Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AnthillOmbudsman t1_j9zh6cd wrote

Then the mom came outside: "What are you boys doing out there? Why does it smell like smoke?"

276

SpiritOne t1_j9zh9te wrote

Athens Georgia. I lived there when I was a kid. This canon is really close to the tree that owns itself.

61

paulsmt t1_j9ziaax wrote

One more idiocy brought by the Confederates

11

GreedoWasShot t1_j9zj86z wrote

That’s too many damn cows killed on the field of battle

35

Dirt_E_Harry t1_j9zjlt9 wrote

Why not just put the two cannon ball attached by chain down the bore of one cannon?

252

chemamatic t1_j9zkeor wrote

Replying to Dirt_E_Harry (#2,001,247)

Because that is way too sensible and effective. Navies had been doing that for a long time. The failure here is so predictable, you can't get the split second synchronization you need between the two barrels, so one fires first, snapping the chain.

266

[deleted] t1_j9zn1rg wrote

Welp that idea was clearly benched before it could run.

1

marmorset t1_j9zn8nn wrote

The positive part of this story is that unlike Australia and their loss in the Great Emu War, it put a victorious end to the US's Great Cattle Rebellion of 1863. Log cabins also know their place.

266

3xgreathermes t1_j9zngnw wrote

That cow was a carpetbaggin' southern unionist anyway

24

OccludedFug t1_j9zp1dg wrote

Mom! Phineas and Ferb are building a double-barreled cannon!

You are so busted!

27

Sometimes_Stutters t1_j9zvl20 wrote

I’d be much more concerned if a cannonball killed a cow very slowly and deliberately. So this test seemed like a success.

14

nalc t1_ja03guj wrote

>northern aggression

Remind me, who shot first?

Cope, traitors

40

MattJFarrell t1_ja07ga1 wrote

>Local lore suggests it was and remains pointed to the north as a warning against northern aggression.

Seems like you should point it in any other direction if you actually want to threaten the North with it.

135

TheSlamster t1_ja09jbn wrote

Replying to chemamatic (#2,001,393)

No you don’t understand, the very bad is of their idea had the potential to change war in a way far greater than the nuclear bomb. The war gods thus deemed it unusable and snapped its chain in their bovicidal show of power.

7

Rosijuana1 t1_ja09nm5 wrote

I waited for the Athens City bus next to this bad boy my whole sophomore year.

6

ZombieJesusaves t1_ja0c95q wrote

Its on display in Athens GA by the courthouse if anyone is interested.

1

jervoise t1_ja0gyfk wrote

Replying to eLonLonRanch (#2,005,218)

this is in comparison to two shots. a chain shot can only spread itself out about 2 feet wide. dont get me wrong, it was nasty, but there's a reason it was primarily used for naval combat, and never was consistently used on land.

2

TheTimDavis t1_ja0k9y1 wrote

"Local lore suggests it was and remains pointed to the north as a warning against northern aggression."

I'm shaking in my boots.

18

Xplain9 t1_ja0njke wrote

Own a double-barrel cannon for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended.

1

hesalivejim t1_ja0nlwg wrote

Dumb question - why not just load them each with ball / grape, light one (boom) light the next (boom) then reload both? In fact, why not have almost a chaingun-type contraption where you just keep firing the next in line until it's empty then reloading the lot at once? Surely that would have saved loads of time? The only issue I can think of is weight but these ones look tiny anyway.

0

Due_Platypus_3913 t1_ja0pa1k wrote

In the modern era,military contractors would say”successful proof-of-concept” and the Pentagon would order 10,000 units at $75 million per.

2

Metalsand t1_ja0vsw5 wrote

It's definitively not the only double-barrel cannon in the world, because even if you argue autocannon that exist most notably in naval ships are somehow a different category of cannon and don't count, a modernized replica of this exact cannon was built on the reality show American Guns.

