Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree that the 1864 election — if key battlefield results had been unfavorable — would have gone against Lincoln. Then the North would likely have negotiated and recognized secession. This would have been a disaster for black Americans and for further democratic developments everywhere. It likely would have led to future wars between sections, Southern filibustering invasions of Cuba and Mexico, and quite possibly a future reunion under racial apartheid in an elitist fascist-like society.
Can you imagine a “Jefferson Davis Memorial” in place of the Lincoln Monument? A giant statue of General Robert E. Lee on horseback just across the Potomac River on his estate overlooking D.C.? African slaves in America would in the end have been ground down to dust, victims of slow and brutal genocide. It is truly a horror to imagine...
Might have worked out better.Here's an interesting factoid about Gen. Robert E. Lee that might spin your brains up some ...
His wife's name was Mary Anna (Custis) Lee ... the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington ...
Let's visit an alternate universe where the United States became a monarchy with our first king being George Washington ... King Washington had no children himself, but Martha had two surviving children when she married young George ... now Washington's stepson, John Parke Custis, would have had a weak claim to the throne after George's demise, but hey, this is my alternate universe, I say it could have happened ... John's oldest son was one George Washington Parke Custis, our third King ... who in turn had daughters the oldest of which, Mary Anna (Custis) Lee mentioned above, would have been our first Queen ... and Robert E. Lee II wold have followed her ... Robert III ... Robert IV ...
Crazy ...
Robert E. Lee V would be King now ...
Lt. Lee led the capture of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. Brown was hanged by the Union but he is celebrated as a hero today. As kids we were taught that "Lincoln saved the Union" but in fact the Union fell apart under his watch. Lee's loyalty was to his home state of Virginia and he was well aware of the impending disaster of the Civil War. Lincoln was like a freaking monarch with idiot advisers flitting around him and he became convinced that the War would be over in a couple of months. Lee was fully aware that the South could not conquer the industrialized North. His strategy was to make things so tough that the North would sue for peace. It almost worked.
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Why keep defending the side of slavery?
Not interested in detailing all the petty lies, distortions and slanders about the Civil War and “The Lost Cause” you promote. Notice I don’t go out of my way to slander or insult Robert E. Lee. The past was tragic and like our present it was filled with contradictions.
Lincoln did not start out an abolitionist. His martyrdom certainly helped in granting him an almost mythical status. But he was, in my opinion, the greatest American President in our nation’s history, facing the greatest trials. The South was led by a slaveholding aristocracy and an irresponsible political class of fools and rogues who brought ruin on themselves (and everyone).
The emancipation of black slaves was an historic task the U.S. was not ready for until it had bled itself almost to death. Even then we left great tasks unfinished, and allowed legal Jim Crow apartheid to exist for almost another century. Had he not been assassinated, Lincoln himself would almost certainly have had to compromise. After centuries of race slavery, deep-rooted racism (prevalent almost everywhere at that time) and powerful economic interests stood in the way of real emancipation. But legal slavery and the organized, rebellious Slave Power in America were defeated. That was a huge historic victory.
All the old “Lost Cause” arguments you present have been made before and answered. Lincoln’s reputation and greatness towers above you and yours.
People don’t realize how unpopular Lincoln was. Like JFK, he was granted sainthood after the assassination. After the war, much of the hatred directed at Andrew Johnson would have been directed at Lincoln.
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
The irony of his assassination is that he is now worshippd as a hero; if he had lived he would have faced impeachment, and for the same reasons his successor Johnson did; he would have been very lenient on the South and wanted its economy back up and running as quickly as possible, since the whole point of the war was to tax the South to pay for corporate welfare programs for the northern states, particularly in the Midwest and his won home state of Illinois. this is why he never intended to really free the slaves and kept them in the South, in 'Contraband Camps', and farmed them out to plantation operators at $3 a month, and under martial law they were not allowed to leave without written permission from the plantation owners or the military.
When Johnson tried to enforce and carry out the original plans, he was impeached by the radicals and they went on to plunder and loot the South, black and white alike.
