re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

When you have tactical outcomes like Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor and on and on, it should have been impossible to defeat the insurgency. But it soon collapsed.

---

If anything, that shows that the rebellion had no chance of ultimate success. The resistance itself was seriously fierce considering the circumstances on both sides.

quote:

---

It's not speculation. The South's major fear was that the election of a Republican administration would prevent the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Once that happened, the South feared, the representatives of these newly minted free states would go to Congress, get together with their northern counterparts, and eventually legislate slavery out of existence.

---

That wasn't just a fear. Everyone knew that the western states/territories would end up under union control, just as they knew this would happen after they seceded from the union. It was inevitable.

quote:

---

Many expansionist minded Democrats, including President James K. Polk, had long-term plans to expand the borders of the United States into Mexico and Cuba to continue the growth and life expectancy of slavery.

---

Again, what the united states wanted to do with the west is separate from what southerners could hope to do after secession. BOTH parties wanted to advance in south America, not just slave owning confederates. Once the south left, that dream died. The only thing left was to stave off the north long enough to make the tap out. The north still had all the means in the world to take the west and south America, and the resource thin agricultural government of the south had zero hope in hell of creating a slave economy paradise out of south America or the west BOTH places where the industrialist north and the abolitionists had interest in preventing that from happening.

Not only is this a stupid plan, it's a stretch you made only after I pointed out that the south could have kept slaves and remained in the union. We have dozens of very simple to understand issues that existed between the north and the south that can explain the reason for secession. We don't have to invent a science fiction-like narrative involving a long-term slave colony in south America to explain why southerners largely supported secession. These issues, I might add, still exist between different groups today.

quote:

---

hey were thinking long term, as I have already stated

---

You are making it seem like the long-term plans of JD and other southern leaders were the reason for the secession when it is very likely that those plans were the result of having economically closed off the rest of the US west and north. There was only a few viable location left for the confederacy, and that was south and some slivers of Mexico. Would JD have the confederacy seize areas of interest and under the control of the union for a long term hold? Of course not.

You are creating a complex narrative to avoid admitting a simple truth, that the south seceded for many political and economic reasons and lincoln was the personification of those issues.

quote:

---

We know that all of the states had supplementary reasons for wanting to leave the union that preserving slavery WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED. But we know slavery was their primary reason.

---

Talking in circles now. they left to preserve slavery, then they left to expand slavery west, then they left to expand it south. Can we get all of these explanation out of the way in one reply so we can address them all?

The south left because the deck was slowly being stacked against them, politically and economically. Slavery was part of that, but not all of it. They could have kept slavery under Lincoln, but left the union in a fricking hurry (even starting a shooting war) despite that fact. They did so without having any solid plan or capability to expand in any of the cardinal directions you mentioned in your replies. That's right, they literally attacked lincoln's army before they made any serious attempts to expand anywhere else. That's how serious they were about expansion.

quote:

---

Slavery was owning people.

---

Really?

Gosh, was it? 'Dude'

Here a little clue. Everybody here understands that.

This thread is about the rationale in one man's contemporary decision to defend his people against invasion. You aren't able to distill that. I get it.

quote:

---

But it wasn't the end.

The defeat wasn't the beginning of the end for Lee.

Grant coming east was. Lee may have been able to rebound if Grant is not put in charge.

---

I look at it from a strategic point of view. The Union controlled the Ohio River from the beginning of the war and they also controlled Kentucky. The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers both empty into the Ohio in Western Kentucky. Both rivers were navigable for more than half way upstream. For the Cumberland that was Nashville. For the Tennessee it was Florence/Muscle Shoals. When you can drop 40,000 men into Nashville close to the geographical center of the Confederacy with relative ease that should have alarmed Davis and Lee. When you could then float down the Tennessee o the Alabama/Tennessee/ Mississippi border and en move another 60,000 men into that area. It's a huge problem....add to it that Farragut is taking New Orleans at he same time, the South has a major problem and the battles in Virginia just become a needless but bloody exercise in futility.

Grant knew he had a great advantage in men and material and he was not adverse to using that advantage. Lee should have recognized that about Grant after he laid seige to Vicksburg and if hat was not enough the battles at Chattanooga in November should have truly been decisive...actually they were. Bragg was kicked off a mountain and he lost 40 cannon in the process.

That opens up the Deep South to Grant and the Union.Once the South saw that, Davis should have brought out the white flag....coupled with Gettysburg and Antietam in the Eastern theater....Davis should have just quit. Lee now had an army coming up his rear and he had the Army of the Potomac bogging him down in Northern Virginia....all hope was lost.....it really was.

quote:

---

Of the 600K deaths or whatever they claim now, 400K at least were camp deaths.

---

T'is the nature of the beast. THAT IS THE POINT! It is a beast which could have been reduced or avoided with different actions on Lincoln's part. Both Lincoln and his Southern counterparts massively underestimated what Civil War would bring. Lincoln et al had some expectation the war would be over shortly after the First Battle of Bull Run. Everyone was stupid in the lead up.

quote:

---

Owning slaves was a legal practice.


still didn't make it moral

---

There you go again, passing judgement on folks who lived and died over 150 years ago.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should read the Republican Party's original platform and Lincoln's views on the expansion of slavery into the western territories first.

---

Know it well, however I'm not speaking of expansion, rather the legal act of slavery as it stood prior to the start of the war. We all know that Lincoln would have gladly continued the practice of slavery if it would have kept the country from going to war. He also knew it was destined to play out on its own in a matter of decades if not years.

Some of ya'll need a little history lesson so I'm going to help you out.

1. Robert E. Lee did IN FACT, own slaves. Yes, he eventually emancipated his father in laws slaves, but only after he used them, for years, to his financial advantage.
2. According to Lee himself ""The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race... How long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence," He was talking about slavery being necessary for african american's so that they could become civilized...like they were animals...
3. He killed more americans than any opposing general in U. S. History.
4. He 100% supported the succession of the southern states from the country you now live in.
5. He fought as a confederate general to wholeheartedly defend the right to own slaves.
6. The Liberty Place obelisk that was removed was the rallying ground for David Duke. Yes, that David Duke (ya know, with the KKK)
7. If I see one more post asking for the removal of a Martin Luther king Jr. statue because New Orleans chose to remove statues that represent HATE to many people (even white people....) I am going to scream. silently. But still.
8. For those of you who don't know, MLK Jr. believed in the equality of ALL people regardless of their race or gender. He was probably one of the least hateful, least prejudice people to walk the planet. His message was love. And some of ya'll need some love apparently.
Please stop believing everything you read on Facebook and read some nonfiction.

quote:

---

That ranges from plastering the confederate flag on stuff (often while criticizing immigrants for using their old country's flag)

---

Certainly you understand the difference between the two?