from the Ulysses S. Grant Association. That being the case, it could well be that there are other letters or papers that speak to Grant's feelings about the war while it was going on. I don't read anything in these particular letters saying that he was explicitly against the war at the time.

In post #35, @Belfoured does quote one letter in which Grant expresses abhorrence at some atrocities committed.

I do wonder whether an officer at the time could have felt free to express explicit opposition to a war he was participating in, even in private letters to his fiancé. One question I'm toying with is how strong his opposition to the war truly was during the 1840s. Was this just a privately-held opinion that might not be discoverable in contemporary primary sources? Or is it possible that he exaggerated his opposition in order to make a rhetorical point in his later memoirs?

ARB

"Or is it possible that he exaggerated his opposition in order to make a rhetorical point in his later memoirs?"

We like "either/or propositions" but just maybe there's another option - his view became stronger long after the war. Anybody who knows guys who served in Viet Nam is well aware of how that happens. I've also pointed out Grant's direct involvement after his presidency in helping Mexico establish rail connections, etc. and in trying to enlist US assistance.

 

[DanSBHawk]

This thread has prompted me to read through Grant's letters to Julia Dent during the Mexican War period. I've been using "My Dearest Julia: The Wartime Letters of Ulysses S. Grant to His Wife," Library of America, 2018. If I understand correctly, the letters in this book are a selection published with permission from the Ulysses S. Grant Association. That being the case, it could well be that there are other letters or papers that speak to Grant's feelings about the war while it was going on. I don't read anything in these particular letters saying that he was explicitly against the war at the time.

In post #35, @Belfoured does quote one letter in which Grant expresses abhorrence at some atrocities committed.

I do wonder whether an officer at the time could have felt free to express explicit opposition to a war he was participating in, even in private letters to his fiancé. One question I'm toying with is how strong his opposition to the war truly was during the 1840s. Was this just a privately-held opinion that might not be discoverable in contemporary primary sources? Or is it possible that he exaggerated his opposition in order to make a rhetorical point in his later memoirs?

ARB

I found these letters in the Papers of US Grant:

August 1846:
"For my part I believe we are bound to beat the Mexicans whenever and where ever we meet them, no matter how large their numbers. But then wherever there are battles a great many must suffer, and for the sake of the little glory gained I do not care to see it."

September 1846:
"I am getting very tired of this war, and particularly impatient of being separated from one I love so much..."

October 1846:
"I dont believe that we will ever advance beyond this place, for it is generally believed that Mexico has -rec'd our Minister and a few months more will restore us to amity. I hope it may be so for fighting is no longer a pleasure."

February 1847:
"I have long since been tired enough of this country but I suppose I will have to see the war out."

April 1847:
"It is a great pity that people compose the Mexican soldiery should be made the tools for some proud and ambitious General to work out his advancement with."

May 1847:
"Although we are now within a few days march of the capital of the Mexican Republic I do not see that the chances for peace brighten in the least. The people are proud and subject to the will of a few and they have no government to act for them"

August 1847:
"Too much blood has been shed. Is it ended, or will hostilities be resumed?"

September 1847:
"At present Gen. Scott will let no officer leave who is able for duty not even if he tenders his resignation. So you see it is not so easy to get out of the wars as it is to get into them."

January 1848:
"I pity poor Mexico. With a soil and climate scarsely equaled in the world she has more poor and starving subjects who are willing and able to work than any country in the world. The rich keep down the poor with a hardness of heart that is incredible."

 

[Grant's Tomb]

And this is the problem with these discussions about Grant. Things get exaggerated all out of proportion. "99% of Whites" and "Murdered Native Americans for Sport" are prime examples.

Ron White is a good biographer, but I believe I mentioned others as well, such as Jean Edward Smith and Brooks Simpson. The writers who are horribly slanted against Grant - such as Rose, Varney, Moore, Leigh - have their own agendas.

My favorite is the biography by Jean Edward Smith.

 

[A. Roy]

I found these letters in the Papers of US Grant:

August 1846:
"For my part I believe we are bound to beat the Mexicans whenever and where ever we meet them, no matter how large their numbers. But then wherever there are battles a great many must suffer, and for the sake of the little glory gained I do not care to see it."

September 1846:
"I am getting very tired of this war, and particularly impatient of being separated from one I love so much..."

October 1846:
"I dont believe that we will ever advance beyond this place, for it is generally believed that Mexico has -rec'd our Minister and a few months more will restore us to amity. I hope it may be so for fighting is no longer a pleasure."

