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

quote:

---

it only divides people insofar as they put their identity to the Lost Cause above other identities that bring us closer together.

---

You made my point for me. thanks.

quote:

---

The 7 day campaign, Manassas, and Chancellorsville, were all to get the Union out of Virginia

But they were still offensive operations.

---

Lee gets this rep as a great general, best ever and blah blah blah. His army lost more men every day of the Seven Days battle than the federals did. If you have ¼ the man power of your opponent is that how you win the war?

I don’t know what Lee was thinking, but did he realize that his army was fragile? That is could collapse as quickly as it formed? The so-called CSA was basically anti-government. Sound familiar? That is what Ol’ Jeff Davis said – “Died of a theory.” Did Lee know that he had to act quickly or lose the whole thing? In that case he could be forgiven for pursuing a policy that would ultimately wreck his army for offensive operations - which by 7/4/63, he had done.

On both his incursions into the loyal territory in 1862 and 1863 Lee was forced to come and steal and pillage from the loyal citizens because the government in Richmond and in the states was so anti-government it wouldn’t feed the Army! So Lee needs some consideration there. He couldn’t fight the defensive war he needed to because the nature of the men and the nation was severely wanting.

quote:

---

What part of that is unclear?

---

It's not unclear, it just shows how lacking he was in ability to sort principles.

quote:

---

Slavery had everything to do with the events between December 1860 and March 1861. If slavery doesn't exist the Deep South never secedes.

---

So what? The reason for the war was the southern states leaving the union. That is what the north attempted to prevent, and what the southern states fought to achieve. It's really not difficult to understand, It's written in plain English what both sides said about the issue at all levels of the conflict.

If Lincoln had raised armies to raid southern slave plantations, he would have been the GOAT president. But he didn't. He raised an army to protect a political arrangement between the state governments in order to maintain, and increase, central federal control over the actions of the people in the states. He was even vocal about his willingness to allow slavery to continue in the south IF THEY STAYED IN THE UNION.

The south's secession wasn't just about slavery, as Lincoln himself said he wouldn't go after that issue IF IT WOULD PRESERVE THE UNION. That wasn't good enough for the wealthy plantation owners though. They wanted slavery AND political and economic independence. Lincoln wanted a strong central government, which he could only have through the preservation of the union.

Lincoln was elected despite not winning a single southern state, which indicated to many southerners, not just plantation owners, that the presidency was controlled by the industrialized cities in the north, basically the same issue that many complain about now with the massive power that just a few US states have over the rest of the country. Just take a look at the map of the 1860 election.

This is from the Georgia secession letter:

quote:

---

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.

The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects.

Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

---

Clearly there was a lot more than just slavery at play here. Yes, the south was a totally slave based economy and wished to preserve it, but they were also dissatisfied with the northern industrial cronyism that was paid for by everyone else, including the south, that saw little direct benefit from these programs. Lincoln's election was possible without even a single southern state, and his desire to centralize control and continue the subsidies and cronyism with the industrialists posed a clear and holistic political threat to the south's political and economic power.

Take out slavery, and those issues do not change. The south will still be agriculturally driven, and their northern neighbors still driven by industrialists, and their political interests will still be completely opposite.

quote:

---

His personal decision had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery either way.

---

Wow how are you General?

quote:

---

If someone breaks into your house you would attack them to defend your home.

---

That isn't your only recourse. You could also stand behind cover and shoot after being fired upon as the Confederates did at Fredericksburg and against Grant in the Overland Campaign. That is what we call a defensive posture.

quote:

---

He had no reasonable chance of a successful outcome on 7/3/63. Longstreet told him that.

According to one observer the morning of July 3 the only person General Longstreet wanted to fight was General Lee.

Even after Pickett's charge, the AoftP had two unengaged Corps. Lee was not a very good general. He just was not.

---

He fricked that up. Maybe the biggest consequence of the death of Stonewall Jackson was that Lee didn't have anybody else around him in the immediate aftermath that he respected enough to alter his opinion.

He didn't frick up a lot of other battles. Chancellorsville was brilliant, for example.

quote:

---

That isn't your only recourse. You could also stand behind cover and shoot after being fired upon as the Confederates did at Fredericksburg and against Grant in the Overland Campaign. That is what we call a defensive posture.

---

When your goal is to defend Virginia. You defend it by driving opposing forces out of Virginia. I don't know any other way to spell it out to you. I have argued with many people back in the day about Civil War, sometimes against southern strategy and sometimes for it. This may be the dumbest stuff I've read,your post, no "offense." We will agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter

quote:

---

Chancellorsville was brilliant, for example.

---

His victory at Chancellorsville led to his defeat at Gettysburg. Tactically the battle is arguably his greatest victory. Strategically he lost more than he could afford. He lost 13,000 men, many of whom were his most able and skilled regimental, brigade, and divisional commanders. And of course he lost Stonewall Jackson.

quote:

---

Clearly there was a lot more than just slavery at play here.

---

And yet Alexander Stephens, a native of Georgia, and Vice-President of the Confederacy, had this to say:

quote:

---

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

---