- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:48 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:48 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
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.
I forget where I read this, but iirc Lee was actually frustrated that they didn't do even more damage to the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville, as if it was a possible opportunity to get the decisive win.
I'm no expert on this so I could be wrong.
1
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:49 pm to windshieldman
quote:
I have a degree in history myself. As far as the South seceded over slavery and slavery only. I don't care either way, I just know that it's untrue.
The southerners definitely were ready to toss our nation of beloved memories so they could continue to get their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.
That is the real deal.
One of the bullshite things you hear from the ignorant is how could the war be about slavery when most southern soldiers didn’t own slaves?
The antebellum south was rigidly caste like. And the poor whites were at the very bottom of the heap – only having the black slaves below -them-. They were willing to join the army and fight so as to keep the social order as it was. But as a newly minted black soldier told some captured confederates: “Bottom rail on top now.”
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:50 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
And yet Alexander Stephens, a native of Georgia, and Vice-President of the Confederacy, had this to say:
Typical bullshite response from you. You will simply dismiss all the serious and relevant contemporaneous criticisms of the state of the union and focus only the the issue of racism and slavery.
Hilariously, virtually every doomsday prediction written by pro-southerners came to fruition during and after the CW, and Lincoln laid the foundation for our current governmental structure and executive authorities. I guess those predictions are meaningless to you, because a guy from Georgia in the 1860s was a racist. The concerns of a great many southerners were validated within days of Lincoln taking office, but I guess that's a pointless observation if the only issue that matters to you today is slavery and racism.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:53 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The southerners definitely were ready to toss our nation of beloved memories so they could continue to get their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.
And lincoln was ready to continue that practice in order to preserve "our nation of beloved memories" that held slavery as a common practice for a few years ;)
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:55 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I forget where I read this, but iirc Lee was actually frustrated that they didn't do even more damage to the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville, as if it was a possible opportunity to get the decisive win.
I'm no expert on this so I could be wrong.
Given the tactics and technology of the day and the difficulty of maneuvering troops on the field, a blood bath with equally proportioned casualties was about guaranteed in a Civil War battle. In 60 major engagements 56 were indecisive. Just holding this patch of woods or that hill was immaterial. Lee never had any decisive success – ever.
If one side was dumb enough to attack a strong enemy position as at Fredericksburg or Gettysburg, then the casualty figures will skew towards the side with the better defense. At Chancellorsville, Lee had about the best outcome he could hope for.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:56 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The southerners definitely were ready to toss our nation of beloved memories so they could continue to get their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.
You should read some of the many diaries from the time, and newspaper clippings. There was much hatred towards the slave owners from regular small farmers. I'm not saying the hatred was b/c slaves were forced to work on plantations or anything. It was more like a modern day mom and pop's shop hatred towards a Walmart opening up near them.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:01 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Typical bullshite response from you. You will simply dismiss all the serious and relevant contemporaneous criticisms of the state of the union and focus only the the issue of racism and slavery.
If you read Georgia's articles of secession you will find their primary reason for secession was due to the North's views on slavery. This is how the document concludes:
quote:
Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property [talking about slavery here] in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it [slavery] to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property [slavery] but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides [referring to the recent slave revolts in Haiti]. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:02 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
If one side was dumb enough to attack a strong enemy position as at Fredericksburg or Gettysburg, then the casualty figures will skew towards the side with the better defense. At Chancellorsville, Lee had about the best outcome he could hope for.
I don't disagree. Cold Harbor was Grant's screw up, but he was fortunate enough to have the resources to where it wouldn't ultimately cost him that much.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:03 pm to MrCarton
quote:
The southerners definitely were ready to toss our nation of beloved memories so they could continue to get their bread from the sweat of other men's faces.
And lincoln was ready to continue that practice in order to preserve "our nation of beloved memories" that held slavery as a common practice for a few years ;)
Right. Lincoln held out a serious olive branch to the Slave Power in his inaugural address:
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Maybe we are all wrong. Maybe it was just to shed all that debt that they took on freely -- that caused the Slave Power to trick-frick the poor whites into fighting for them.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
If you read Georgia's articles of secession you will find their primary reason for secession was due to the North's views on slavery. This is how the document concludes:
I did read it, and it doesn't diminish my point. Nobody said the south did not wish to preserve slavery, or that slavery was not the primary economic driver of the southern states. What was said, was that the civil war was not fought over slavery (it wasn't) and that the differences between the north and south extended well beyond slavery, and that even without slavery as an institution, those differences would still exist.
