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

quote:

---

That quote is attributed to Grant, who also never said it.
Grant owned one slave, who he bought from either his Father in law or brother in law, then released in 1859. William Jones.
Many theorize that he purchased Jones to set him free.
And there is absolutely no evidence that Sherman ever owned a slave

---

exactly. ever notice how pro confederate people literally make up their own "facts" about the details regarding the civil war?

quote:

---

Lee never inherited the slaves

---

his wife did. who he shared a home with.

quote:

---

and he didn't have a choice in freeing them.

---

actually, he very much did.

quote:

---

He had to 5 years after his father in laws death

---

he could have freed them the day his father in law died but chose to keep them for 5 years until jan 1st 1863, the day the emancipation proclamation took effect.

quote:

---

There were, and are, no such thing. Exports of US goods may not be taxed per the Constitution.

---

You are correct, I'm wrong on that. It was rising tariffs and the south was receiving less from cotton trades, as north was taking more and more. Most of the tariff revenue was used up north. I got it backwards. I don't think that was a sole reason for the war. It was one of multiple reasons, as I've already stated

quote:

---

I meant that him freeing them wasn't some great noble gesture on his part. He had to free them.

---

yeah within 5 years. he could have freed them immediately and chose not to.

quote:

---

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

---

I think his representation as a decent enough dude and a great general who fought for the bad guys is pretty fair.

quote:

---

Lee was just a good enough general to cause a blood bath every time. Lee had as little success outside Virginia as various federal generals had within it. He is vastly overrated. After he wrecked his own army for offensive operations, he operated primarily on the defensive in an era when defensive technologies were dominant.

There were few good maps available for the field commanders. Fighting in northern Virgiina favored Lee. Fighting on the defensive favored Lee. He really wasn't that good.

Just as Rommel looked good fighting a succession of mediocre Brit generals, so did Lee look good fighting Pope, Hooker and Burnside.

Grant drove Lee's army to complete destruction in less than a year.

---

The consensus at the time was the war would last a few months. I'm not saying Lee was flawless, most people who read up on the war don't believe he was. It was a combination of Lee and other good generals as I've stated that made the war last way longer than it should have. If you look at what the north had compared to the south, the war never should have lasted that long.

People, especially in the south, believe the average confederate soldier was vastly superior to the average northern soldier, and in general, that is incorrect. The U.S had a strong military prior to the war, they were already well trained. The south had some people from the regular army leave and fight for the south, but also had many stay with the north.

I think in today's time Lee is still regarded highly b/c he and other Confederate generals actually turned an army that had inferior weapons, medical care, # of soldiers, food, etc, and they lasted 4 years in a war that was a blood bath for both sides. It's unfortunate the war happened. I'm glad it ended, and I'm glad the north won. I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of slavery or anything. I'm just stating that Lee was highly regarded at the time, even after defeat, by both Lincoln and Grant. He made alot happen from not much to work with.

I'll just say I never care for defending the Confederate flag. I've had many more ancestors and friends fight under the American flag. I don't get caught up in ancestors that fought for 4 damn years in a country that has been in existence for approximately 240 years. I do hate to see Lee's statue come down, I'll admit. I am proud to be an American, way more proud than anything. Maybe my thing with Lee was how many books I've read on him and how highly regarded he was at the time. He was also instrumental in the Mexican-American War.

I'm not just pissed about it, just hate to see it happen. I understand both sides of the argument though.

quote:

---

Yes his actions against the Native Americans certainly do undercut the heroism of his service in the Civil War.

---

That may be the first this we have ever agreed on.

quote:

---

Prior to that he planned on staying MOSTLY defensive. He messed up by going into Gettysburg

---

He had been on the offensive since he took command in June 1862. The Seven Days' Campaign was an offensive campaign; the Second Manassas Campaign was an offensive campaign; the Maryland Campaign was an offensive campaign; the Chancellorsville Campaign was an offensive campaign. The only campaign he fought while primarily on the defensive, between June 1862 and May 1864, was the Fredericksburg Campaign.

quote:

---

His lower commanders and regular soldiers were begging him not to surrender.

---

A few of them were begging him not to surrender. There were those, such as Longstreet, who were in support of his decision to surrender to Grant.

quote:

---

Meh, this will be debated for the next 100 years. Nobody ever wins this argument.

---

People win. The defeated merely think they have won. The states which seceded prior to Fort Sumter, with the possible exception of Texas, seceded primarily to protect the institution of slavery.

quote:

---

Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.

---

and why did virginia secede?

to keep slavery.

just stop. please.