- 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 9:39 am to Parmen
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:39 am to Parmen
Lee was highly regarded by both sides during the war and after. He was known as an "offensive" type general that played defensive mostly during the war. His military strategies were still being studied by us and other countries post WW1. He knew we'd never "beat" the north, he just hoped to prolong the war and they get tired of spending money and men losing lives. Many folks on both sides didn't expect the war to last more than a few months.
When Gettysburg happened, even after the defeat, morale was high in the confederate army. It surprised everyone the south had the ability to make an attack on the north. The problem is the south truly used up too many resources and it somewhat woke up a sleeping giant in the process. People started flocking to the the military on the northern side afterwards.
We like to think in the south we had the better soldiers. In reality, the north had very good and well trained military. A high percentage of soldiers from the south that were in the army prior to the war stayed with the north also. Let's not forget that much of the north was rural back then, so there were still many people "from the country" fighting for the north. The south just had an all star team of commanders.
Lee knew by 1865 the north wasn't running out of money or manpower, he finally made the unpopular decision to surrender. If not the war would have gone on for several more years. None of this had anything to do about slavery, so my bad.
You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it. Cotton export taxes were being raised and Mexico and Central America took advantage of it and became a player in the cotton trade. Also most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north. There were many various reasons for the war.
When Gettysburg happened, even after the defeat, morale was high in the confederate army. It surprised everyone the south had the ability to make an attack on the north. The problem is the south truly used up too many resources and it somewhat woke up a sleeping giant in the process. People started flocking to the the military on the northern side afterwards.
We like to think in the south we had the better soldiers. In reality, the north had very good and well trained military. A high percentage of soldiers from the south that were in the army prior to the war stayed with the north also. Let's not forget that much of the north was rural back then, so there were still many people "from the country" fighting for the north. The south just had an all star team of commanders.
Lee knew by 1865 the north wasn't running out of money or manpower, he finally made the unpopular decision to surrender. If not the war would have gone on for several more years. None of this had anything to do about slavery, so my bad.
You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it. Cotton export taxes were being raised and Mexico and Central America took advantage of it and became a player in the cotton trade. Also most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north. There were many various reasons for the war.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:42 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:41 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
Corporate Tiger = Mitch Landrieu. Nobody, black or white, had an issue with the statues until Mitch found a convenient excuse to get rid of them
I don't have a problem with them now. If the next mayor erects new statues I won't care.
quote:
I'd be willing to bet the statue removal would have failed miserably if it had actually gone to a vote of the folks in Orleans Parish.
Maybe. A lot of things would fail a vote but still get implemented because our remedy is removing the people who voted for it (see Obamacare).
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:45 am to windshieldman
quote:
most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north.
The irony of the South objecting to someone else stealing the profits of their labor is grimly amusing.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:48 am to montanagator
quote:
The irony of the South objecting to someone else stealing the profits of their labor is grimly amusing
I understand, but remember, for every slave plantation, there were many more single family homes that did all the work themselves, with little benefit. Slaveowners in the south was thought of like today's Walmart. It took away from the "mom and pop" cotton farmers who didn't own slaves.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:50 am to LSUcjb318
quote:Irrelevant.
State's right to what?
Again, Lee's clearly documented decision was to serve Virginia. Slavery or not. Whether Virginia joined the Union or Confederacy, he would serve Virginia. He made that clear in his discussions with Lincoln, and Winfield Scott.
Lee was actually opposed to session, saying "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation."
But for Lee, "honor" meant service in allegiance to his beloved Virginia.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:54 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:54 am to windshieldman
quote:
You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it.
The war was fought to preserve the union. Had the south made slavery illegal, secession would've sparked a war. The issue isn't really that complicated.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:11 am to MrCarton
but they didn't and didn't want to. They wanted their slaves
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:13 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The -best- thing you can say about Lee is that he was a man of the past, when we always need men of the future - true heroes like Lincoln, Grant and Sherman.
Both Grant and Sherman were slave owners. In fact, Sherman kept his slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. When asked about this Sherman replied that good help was hard to find.
Lee had inherited slaves but freed them at the beginning of the war.
Grant and Sherman were war criminals, lucky for them their side won the war.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:14 am to windshieldman
quote:
Lee was highly regarded by both sides during the war and after.
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.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 10:32 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:14 am to windshieldman
quote:
His military strategies were still being studied by us and other countries post WW1.
No. Sherman was.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:16 am to mofungoo
quote:
The -best- thing you can say about Lee is that he was a man of the past, when we always need men of the future - true heroes like Lincoln, Grant and Sherman.
Both Grant and Sherman were slave owners. In fact, Sherman kept his slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. When asked about this Sherman replied that good help was hard to find.
You posted something you must know is not true.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:22 am to monsterballads
quote:
know what divides people? having white supremacist statues on public land.
Nobody cared about the statues until Mitch brought them up, and for him to claim the monuments are the reason for the city's population decline is too sad to be laughable.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:26 am to mofungoo
quote:That's simply not true. Lee freed the slaves he inherited in December 1862, after working them for 5 years. That's a full 20 months after the war started.
Lee had inherited slaves but freed them at the beginning of the war.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:27 am to Machine
"i was unaware that the 12 presidents were members of the Confederacy
surely you can at least agree that Liberty Place was a travesty and should never have been up to begin with."
I wholeheartedly agree with that decision. We had just fought a war for white supremecy and it was defeated.
I am a little ambivalent about the statues'removal. It will solve nothing; nothing will be better.
On the one hand I resent destruction of history.
On the other, I understand what the symbols of the Old South stir up in the black community.
People should really read the book White Rage, by Carol Anderson, PhD. to see what happened throughout the South and indeed the country after the CW right on through modern times with the complicity of the Federal Government.
EtA to add author.
surely you can at least agree that Liberty Place was a travesty and should never have been up to begin with."
I wholeheartedly agree with that decision. We had just fought a war for white supremecy and it was defeated.
I am a little ambivalent about the statues'removal. It will solve nothing; nothing will be better.
On the one hand I resent destruction of history.
On the other, I understand what the symbols of the Old South stir up in the black community.
People should really read the book White Rage, by Carol Anderson, PhD. to see what happened throughout the South and indeed the country after the CW right on through modern times with the complicity of the Federal Government.
EtA to add author.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 10:30 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:35 am to windshieldman
quote:
Cotton export taxes
There were, and are, no such thing. Exports of US goods may not be taxed per the Constitution.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:46 am to mofungoo
quote:
Both Grant and Sherman were slave owners. In fact, Sherman kept his slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation. When asked about this Sherman replied that good help was hard to find.
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.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 10:49 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:49 am to BlackAdam
quote:
He was to emancipate the slaves once the plantation was in good financial position. That is exactly what he did.
$$$ > human rights
face it, lee was a hated slave owner who beat his slaves and treated them very badly. go study history!!1!!!!1
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:54 am to MrCarton
quote:
The war was fought to preserve the union.
the root cause always boils down to money.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:54 am to mofungoo
quote:
Lee had inherited slaves but freed them at the beginning of the war.
false. he freed them january 1st 1863.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 10:56 am to mofungoo
quote:
Lee had inherited slaves but freed them at the beginning of the war.
Also, Lee never inherited the slaves, and he didn't have a choice in freeing them. He had to 5 years after his father in laws death
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News