My original statement was that the south's desire for secession and the North's desire to prevent it, NOT slavery, was the cause of the war between the states. Then I went on to show why secession was even an issue to begin with, because Lincoln told the south he would NOT end slavery IF THEY WOULD STAY IN THE UNION.
I SAY AGAIN, THE SOUTH COULD HAVE CONTINUED SLAVERY WITH LINCOLN IN OFFICE, BUT CHOSE TO LEAVE THE UNION ANYWAY.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:10 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Right. Lincoln held out a serious olive branch to the Slave Power in his inaugural address:
Yep. He did. He could have been GOAT had he launched his army to free enslaved men and women, but he didn't. In fact, he could have cared less about it until the destruction of the civil war had many people wondering if preserving a political arrangement was worth the 650,000 dead soldiers and the destruction of infrastructure.
As many in the south pointed out, abolition was just as much a tool of industrialist cronies and their political puppets as anything else.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:12 pm to MrCarton
quote:
What was said, was that the civil war was not fought over slavery
I have never argued that. There is a difference between the questions "Why did the South secede from the Union?" and "What was the Civil War fought over?"
However, the Civil War never happens if the South doesn't secede. Secession was driven primarily by the desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:12 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
quote:
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
Same thing. Lee couldn't support Virginia without supporting slavery.
At the end of the day, I always ask the same question. Was ending slavery 20-30 years early worth the lives of a million men?
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:15 pm to MrCarton
quote:
SAY AGAIN, THE SOUTH COULD HAVE CONTINUED SLAVERY WITH LINCOLN IN OFFICE, BUT CHOSE TO LEAVE THE UNION ANYWAY.
And this is the fact lost on everyone who considers the war to have been fought solely over slavery.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:16 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
However, the Civil War never happens if the South doesn't secede. Secession was driven primarily by the desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
Lincoln offered to allow the south to continue the wretched institution of slavery if they didn't leave the union. They left anyway.
The issue was about more than slavery. The south had the free pass to continue, and fought a stupid war regardless. There was much more at play, as many many contemporaneous southerners AND some famous abolitionists (such as lysander spooner) have pointed out.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:17 pm to geauxbrown
quote:
And this is the fact lost on everyone who considers the war to have been fought solely over slavery.
I think so at least.
I guess my overall opinion is that BOTH sides of this political stupidity were dead wrong and the slavers and the industrialists and the statist scum are all to blame and should have been hung. unfortunately, as usual, the poor who stupidly aligned behind their masters, paid the biggest price.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:21 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Lincoln offered to allow the south to continue the wretched institution of slavery if they didn't leave the union.
But he also opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories. The South always operated under the assumption that if slavery wasn't allowed to expand it would eventually die. More and more free states would come into the Union and the institution would eventually be legislated out, destroying the southern economy and the South's way of life.
This is why the South couldn't care less what Lincoln had to offer. He opposed the institution's expansion and that was enough to say bye-bye to the United States.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:22 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:quote:Well, no.
Lee would have fought for Virginia against the South.
quote:
According to what he said
quote:
had Virginia not rebelled against the lawful government, he would have willingly led U.S. forces against rebellious forces elsewhere.
quote:Since you fancy yourself an expert, and disagreed with my post, link that "according to what he said" quote for us.
According to what he said
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:24 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
But he also opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories. The South always operated under the assumption that if slavery wasn't allowed to expand it would eventually die
That's a total stretch and you know it. Southerners would have had zero hope of expanding slavery to northern controlled states after declaring war on the federal government. So clearly there were other reasons at play here.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:25 pm to MrCarton
quote:
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,
Lincoln could win the Electoral College - despite not appearing on the ballot in 10 states - because people were not moving into the south. The EC of course is based on representation. It was tied to industry in that there were jobs in the north, and few in the south.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 2:26 pm
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News