February 1847:
"I have long since been tired enough of this country but I suppose I will have to see the war out."

April 1847:
"It is a great pity that people compose the Mexican soldiery should be made the tools for some proud and ambitious General to work out his advancement with."

May 1847:
"Although we are now within a few days march of the capital of the Mexican Republic I do not see that the chances for peace brighten in the least. The people are proud and subject to the will of a few and they have no government to act for them"

August 1847:
"Too much blood has been shed. Is it ended, or will hostilities be resumed?"

September 1847:
"At present Gen. Scott will let no officer leave who is able for duty not even if he tenders his resignation. So you see it is not so easy to get out of the wars as it is to get into them."

January 1848:
"I pity poor Mexico. With a soil and climate scarsely equaled in the world she has more poor and starving subjects who are willing and able to work than any country in the world. The rich keep down the poor with a hardness of heart that is incredible."

I had noticed most of these same comments in Grant's letters. It's evident he felt badly at the time about the suffering the war was causing for the Mexican people. He also commented at times how much he liked Mexico and its people. It could well be that he held feelings against the war, without feeling free to express them. At the same time, it seems evident from his letters that he was taking pride in doing his job. I imagine Grant wouldn't have been the only soldier who has struggled to cope with the ambiguity of his situation.
ARB

 

[Belfoured]

I had noticed most of these same comments in Grant's letters. It's evident he felt badly at the time about the suffering the war was causing for the Mexican people. He also commented at times how much he liked Mexico and its people. It could well be that he held feelings against the war, without feeling free to express them. At the same time, it seems evident from his letters that he was taking pride in doing his job. I imagine Grant wouldn't have been the only soldier who has struggled to cope with the ambiguity of his situation.
ARB

I think you're right - in fact, far from the only one. It ain't a perfect world and each war is different.

 

[lurid]

I liked Gen. Schwarzkopf his famous "left hook" against the Iraqi defense was straight out of the Lee and Jackson's Chancellorsville playbook. Of course he had the advantage of weeks of carpet bombing to pave the way.

You need to brush up on your military history, and attribute credit to the right persons. You are misapplying credit for the left hook to Lee, when Schwarzkopf never even mentioned Lee in his memoirs nor Jackson for that matter. The only Civil War general he said he admired and was one of his heroes was Sherman. He never mentioned a Confederate ever. So, stop trying to be a revisionist on the internet. When you write statements like you did in your post you willfully become a revisionist. There is no two ways about it.

The left-hook out was taken out of Hanabal's playbook or The Schlieffen Plan. During the run up to Desert Storm, Cheney regularly met with Boyd, where Boyd developed "a version of the von Schlieffen plan." Boyd was intimately familiar with the Battle of Cannae, the Schlieffen plan, as well as the concept of strategic envelopment; he used his vast knowledge of history to inform his strategic advice to the DOD. On the ground, then-Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, commander of the U.S. Army's VII Corps was responsible for implementing the deceptive and high-tempo strategy, which quickly disoriented fourteen battle-hardened Iraqi military divisions and forced them into retreat.

I don't understand your philosophy in you above mentioned post. You claim Schwarzkopf copied Lee but you say because he had an advantage of carpet bombing? What about Lee having the advantage of being dug in in an era where there was no carpet bombing? Wouldn't you think that would have been fair game? I was in the 1st Marine division in 90-91, and I say emphatically carpet bombing makes all the difference in the world. It gives your troops an opening and limits time to maneuver amongst other things. I been saying on this board for four years, the Confederates had the advantages and should lasted way longer than four years. Perhaps, even won. Goes to show how good and brave the Union soldier was attacking perimeters with those bogus frontal attacks. I never would have done it, and neither would you.

Again, I read Schwarzkopf's memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but claimed how he admired Sherman.

Assuming that the quote from Young is accurate, it's refreshing to see a leader admit to being wrong or less than perfect as they struggle with the issues of the day. And to learning and growing based on those experiences. Perhaps what made Grant such a determined general in the ACW was his conviction that the ACW was God's "punishment" for the Mexican War. Without the moral dilemma he experienced as a result of the Mexican War, he may not have risen to the occasion in ACW.

Like George Washington was the indispensable man to win the Revolutionay War Grant was the indispensable man to win the CW. Like Washington, Grant would just not quit.