The irony of his assassination is that he is now worshippd as a hero; if he had lived he would have faced impeachment, and for the same reasons his successor Johnson did; he would have been very lenient on the South and wanted its economy back up and running as quickly as possible, since the whole point of the war was to tax the South to pay for corporate welfare programs for the northern states, particularly in the Midwest and his won home state of Illinois. this is why he never intended to really free the slaves and kept them in the South, in 'Contraband Camps', and farmed them out to plantation operators at $3 a month, and under martial law they were not allowed to leave without written permission from the plantation owners or the military.
When Johnson tried to enforce and carry out the original plans, he was impeached by the radicals and they went on to plunder and loot the South, black and white alike.
Wow, what Home School did you learn this crap in? The reason why Johnson was impeached was that he was willing to give away all the wins in the civil war.
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
Gettysburg was a crossroads with five major roads running through it. No matter where you going in that area, you were going to pass through Gettysburg.Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
You should be Removed from America if you try to deny American history! Besides your a democrat who have urban slave plantations.. you are the racistHe was a racist, traitorous piece of shit who needs to be expunged from the public eye?
Yes. Yes, we know.
Gettysburg was a crossroads with five major roads running through it. No matter where you going in that area, you were going to pass through Gettysburg.Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
A major battle was inevitable. Lee’s problem was he pressed a bad position. Much like Fredericksburg where Lee held the high ground and slaughtered the Union troops trying to dislodge him, the Union held the high ground in a hook pattern and were going to be tough to dislodge.
Lee should have abandoned Gettysburg on Day 2 and found a better fight.
You should be Removed from America if you try to deny American history! Besides your a democrat who have urban slave plantations.. you are the racistHe was a racist, traitorous piece of shit who needs to be expunged from the public eye?
Yes. Yes, we know.
Gettysburg snowballedGettysburg was a crossroads with five major roads running through it. No matter where you going in that area, you were going to pass through Gettysburg.Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
A major battle was inevitable. Lee’s problem was he pressed a bad position. Much like Fredericksburg where Lee held the high ground and slaughtered the Union troops trying to dislodge him, the Union held the high ground in a hook pattern and were going to be tough to dislodge.
Lee should have abandoned Gettysburg on Day 2 and found a better fight.
If that were the case, then Lee would made directly for Gettysburg. Instead, he was heading North and had no plans at all for going to Gettysburg. He also would have committed far more troops the first day and morning of the 2nd if he thought it was that important; he was only nervous about it because he thought the whole Union Army was there. His intelligence was wrong; it was barely screened, and the Union Army made the same error on their side.
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
The troops went to Gettysburg for a shoe factory. Other than that, why are you stating the obvious?
Lee should have bypassed Gettysburg and continued north and threatened NYC. since he did choose to linger, he should have committed a lot more troops to it right away, as many as could be marched there on the first day. He wins easily with only twice as many committed as he did, due to early occupation of key road junctions and hills, which were later the determining factors of the lines of battle.
Still a great General; none of them wins all the time or every time, even the best will make mistakes, given how large and tough to control the armies were. Napoleon made the same sort of mistake at Waterloo, screwing around wasting time trying to over-awe Wellington with a display of force instead of early commitments on the left and right flanks while waiting for the main Guard to get to the field and having a choice of deployment other than right up the middle. The difference was Wellington's use of the terrain was genius, while the Union's defensive position at Gettysburg was dumb luck and Lee's mistakes.
Bypassing Gettysburg was not an option. He would have had to cut his supply chain and would have no support on the way to NY.
Lee could have easily by-passed Gettysburg. the northern army had no plans in that direction to cut Lee off; they were clueless as to his plans and had none of their own. It was an 'accidental' battle, in that both sides kept feeding troops into the area piece by piece in the belief the other side was moving into the area. If he had stuck to his original plans, he would have been fine. Plenty of forage in Pa. After all, that was waht cavalry's main job was, finding forage for the army as it advances, in that era, besides its role as scouts and encirclement maneuvers.
Military doctrine says you are dead wrong.
We have Lee's original plans, and he violated his own goals by allowing himself to be diverted to Gettysburg. He was going to raid the Northern railroads and get as far North as he could. It was his last chance to scare the North into a truce. Gettysburg had no strategic value in that plan.
As for the cavalry, it served as the main source of captured forage for armies for many centuries. It was its main job along with scouting and harassment.
The troops went to Gettysburg for a shoe factory. Other than that, why are you stating the obvious?
lol he didn't send his entire Army for a shoe factory; he sent a small detail.
