Little Known Facts About General Robert Edward Lee

[JimBowie1958]

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

The South should have committed to a defensive strategy, drawing the lines at Vicksburg, Chatanooga and Fredericksburg for the duration of the war until Lincoln could be defeated in the 1864 election.

This was the most vulnerable facet of the war for Lincoln, his growing unpopularity in a bloody war no one wanted.

But the South did not expect the North to last that long. They underestimated the grit and determination of Yankee resolve.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail. "
- General William Tecumseh Sherman 1860

 

[Hawk1981]

In the first years following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass was an editor for the New National Era newspaper. He watched with growing dismay the rise of the confederate "Lost Cause" mythology. Douglass vehemently resisted the emergence of these ideas and was appalled at the national veneration of Robert E. Lee when he died in 1870.

Disgusted at what he called the "bombastic laudation" and the "nauseating flatteries" of the "rebel chief," Douglass attacked the glorification of Lee's memory as a betrayal of the verdicts of the war. "It would seem," he wrote in a biting editorial a month after Lee's death, "that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven."

By early 1871, after so much romance about Lee's death and the sentiment that he had "died of a broken heart," Douglass expressed a precise verdict: "He was a traitor and can be made nothing else."

See: Blight, David W. Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, Simon & Schuster, 2019, Pages 530-531.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Shermans capture of Atlanta was what finally won the Civil War for the North. Atlanta produced most of the Souths weaponry and other hardware, and losing it was a crushing blow. The rest of Georgia lay wide open to the Yankee horde after Atlanta fell, and Georgia was also the breadbasket of the South, with agricultural production that kept the Confederate armies fed.

Sherman understood this and resolved to destroy the economy of Georgia and give Lincoln his victor going into the election of 1864, which I think Lincoln would have lost without Shermans success.



The Confederacy of the South was the very first nation to undergo the onslaught of Total War, a concept Sherman envisioned years befoore the war, and it was very successful in keeping Lincoln in the WH.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the first years following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass was an editor for the New National Era newspaper. He watched with growing dismay the rise of the confederate "Lost Cause" mythology. Douglass vehemently resisted the emergence of these ideas and was appalled at the national veneration of Robert E. Lee when he died in 1870.

Disgusted at what he called the "bombastic laudation" and the "nauseating flatteries" of the "rebel chief," Douglass attacked the glorification of Lee's memory as a betrayal of the verdicts of the war. "It would seem," he wrote in a biting editorial a month after Lee's death, "that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven."

By early 1871, after so much romance about Lee's death and the sentiment that he had "died of a broken heart," Douglass expressed a precise verdict: "He was a traitor and can be made nothing else."

View attachment 327044

See: Blight, David W. Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, Simon & Schuster, 2019, Pages 530-531.

Sad to see how vindictive Douglass was regarding one of the more admirable Southern generals.

 

[rightwinger]

In the first years following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass was an editor for the New National Era newspaper. He watched with growing dismay the rise of the confederate "Lost Cause" mythology. Douglass vehemently resisted the emergence of these ideas and was appalled at the national veneration of Robert E. Lee when he died in 1870.

Disgusted at what he called the "bombastic laudation" and the "nauseating flatteries" of the "rebel chief," Douglass attacked the glorification of Lee's memory as a betrayal of the verdicts of the war. "It would seem," he wrote in a biting editorial a month after Lee's death, "that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven."

By early 1871, after so much romance about Lee's death and the sentiment that he had "died of a broken heart," Douglass expressed a precise verdict: "He was a traitor and can be made nothing else."

View attachment 327044

See: Blight, David W. Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, Simon & Schuster, 2019, Pages 530-531.

Sad to see how vindictive Douglass was regarding one of the more admirable Southern generals.

Why would he say such things about a slave master?

 

[whitehall]

New Yorkers were against slavery during the Civil War but they hanged every Black person they could find to the nearest lamp post during the "draft riots".

 

[Picaro]

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.

How did it end up

Apparently with you playing " I Touched You Last !!!' over something you were clearly wrong about and need to backtrack on.

 

[JimBowie1958]

New Yorkers were against slavery during the Civil War but they hanged every Black person they could find to the nearest lamp post during the "draft riots".