 

[Belfoured]

You need to brush up on your military history, and attribute credit to the right persons. You are misapplying credit for the left hook to Lee, when Schwarzkopf never even mentioned Lee in his memoirs nor Jackson for that matter. The only Civil War general he said he admired and was one of his heroes was Sherman. He never mentioned a Confederate ever. So, stop trying to be a revisionist on the internet. When you write statements like you did in your post you willfully become a revisionist. There is no two ways about it.

The left-hook out was taken out of Hanabal's playbook or The Schlieffen Plan. During the run up to Desert Storm, Cheney regularly met with Boyd, where Boyd developed "a version of the von Schlieffen plan." Boyd was intimately familiar with the Battle of Cannae, the Schlieffen plan, as well as the concept of strategic envelopment; he used his vast knowledge of history to inform his strategic advice to the DOD. On the ground, then-Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, commander of the U.S. Army's VII Corps was responsible for implementing the deceptive and high-tempo strategy, which quickly disoriented fourteen battle-hardened Iraqi military divisions and forced them into retreat.

I don't understand your philosophy in you above mentioned post. You claim Schwarzkopf copied Lee but you say because he had an advantage of carpet bombing? What about Lee having the advantage of being dug in in an era where there was no carpet bombing? Wouldn't you think that would have been fair game? I was in the 1st Marine division in 90-91, and I say emphatically carpet bombing makes all the difference in the world. It gives your troops an opening and limits time to maneuver amongst other things. I been saying on this board for four years, the Confederates had the advantages and should lasted way longer than four years. Perhaps, even won. Goes to show how good and brave the Union soldier was attacking perimeters with those bogus frontal attacks. I never would have done it, and neither would you.

Again, I read Schwarzkopf's memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but claimed how he admired Sherman.


Like George Washington was the indispensable man to win the Revolutionay War Grant was the indispensable man to win the CW. Like Washington, Grant would just not quit.

Agreed. From a tactical perspective there was nothing revolutionary or inventive about the flank attack at Chancellorsville. Flank attacks are a matter of common sense and have been used throughout history, even before Cannae. If we want to limit ourselves to North America, how about Lord Howe at Long Island in August 1776 and again at Brandywine in September 1777. As I pointed out, Jackson's attack also should have been "nipped in the bud" and would have been but for the refusal of Howard and Devens to even check out the repeated reports from their field officers at the front as the day wore on.

 

[Rebforever]

You need to brush up on your military history, and attribute credit to the right persons. You are misapplying credit for the left hook to Lee, when Schwarzkopf never even mentioned Lee in his memoirs nor Jackson for that matter. The only Civil War general he said he admired and was one of his heroes was Sherman. He never mentioned a Confederate ever. So, stop trying to be a revisionist on the internet. When you write statements like you did in your post you willfully become a revisionist. There is no two ways about it.

The left-hook out was taken out of Hanabal's playbook or The Schlieffen Plan. During the run up to Desert Storm, Cheney regularly met with Boyd, where Boyd developed "a version of the von Schlieffen plan." Boyd was intimately familiar with the Battle of Cannae, the Schlieffen plan, as well as the concept of strategic envelopment; he used his vast knowledge of history to inform his strategic advice to the DOD. On the ground, then-Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, commander of the U.S. Army's VII Corps was responsible for implementing the deceptive and high-tempo strategy, which quickly disoriented fourteen battle-hardened Iraqi military divisions and forced them into retreat.

I don't understand your philosophy in you above mentioned post. You claim Schwarzkopf copied Lee but you say because he had an advantage of carpet bombing? What about Lee having the advantage of being dug in in an era where there was no carpet bombing? Wouldn't you think that would have been fair game? I was in the 1st Marine division in 90-91, and I say emphatically carpet bombing makes all the difference in the world. It gives your troops an opening and limits time to maneuver amongst other things. I been saying on this board for four years, the Confederates had the advantages and should lasted way longer than four years. Perhaps, even won. Goes to show how good and brave the Union soldier was attacking perimeters with those bogus frontal attacks. I never would have done it, and neither would you.

Again, I read Schwarzkopf's memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but claimed how he admired Sherman.


Like George Washington was the indispensable man to win the Revolutionay War Grant was the indispensable man to win the CW. Like Washington, Grant would just not quit.

I heard Schwarzkopf mention Stonewall Jackson at a news conference.
He was talking about flank attack of the tanks.

