- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Myth of Robert E. Lee: Legend of Robert E. Lee's heroism and decency is based on fiction
Posted on 6/5/17 at 10:47 am to Bench McElroy
Posted on 6/5/17 at 10:47 am to Bench McElroy
simple yes or no question: Should the monuments to the Confederacy in New Orleans that were put there during Reconstruction by white supremacists ever have gone up in the first place?
0
Posted on 6/5/17 at 10:50 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
The CSA didn’t really have much success on the battlefield.
Do you just make up crap? Bull Run, Second bull Run, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg and others were all CSA victories. There is a long list of confederate successes.
quote:
Federal battle deaths were 110,000, CSA battle deaths were 94,000.
Many more died than this. You are not listing deaths after the battles from wounds, disease, and imprisonment. This is less than half the number of deaths.
quote:
Federal armies in the ‘West’ went pretty much from victory to victory throughout the war, capturing Forts Henry and Donelson early in 1862, occupying Nashville not long after that, driving into north Mississippi to cut the east-west rail line to Texas, driving off CSA army after army in the investment of Vicksburg, where an entire army was captured, driving the rebels out of middle Tennessee and capturing Chattanooga, inexorably advancing on and capturing Atlanta, Savannah and Columbia. The single bad check of the western federal armies was at Chickamauga.
And that's on Lee??
You aren't thinking, you're just reciting facts, and blaming everything on Lee and discrediting all that Lee did to help the South in the Virginia theater of war.
Maybe if Lee wasn't such a great general then the Virginia theater would have been more like the West and elsewhere where Union superiority in numbers, navy, artillery, etc. were very obvious?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 10:54 am to Collegedropout
quote:
Thomas Jefferson didnt frick his slave. she denied it, her kids denied it, it wasnt until later when the family wanted fame that they made the claim.
Jefferson promised his dying wife he wouldn't remarry.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:07 am to Bench McElroy
Revising history since 1776.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:10 am to The Boat
quote:
Fake history lib bullshite
Maybe you should read the primary source testimony from his slaves- Lee was so brutal even his own overseer wouldn't carry out some of his more sadistic orders- (rubbing salt in wounds, etc).
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:11 am to Bench McElroy
Who wrote that slanted crap.
We continually hold people in the past to present standards. This is absurd on its face.
Tell me, how will you measure up to the standards of 2117?
We continually hold people in the past to present standards. This is absurd on its face.
Tell me, how will you measure up to the standards of 2117?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:21 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Myth of Robert E. Lee: Legend of Robert E. Lee's heroism and decency is based on fiction
RA'd ... requested permaban for you for posting that libtard revisionist history nonsense.
Also, you're going straight to the bottom pits of hell when you die.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 11:41 am to Bench McElroy
The Atlantic piece was an amalgam of quotes/arguments from sources I have seen before designed to attack the beatification of Lee by some historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fair enough, I suppose. But this piece is not history, it's just a hit piece, taking a number of argued points (such as Lee's treatment of his slaves) and utilizing the most anti-Lee historian's account as gospel. The real motivation for the piece is found at the end where the author asserts that the white supremacist Lee is a good hero for the white supremacists who opposed the removal of his statute. See what he got to do there? 
Posted on 6/5/17 at 12:27 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Lee was not a good man or a good general either.
Truth
Posted on 6/5/17 at 12:29 pm to doubleb
quote:
You aren't thinking, you're just reciting facts, and blaming everything on Lee and discrediting all that Lee did to help the South in the Virginia theater of war.
Lee had one tactical success that looks pretty good – Chancellorsville, although he lost 13,000 men including 238 field grade officers (majors and colonels) and of course Jackson.
That makes Chancellorsville an actual defeat for Lee, because he couldn’t afford to lose those officers and men.
Put another way, the more you glorify Chancellorsville, the more you show that the so-called CSA never had a ghost of a chance of success in the first place.
Weighed against that he had at least 2 tactical failures – 1) the Seven Days and 2) Gettysburg. In the Seven Days, he pushed Union forces around some, but lost men he could ill afford to. At Gettysburg he ultimately wrecked his army for offensive operations. He spent the rest of the war on defense, on lines easily defended and with technology (rifled muskets) that made infantry assaults virtually impossible against any real defense.
This post was edited on 6/5/17 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 6/5/17 at 12:31 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
The Atlantic piece was an amalgam of quotes/arguments from sources I have seen before designed to attack the beatification of Lee by some historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fair enough, I suppose. But this piece is not history, it's just a hit piece, taking a number of argued points (such as Lee's treatment of his slaves) and utilizing the most anti-Lee historian's account as gospel. The real motivation for the piece is found at the end where the author asserts that the white supremacist Lee is a good hero for the white supremacists who opposed the removal of his statute. See what he got to do there?
The author does draw a conclusion from the quotes and the quotes lay out the real Lee, who was pretty creepy.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 12:44 pm to WhiskeyPapa
You are all wet. You previously stated the CSA lost 94,000 men the entire war and now you say they lost 13,000 at Chancellorsville or roughly 15% of all their losses. You mix apples and oranges.