Many Irish immigrants resented the draft/conscription of their numbers in order to feed the war machine of the North.

They blamed blacks for this conscription.

 

[Picaro]

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.

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.
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.

Stuart ran off and left him blind.........He had no clue what he was up against in Gettysburg. He only knew that the Union forces were on the move and he got that from a paid scout and not his Calvary.

Stuart's screening was probably to far ahead, but he was also in search of supplies at the same time.

The North owned the high ground after the first day. Attacking the high ground was a blunder from hell...............he should have regrouped and found better ground to fight on.

Yes. If he was going to commit to a fight there, he shouldn't have fed units in piecemeal; he was too cautious, and still not sure of what he was going to do.

Hell he should have never been there in the first place. No reinforcing Vicksburg was crazy.

Well, his thinking was he had one last chance to carry the war to the North and possibly win, and took it. Losing the Mississippi was bad, sure, but there was nothing leading to a win by putting the last of your resources and army on the defensive where you would lose for sure eventually. As was pointed out earlier, the South had to win quickly or lose; they had no long term prospects of winning.

 

[gipper]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

You are still going all goofy on us.

Lincoln’s position on abolition was well established. He had opposed the institution for over a decade. Lincoln was the most abolitionist of any major candidate of that era.
So much so, the southern states seceded rather than be ruled by him

True. On the other hand, wouldn't be the first politician, that, once in office, didn't pursue a campaign promise that would be hard, AND he did talk a lot of shit about NOT being against slavery, when he was trying to avoid secession.

Once Lincoln assumed office, his priority was to do whatever necessary to preserve the Union, resolving slavery was secondary.

But once the war was underway and it was clear that the North would win, Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment a priority and acceptance a requirement for Southern States rejoining the union

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

Well, it wasn’t that the South was winning but that they were not losing. The Union was still taking the war to them and had effectively blockaded their ports.
A win for the North was conquering the South
A win for the South was always a cessation of conflict.

Agreed. Which is why Lee should have avoided major engagements to prolong the war. I suspect his early successes gave him too much confidence.

 

[Picaro]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

Obviously he didn't. He even supported an amendment that would make it inpossible for the fed gov to ever get rid of slavery.
Americans are too lazy to read.

Exactly. As I stated above, he was willing to protect slavery FOREVER, if the South didn’t secede and honored the tariff. He made this abundantly clear in his first inaugural.

But alas, the Lincoln Cultist is a true believer. So facts don’t move them.

Wrong again in your revisionist history.
The south had already seceded before Lincoln took office

Wrong. Virginia and others, about half the states seceded when Lincoln rejected their peace commission. Not until the attempt to blockade Charleston port did the last states secede. The North had more slave states than the secessionists had until April, after Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln himself said he wasn't out to end slavery; he would have lost the votes of the immigrants if had been an abolitionist.

 

[gipper]

Shermans capture of Atlanta was what finally won the Civil War for the North. Atlanta produced most of the Souths weaponry and other hardware, and losing it was a crushing blow. The rest of Georgia lay wide open to the Yankee horde after Atlanta fell, and Georgia was also the breadbasket of the South, with agricultural production that kept the Confederate armies fed.

Sherman understood this and resolved to destroy the economy of Georgia and give Lincoln his victor going into the election of 1864, which I think Lincoln would have lost without Shermans success.



The Confederacy of the South was the very first nation to undergo the onslaught of Total War, a concept Sherman envisioned years befoore the war, and it was very successful in keeping Lincoln in the WH.

Agreed. The US was and still is very good at total war. After all, we are the only nation to use nukes and do so on civilians of a defenseless nation.

Sherman was a war criminal. He should have been hung.

 

[Picaro]

One important lesson to be learned is the hazards of being a mono-economy, as the South, was, with all investment chasing the highest returns, a fundamental cult ideology of right wing economic theories, or more properly scams. If the South had diversified more, the could have had a thriving iron and shipping industry of their own, along with a large ag base and not so dependent on one crop, one controlled by fewer than 2,500 families at that. While being the wealthiest part of the U.S. by a long shot before the war, it was highly concentrated, and couldn't attract skilled labor and businesses. the Northern shippers had a monopoly and the northern bankers and brokers controlled the financing and export of their cash crop.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shermans capture of Atlanta was what finally won the Civil War for the North. Atlanta produced most of the Souths weaponry and other hardware, and losing it was a crushing blow. The rest of Georgia lay wide open to the Yankee horde after Atlanta fell, and Georgia was also the breadbasket of the South, with agricultural production that kept the Confederate armies fed.