 

[RobertP]

You need to brush up on your military history, and attribute credit to the right persons. You are misapplying credit for the left hook to Lee, when Schwarzkopf never even mentioned Lee in his memoirs nor Jackson for that matter. The only Civil War general he said he admired and was one of his heroes was Sherman. He never mentioned a Confederate ever. So, stop trying to be a revisionist on the internet. When you write statements like you did in your post you willfully become a revisionist. There is no two ways about it.

The left-hook out was taken out of Hanabal's playbook or The Schlieffen Plan. During the run up to Desert Storm, Cheney regularly met with Boyd, where Boyd developed "a version of the von Schlieffen plan." Boyd was intimately familiar with the Battle of Cannae, the Schlieffen plan, as well as the concept of strategic envelopment; he used his vast knowledge of history to inform his strategic advice to the DOD. On the ground, then-Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, commander of the U.S. Army's VII Corps was responsible for implementing the deceptive and high-tempo strategy, which quickly disoriented fourteen battle-hardened Iraqi military divisions and forced them into retreat.

I don't understand your philosophy in you above mentioned post. You claim Schwarzkopf copied Lee but you say because he had an advantage of carpet bombing? What about Lee having the advantage of being dug in in an era where there was no carpet bombing? Wouldn't you think that would have been fair game? I was in the 1st Marine division in 90-91, and I say emphatically carpet bombing makes all the difference in the world. It gives your troops an opening and limits time to maneuver amongst other things. I been saying on this board for four years, the Confederates had the advantages and should lasted way longer than four years. Perhaps, even won. Goes to show how good and brave the Union soldier was attacking perimeters with those bogus frontal attacks. I never would have done it, and neither would you.

Again, I read Schwarzkopf's memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but claimed how he admired Sherman.


Like George Washington was the indispensable man to win the Revolutionay War Grant was the indispensable man to win the CW. Like Washington, Grant would just not quit.

Ok, man.

 

[RobertP]

double post

 

[lurid]

I heard Schwarzkopf mention Stonewall Jackson at a news conference.
He was talking about flank attack of the tanks.

Okay, his briefings are on YouTube, therefore, find the one where you claim he mentions Jackson and post it. For now, I read his memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but he did mention Grant and he said Sherman was one of his heroes.

Agreed. From a tactical perspective there was nothing revolutionary or inventive about the flank attack at Chancellorsville. Flank attacks are a matter of common sense and have been used throughout history, even before Cannae. If we want to limit ourselves to North America, how about Lord Howe at Long Island in August 1776 and again at Brandywine in September 1777. As I pointed out, Jackson's attack also should have been "nipped in the bud" and would have been but for the refusal of Howard and Devens to even check out the repeated reports from their field officers at the front as the day wore on.

My question is what other tactic did they rely on back then? It seems to me flank was the most common tactic. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually curious. I believe you, that the flank worked because of a default. I severely doubt Schwarzkopf would have emulated something that worked out of default.

Ok, man.

Is this your way of saying that you quit with saving face?

 

[Belfoured]

Okay, his briefings are on YouTube, therefore, find the one where you claim he mentions Jackson and post it. For now, I read his memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but he did mention Grant and he said Sherman was one of his heroes.


My question is what other tactic did they rely on back then? It seems to me flank was the most common tactic. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually curious. I believe you, that the flank worked because of a default. I severely doubt Schwarzkopf would have emulated something that worked out of default.


Is this your way of saying that you quit with saving face?

I think it was "common" in the meaning that if your opponent was open to an attack on his flank(s) it was simple common sense to try that where the option is a frontal attack. Simply drawing the setup of the two forces in the dirt would show why. Of course, planning and executing are two different things. That's why I pointed out that Jackson's move was discovered almost right away but was misinterpreted by Sickles. As the day went on it was repeatedly observed to their west by XI Corps regiments but their warnings to Devens and Howard were simply ignored. Howe/Clinton/Cornwallis pulled off the Long Island flanking attack because Washington failed to cover the road through Jamaica Pass to his left/east and remained focused on Grant's diversionary force to his front while Howe staged a night march to the east, north, and then west. At Brandywine, Washington had learned to be alert to this possibility and covered the lower fords on the Brandywine that would have exposed his right flank but failed to cover a ford farther to the north (possibly because he was unaware of it). While Knyphausen confronted Washington to the west Howe/Cornwallis staged a long march to the northern ford and came in on Washington's flank again. Unlike Jackson's march, neither was discovered until too late.