1

indr4neel t1_ja0zclu wrote

Most effective Confederate invention:

1

Poopy_McTurdFace t1_ja13323 wrote

Replying to Dirt_E_Harry (#2,001,247)

While that was practiced regularly in the past, the double barrel cannon was supposed to make it so the two balls were stretched out and the chain could cut down advancing soldiers. Stuffing both balls down one barrel causes the shot to spin around wildly and it loses some accuracy.

27

Poopy_McTurdFace t1_ja19vc7 wrote

Replying to TatonkaJack (#2,011,315)

The instance I'm thinking of was the 1631 destruction of Magdeburg. I was mistaken on the attackers using it as it was actually the defenders using it instead. The Wikipedia page for chain-shot has a brief mention that the use of chain on land against infantry angered the attackers, but isn't specific on exactly why or how. Edit: Here is the bit that was written containing mention of the use of chain on the attackers.

After some googling, this is the closest thing referencing what I remember, that the use of chain on land was seen as especially nasty, and connects those sentiments to Magdeburg. As for a treaty, the treaty signed after the war ended made no mention on weapon or munition bans, so I must be mistaken on that front too. Not to mention that use of chain against infantry in a few instances in the 19th century suggests that no recognized bans were in place.

4

Barachan_Isles t1_ja1b28s wrote

This cannon actually belonged to my family.

I'm a descendant of John Gilleland who built it and I even grew up on Gilleland drive in Athens, GA until I was 10 years old.

The "house" was a run down shack built in the 1920's that was adjacent to the family graveyard which has since been bulldozed... The house, not the graveyard. If you go the graveyard today (difficult to find because the new houses block the view), the large family headstone actually says "Sims" on it, because the family patriarch was a privateer for the English crown who settled in GA.

When I attended UGA and was out bar hopping with buddies I would sometimes walk up to the cannon and tell them it was mine.

7

Dominarion t1_ja1eh49 wrote

"As an observer of the lone test of Gilleland’s cannon recounted, ”[The chain shot] had a kind of circular motion, plowed up an acre of ground, tore up a cornfield, and mowed down saplings. The chain broke, the two balls going in opposite directions; one of the balls killed a cow in a distant field, while the other knocked down the chimney from a log cabin.”

The chain didn't break immediately. Reading the trail of destruction, I call that a resounding success. I can't help but wonder and clench my neither sphincter at the idea of what it would have done to an Union battalion.

1

bigbysemotivefinger t1_ja1hqlj wrote

I feel like there's something hilarious about pointing a weapon "to warn against Northern aggression" when the weapon in question is one you know catastrophically doesn't work.

Honestly if that's not the most Confederate thing I've ever heard I'm not sure what is.

8

MisterMarcus t1_ja200uc wrote

I remember this from a music documentary in the 80s.

The 3 things Athens, Gerogia is famous for:

  1. The double-barrel cannon

  2. A tree that somehow owns itself

  3. A weird local college rock band made big, named "R.E.M.".

1

Crepuscular_Animal t1_ja22wit wrote

Replying to Spacemanspalds (#2,002,158)

I didn't think about that until I watched The Thin Red Line. It puts a lo of emphasis on war's senseless destruction, not only of people and man-made things, but of nature and animals, too. Imagine how many marine animals died from bombs falling into the sea, how many habitats were destroyed. Defoliant use during the Vietnam War was a huge ecological disaster, we'd boo any company that did stuff like that for profit, but it was done for war so it's okay.

6

just_some_guy65 t1_ja2wy4c wrote

It seems to be mandatory for stories like this to include the accidental death of a cow bystander.

1

Antique-Sun-6766 t1_ja2yjut wrote

I get to walk by this beast almost everyday, it’s pretty cool

1

NemosGhost t1_ja3aamd wrote

Replying to MattJFarrell (#2,011,410)

So...

You fucking suck at logic and have no honesty.

Tell you what. You let a gang build up and armed group in your foyer while eying your wife and daughter and promise me you won't call them aggressors.

−11

WetMogwai t1_ja3hgzu wrote

Replying to mister-ferguson (#2,011,007)

Probably not much different. Ft. Sumter was the first major action between two armies but the violence began months earlier. There had been armory raids across the South. An escalation to full scale war was bound to happen somewhere before long if not there.