Sherman understood this and resolved to destroy the economy of Georgia and give Lincoln his victor going into the election of 1864, which I think Lincoln would have lost without Shermans success.



The Confederacy of the South was the very first nation to undergo the onslaught of Total War, a concept Sherman envisioned years befoore the war, and it was very successful in keeping Lincoln in the WH.

Agreed. The US was and still is very good at total war. After all, we are the only nation to use nukes and do so on civilians of a defenseless nation.

Sherman was a war criminal. He should have been hung.

According to his wife, he was!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Agreed. The US was and still is very good at total war. After all, we are the only nation to use nukes and do so on civilians of a defenseless nation.

Bah, Imperiual Japan was far from being defenseless, keemosabee.

Japan got what she had coming for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Fuck them. Their home islands were fortified to the gills and every single person was armed and psyched to attack/wound an American before dying.

It would have been a blood bath of millions upon millions.

Truman did the exactly right thing.

Sherman was a war criminal. He should have been hung.

Bullshit.

He was a loyal General who kept his oath to the Constitution and was way ahead of his time in applying modern industry assets to military strategy.

The Southern elite were among the most ignorant, overly confident and functionless lumps of cystic bile the USA has ever seen. The men were too gentlemanly to stoop to doing actual work, and the bells were the same way.

The South lost because their elites were arrogant, ignorant and did not take the North seriously as they should have. The Southern elite were not men of industry and grit. They were cavaliers who lived to fight for their honor and make everyone else do the heavy lifting. The best of the South was forced North into the Midwest because they could not compete with slave labor.

Despite admiring many Southern generals like Lee, Jackson and Stuart, too many mediocre generals were given command simply because of their class status, like Johnston, who should have anticipated Shermans flanking maneuvers after the umpteenth time he did it. All he had to do was to get some competent engineers to build fortifications to prevent flanking with a small force, but they did not BECAUSE SHERMAN KNEW THE TERRAIN BETTER THAN JOHNSTON. And being an engineer was actually demeaning to the typical Southern gentleman.

The antebellum South was a cyst on Americas ass that finally got lanced, drained and cauterized with Shermans brand for all eternity.

But they did fight well, and I will respect the memory of Johnny Reb till my last breath, but not of the Southern Gentlemen who led them.

 

[gipper]

Agreed. The US was and still is very good at total war. After all, we are the only nation to use nukes and do so on civilians of a defenseless nation.

Bah, Imperiual Japan was far from being defenseless, keemosabee.

Japan got what she had coming for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Fuck them. Their home islands were fortified to the gills and every single person was armed and psyched to attack/wound an American before dying.

It would have been a blood bath of millions upon millions.

Truman did the exactly right thing.

Sherman was a war criminal. He should have been hung.

Bullshit.

He was a loyal General who kept his oath to the Constitution and was way ahead of his time in applying modern industry assets to military strategy.

The Southern elite were among the most ignorant, overly confident and functionless lumps of cystic bile the USA has ever seen. The men were too gentlemanly to stoop to doing actual work, and the bells were the same way.

The South lost because their elites were arrogant, ignorant and did not take the North seriously as they should have. The Southern elite were not men of industry and grit. They were cavaliers who lived to fight for their honor and make everyone else do the heavy lifting. The best of the South was forced North into the Midwest because they could not compete with slave labor.

Despite admiring many Southern generals like Lee, Jackson and Stuart, too many mediocre generals were given command simply because of their class status, like Johnston, who should have anticipated Shermans flanking maneuvers after the umpteenth time he did it. All he had to do was to get some competent engineers to build fortifications to prevent flanking with a small force, but they did not BECAUSE SHERMAN KNEW THE TERRAIN BETTER THAN JOHNSTON. And being an engineer was actually demeaning to the typical Southern gentleman.

The antebellum South was a cyst on Americas ass that finally got lanced, drained and cauterized with Shermans brand for all eternity.