 

[Scott1967]

Most assuredly Grant, who we know owned 1 Slave, leased and rented others. Murdered Native Americans for Sport, evidenced by Cozzens work on the Sioux. Plus, Grant as President, defined all Chinese as Slaves so as to give basis for Chinese Immigration Exclusion. Grant also talks about the beauty of Mexico. Calls the inhabitants poor etc. Surely, Grant never had these attitudes. So, some of this just don't pass the smell test.

Talking of Cozzens.

"The Pawnees did most of the killing at Summit Springs, and they killed without mercy. The Cheyennes expected as much. "I do not belittle the Pawnees for their killing of women or children because as far back as any of us could remember the Cheyenne and Sioux slaughtered every male, female, and child they could run across of the Pawnee tribe," said a Dog Soldier survivor. "Each tribe hated the other with a deadly passion and savage hearts [that] know only total war." Sherman and Sheridan's notion of total war paled beside that of the Plains Indians."

On China.

Despite all these receptions, nowhere in the world did Grant receive such extraordinary public and official welcomes as in China. Arriving in Canton (today known as Guangzhou) on 5 May 1879, Grant was received by a crowd estimated by some of close to 200,000 people that had waited hours for the arrival of the USS Ashuelot steam gunboat.

On Mexico

"For myself," Grant wrote later about the United States war against Mexico, "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

 

[CavRTO]

You need to brush up on your military history, and attribute credit to the right persons. You are misapplying credit for the left hook to Lee, when Schwarzkopf never even mentioned Lee in his memoirs nor Jackson for that matter. The only Civil War general he said he admired and was one of his heroes was Sherman. He never mentioned a Confederate ever. So, stop trying to be a revisionist on the internet. When you write statements like you did in your post you willfully become a revisionist. There is no two ways about it.

The left-hook out was taken out of Hanabal's playbook or The Schlieffen Plan. During the run up to Desert Storm, Cheney regularly met with Boyd, where Boyd developed "a version of the von Schlieffen plan." Boyd was intimately familiar with the Battle of Cannae, the Schlieffen plan, as well as the concept of strategic envelopment; he used his vast knowledge of history to inform his strategic advice to the DOD. On the ground, then-Lieutenant General Frederick Franks, commander of the U.S. Army's VII Corps was responsible for implementing the deceptive and high-tempo strategy, which quickly disoriented fourteen battle-hardened Iraqi military divisions and forced them into retreat.

I don't understand your philosophy in you above mentioned post. You claim Schwarzkopf copied Lee but you say because he had an advantage of carpet bombing? What about Lee having the advantage of being dug in in an era where there was no carpet bombing? Wouldn't you think that would have been fair game? I was in the 1st Marine division in 90-91, and I say emphatically carpet bombing makes all the difference in the world. It gives your troops an opening and limits time to maneuver amongst other things. I been saying on this board for four years, the Confederates had the advantages and should lasted way longer than four years. Perhaps, even won. Goes to show how good and brave the Union soldier was attacking perimeters with those bogus frontal attacks. I never would have done it, and neither would you.

Again, I read Schwarzkopf's memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but claimed how he admired Sherman.


Like George Washington was the indispensable man to win the Revolutionay War Grant was the indispensable man to win the CW. Like Washington, Grant would just not quit.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention General Fred Franks was a veteran of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Viet Nam. He was seriously wounded during the attack into Cambodia and lost a leg which normally would've precluded him from commanding another combat unit. He was granted an exception and went on to finish a distinguished military career. He was the guest speaker at one of our reunions. Allons

 

[Rebforever]

Okay, his briefings are on YouTube, therefore, find the one where you claim he mentions Jackson and post it. For now, I read his memoirs and he never mentioned a Confederate, but he did mention Grant and he said Sherman was one of his heroes.


My question is what other tactic did they rely on back then? It seems to me flank was the most common tactic. I'm not being facetious, I'm actually curious. I believe you, that the flank worked because of a default. I severely doubt Schwarzkopf would have emulated something that worked out of default.


Is this your way of saying that you quit with saving face?

In order to not mention any Confederates in his book, why would one think it would be on youtube? An unusual request.

 

[lurid]

In order to not mention any Confederates in his book, why would one think it would be on youtube? An unusual request.

YouTube is a learning tool for high school students who don't know how to research history, and that's why I referred you. But yet, you still can't prove nothing.

I'll get it started for you.

 

[lurid]

I'll wager that if you give it some serious thought you can come up with some examples.

I'll take that bet

 

[Rebforever]

Oh well. Sorry you can't take opposition.