3

chulookin2 t1_ja3pmeh wrote

Dinner around the fire pit...the American Way

1

racooncubbler t1_ja3w0l1 wrote

Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of shoot once, shoot a second time. Reload both. I imagined there was some efficiency gained form a man power perspective. I.e. a crew on a double barrel canon could shot more often per member than a two crews on two guns. And you can see where your last shot went and shoot again immediately.

1

NemosGhost t1_ja40o0w wrote

Replying to MattJFarrell (#2,026,893)

Never watched or listened to either one.

Guess again. And don't tell other people to read, when you obviously are just regurgitating a dumbass opinion that fails spectacularly under any scrutinization at all.

Tell me the truth. If a gang starts building up an armed group in the front of your house are you just gonna sit there and let them do it and not call them aggressors?

I bet you can't tell the truth, because it shows how idiotic your dumbass regurgitated opinion is.

−2

NemosGhost t1_ja43u0y wrote

Replying to KA-ME-HA-ME- (#2,029,895)

Lincoln started the war and resorted to rape and terrorism. He is responsible for that. And most of those fighting for the Union did so because Lincoln would fucking arrest or kill them if they didn't.

There was no good side. The Confederate states left for the wrong reason, but they made EVERY attempt to leave peacefully as was their absolute, legally documented, right to do so (right to secession was a condition of ratifying the Constitution). Lincoln refused all diplomacy and started the war, and he didn't give a flying fuck about slavery. He killed those people and shredded the Constitution for power and power alone. That makes him worse by orders of magnitude.

Put the fairy tales down.

−2

MattJFarrell t1_ja4iui3 wrote

Replying to NemosGhost (#2,029,853)

No, because it's a false analogy that I won't engage with. Fort Sumter was a federal fort on federal land that was already garrisoned by federal troops. Resupplying that fort was 100% within the federal government's rights. No one provoked SC. They just got scared that the new president-elect might take their precious slaves away from them, so they illegally seceded from the Union and ordered the government to abandon their own forts. They then attacked an unarmed ship that attempted to resupply Fort Sumter. At every step, the Confederate forces were the aggressors. But I'm not going to argue with a Lost Causer, since you probably refuse to accept actual historical evidence.

3

NemosGhost t1_ja4m72a wrote

Replying to MattJFarrell (#2,033,061)

Like I said.

You cannot be honest. Thanks for proving me right I guess, not that I needed it.

When South Carolina seceded, as they had an absolute right to do so, previous contracts were no longer valid and Sumter belonged to SC. Even so, the Confederacy attempted diplomacy and was even willing to compensate the Union, for the partially complete fort. You claiming it was already garrisoned by federal troops is an exaggeration as it wasn't even complete yet. Regardless, when the Confederate diplomats arrived in Washington, Lincoln refused to meet with them at all. He refused peaceful means in order for war. That is the cold hard, documented and undeniable fact. He also upended the democratic process in other states such as Maryland where he actually arrested legislatures to prevent them from doing their fucking jobs.

And you didn't just stop there with the dishonesty. That "unarmed" ship wasn't unarmed at all. It was full of military and supplies. The union used a civilian ship to do their dirty work and pull a fast one. Nobody was fooled.

The confederacy fired the first shots in self defense and only to rightfully reclaim their property and protect the city of Charleston and the port. Claiming that the South started the war despite the facts is no absolutely different whatsoever than my analogy and to claim otherwise is blatantly dishonest.

So once again, answer the fucking question or sit down and shut up rather than just spouting dishonest bullshit.

Tell me the truth. If a gang starts building up an armed group in the front of your house are you just gonna sit there and let them do it and not call them aggressors?

0

NemosGhost t1_ja4nv2r wrote

Replying to MattJFarrell (#2,033,837)

Because you get called out for your dishonesty.

So you resort to making more false claims as is your nature. I don't have a shred of racism.

I'm sure a liar like you probably has plenty though

1

Bigred2989- t1_ja6i7bn wrote

Yeah that's what happens when you expect black powder to burn evenly in two different barrels.

1