But they did fight well, and I will respect the memory of Johnny Reb till my last breath, but not of the Southern Gentlemen who led them.

We just disagree.

 

[SmokeALib]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

You are still going all goofy on us.

Lincoln’s position on abolition was well established. He had opposed the institution for over a decade. Lincoln was the most abolitionist of any major candidate of that era.
So much so, the southern states seceded rather than be ruled by him

True. On the other hand, wouldn't be the first politician, that, once in office, didn't pursue a campaign promise that would be hard, AND he did talk a lot of shit about NOT being against slavery, when he was trying to avoid secession.

Once Lincoln assumed office, his priority was to do whatever necessary to preserve the Union, resolving slavery was secondary.

But once the war was underway and it was clear that the North would win, Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment a priority and acceptance a requirement for Southern States rejoining the union

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

Well, it wasn’t that the South was winning but that they were not losing. The Union was still taking the war to them and had effectively blockaded their ports.
A win for the North was conquering the South
A win for the South was always a cessation of conflict.

Agreed. Which is why Lee should have avoided major engagements to prolong the war. I suspect his early successes gave him too much confidence.

I don't think Lee wanted to prolong the war. He had no replacements for his casualties. Even the battles he won, he lost because of this. The north refilled their ranks at will.
Lee's only chance (imho) was to go north for supplies, make a play for Phili, NY, or DC and hope to bring Lincoln to the table.

 

[gipper]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

You are still going all goofy on us.

Lincoln’s position on abolition was well established. He had opposed the institution for over a decade. Lincoln was the most abolitionist of any major candidate of that era.
So much so, the southern states seceded rather than be ruled by him

True. On the other hand, wouldn't be the first politician, that, once in office, didn't pursue a campaign promise that would be hard, AND he did talk a lot of shit about NOT being against slavery, when he was trying to avoid secession.

Once Lincoln assumed office, his priority was to do whatever necessary to preserve the Union, resolving slavery was secondary.

But once the war was underway and it was clear that the North would win, Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment a priority and acceptance a requirement for Southern States rejoining the union

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

Well, it wasn’t that the South was winning but that they were not losing. The Union was still taking the war to them and had effectively blockaded their ports.
A win for the North was conquering the South
A win for the South was always a cessation of conflict.

Agreed. Which is why Lee should have avoided major engagements to prolong the war. I suspect his early successes gave him too much confidence.

I don't think Lee wanted to prolong the war. He had no replacements for his casualties. Even the battles he won, he lost because of this. The north refilled their ranks at will.
Lee's only chance (imho) was to go north for supplies, make a play for Phili, NY, or DC and hope to bring Lincoln to the table.

As I stated earlier in this thread, Lee should have avoided major engagements and followed a hit and run strategy. Much like Stonewall Jackson did during his Shenandoah Valley campaigns. This would have saved his manpower and prolonged the war, leading to the North giving up.

 

[SmokeALib]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

You are still going all goofy on us.

Lincoln’s position on abolition was well established. He had opposed the institution for over a decade. Lincoln was the most abolitionist of any major candidate of that era.
So much so, the southern states seceded rather than be ruled by him

True. On the other hand, wouldn't be the first politician, that, once in office, didn't pursue a campaign promise that would be hard, AND he did talk a lot of shit about NOT being against slavery, when he was trying to avoid secession.

Once Lincoln assumed office, his priority was to do whatever necessary to preserve the Union, resolving slavery was secondary.

But once the war was underway and it was clear that the North would win, Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment a priority and acceptance a requirement for Southern States rejoining the union

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

Well, it wasn’t that the South was winning but that they were not losing. The Union was still taking the war to them and had effectively blockaded their ports.
A win for the North was conquering the South
A win for the South was always a cessation of conflict.

Agreed. Which is why Lee should have avoided major engagements to prolong the war. I suspect his early successes gave him too much confidence.

I don't think Lee wanted to prolong the war. He had no replacements for his casualties. Even the battles he won, he lost because of this. The north refilled their ranks at will.
Lee's only chance (imho) was to go north for supplies, make a play for Phili, NY, or DC and hope to bring Lincoln to the table.

As I stated earlier in this thread, Lee should have avoided major engagements and followed a hit and run strategy. Much like Stonewall Jackson did during his Shenandoah Valley campaigns. This would have saved his manpower and prolonged the war, leading to the North giving up.

Not feasible. Lee was outnumbered 4 to 1 and weaponry wasn't even close. Hell, half of Lee's army didn't even have shoes. Superior tactics could only last so long with these lopsided numbers.

 

[gipper]

Some of these I already knew, but some suprised me.

Which ones surprised you?

That he was as opposed to slavery as he was and most of his family was pro-Union.

That is a Lost Cause myth....

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Lincoln is based on fiction. In reality he had the gift of a great quip but he was as racist as the next guy and an utterly confused politician who misjudged the confederacy to the point of criminality. Maybe he was distracted by his personal life but he did nothing to try to prevent the bloodshed of the civil war. Grant's alcoholism was well known but downplayed by the media and General Sherman was as crazy as legend says. Sherman, Sheridan and the rest of the Union rapists and pillagers would have been hanged in a just world.

Lincoln was way ahead of his time in opposition to slavery. The Lincoln/Douglas debates were unprecedented
Grants alcoholism was overstated. He was known to drink when he was bored or inactive. While engaging in battle, he was sober
I think Sherman understood the nature of war more than anyone. It was not a noble cause, it was about death and destruction.

LOL. You just exposed yourself as a fool.

Dishonest Abe NEVER opposed slavery. In fact, he offered to ensconce it in the Constitution if the South stopped secession and paid the tariff.

You’d know this if you bothered to read his first inaugural speech.

How many times will it take before you learn?

View attachment 326924

Amazingly you still can’t spot a lying opportunist at your advanced age, even after I’ve schooled you for ten years.

You are going all goofy on us

The South seceded precisely because of Lincoln’s stated views on slavery. The election of Lincoln threw the South into a panic and they elected to secede and form a slave state rather than see what Lincoln may do about the slave issue

You are confusing things. Let’s not debate why the South seceded. That is an entirely different issue

The debate is did Dishonest Abe REALLY oppose slavery. Clearly he did not.

Guess what gramps, Trump isn’t the first politician to lie all the time.

You are still going all goofy on us.

Lincoln’s position on abolition was well established. He had opposed the institution for over a decade. Lincoln was the most abolitionist of any major candidate of that era.
So much so, the southern states seceded rather than be ruled by him

True. On the other hand, wouldn't be the first politician, that, once in office, didn't pursue a campaign promise that would be hard, AND he did talk a lot of shit about NOT being against slavery, when he was trying to avoid secession.

Once Lincoln assumed office, his priority was to do whatever necessary to preserve the Union, resolving slavery was secondary.

But once the war was underway and it was clear that the North would win, Lincoln made passing the 13th amendment a priority and acceptance a requirement for Southern States rejoining the union

Well, once the war was under way, it was not clear the north would win. For the 1st couple years, the south was winning bigly. It wasn't until they ventured north of Virginia (Antietam, Gettysburg) after losing Jackson at Chancellorsville that they started losing. Chancellorsville was a huge victory for the south, and some argue that Antietam was close to a draw (Lee retreated, however). The north could had wiped out Lee's army at that time, but elected not to go after him.

Well, it wasn’t that the South was winning but that they were not losing. The Union was still taking the war to them and had effectively blockaded their ports.
A win for the North was conquering the South
A win for the South was always a cessation of conflict.

Agreed. Which is why Lee should have avoided major engagements to prolong the war. I suspect his early successes gave him too much confidence.

I don't think Lee wanted to prolong the war. He had no replacements for his casualties. Even the battles he won, he lost because of this. The north refilled their ranks at will.
Lee's only chance (imho) was to go north for supplies, make a play for Phili, NY, or DC and hope to bring Lincoln to the table.

As I stated earlier in this thread, Lee should have avoided major engagements and followed a hit and run strategy. Much like Stonewall Jackson did during his Shenandoah Valley campaigns. This would have saved his manpower and prolonged the war, leading to the North giving up.

Not feasible. Lee was outnumbered 4 to 1 and weaponry wasn't even close. Hell, half of Lee's army didn't even have shoes. Superior tactics could only last so long with these lopsided numbers.

You might want to study the many wars where the weaker opponent won. Say for example the American Revolution, Vietnam War, Russo Afghan War and the numerous others.