You also know Chancellorsville was a defensive battle. The Union in large numbers were invading Va.
You tell us Lee should have fought defensive battles, but when he died you criticize him for losing valuable men.
You really have no clue of what you are talking about. Lee won two great battles at Fredricksburg and at Chancellorsville. If he had not the war would have been over late that year.
You also know Chancellorsville was a defensive battle. The Union in large numbers were invading Va.
You tell us Lee should have fought defensive battles, but when he died you criticize him for losing valuable men.
You really have no clue of what you are talking about. Lee won two great battles at Fredricksburg and at Chancellorsville. If he had not the war would have been over late that year.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 1:18 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:this statement is the effect of a 30 year campaign to revise history and make the civil was only about slavery
Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one
Posted on 6/5/17 at 1:19 pm to doubleb
quote:
You are all wet. You previously stated the CSA lost 94,000 men the entire war and now you say they lost 13,000 at Chancellorsville or roughly 15% of all their losses. You mix apples and oranges.
Sorry, my bust. 13,000 was total casualties, not KIA.
Union Civil War Casualties
Combat Deaths: Over 110,000
Other Deaths*: Over 250,000
Confederate Civil War Casualties
Combat Deaths: Over 95,000
Other Deaths*: Over 165,000
LINK
Unfortunately I couldn't quickly find a site that breaks down USA/so-called CSA by battle.
But battle deaths are right in line with what I have been posting for a long time.
2/3 of the deaths in the ACW were camp deaths.
This post was edited on 6/5/17 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 6/5/17 at 1:33 pm to Bench McElroy
In the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, a number of white southern writers and political leaders worked to construct a favorable history of the old South and the Confederacy. Seeking vindication of the white South in the wake of seemingly crushing defeat, they resurrected pro-white southern imagery and ideology of earlier years. In doing so, these advocates for the white South constructed a “Lost Cause” mythology and memory of the Civil War and white southern history and culture.
Specifically, they celebrated the South’s natural beauty and idyllic plantations, supported a white supremacist racial hierarchy in southern society, claimed liberty as a southern principle and the American Revolution as southern heritage, wrapped their sectionalism in a constitutional theory of state sovereignty, and nostalgically glorified the southern past.
Thus early Lost Causers couched their mythology about the South’s recent war effort in older ideas. They lacked the consensus that emerged over time into polished doctrine (for example, the idolization of Robert E. Lee had not yet reached full tilt), but they rapidly promoted a blueprint for Lost Cause orthodoxy that was possible precisely because they extracted much of their ideology from southern thought of the antebellum and wartime years. Thus, they built a bridge to earlier eras, as they worked to garner support for the white South, gain power, and defend the white South against perceived outside attack. In using ideas that earlier white southern advocates had made popular, Lost Causers distorted southern life and history as much as their predecessors had. Consolidating years of white southern thoughts and fears was part of Lost Causers’ ambitious attempt to fuse all of white southern history into a sweeping, attractive abstract of regional heritage.
They faced a challenge, however, in that the Confederacy had seemingly been the culminating experiment in the quest to realize white southern advocates’ longstanding vision. With the experiment crushed, how could Lost Causers maintain older ideals? By exploring the Lost Cause’s roots, we can begin to answer that question. Many of the early Lost Causers sought to achieve with memory what they had not achieved with war, re-fighting “the war with a pen,” in the words of Rollin G. Osterweis. The Lost Cause, while not a denial of the war’s end, did often seem a perennial effort to stave off unconditional surrender. And that effort meant holding onto ideas that had led them to war. As E. A. Pollard of Virginia wrote in 1866, the South had “thrown down the sword to take up the weapons of argument,” but postwar southerners did not have to “lose their…former habits of thought.” Thus, even as Lost Cause literature made nostalgic pronouncements about a doomed, vanquished southern world-a “Lost Cause“!-it also sought to sustain as much of the earlier celebration of the Old South as possible.
Specifically, they celebrated the South’s natural beauty and idyllic plantations, supported a white supremacist racial hierarchy in southern society, claimed liberty as a southern principle and the American Revolution as southern heritage, wrapped their sectionalism in a constitutional theory of state sovereignty, and nostalgically glorified the southern past.
Thus early Lost Causers couched their mythology about the South’s recent war effort in older ideas. They lacked the consensus that emerged over time into polished doctrine (for example, the idolization of Robert E. Lee had not yet reached full tilt), but they rapidly promoted a blueprint for Lost Cause orthodoxy that was possible precisely because they extracted much of their ideology from southern thought of the antebellum and wartime years. Thus, they built a bridge to earlier eras, as they worked to garner support for the white South, gain power, and defend the white South against perceived outside attack. In using ideas that earlier white southern advocates had made popular, Lost Causers distorted southern life and history as much as their predecessors had. Consolidating years of white southern thoughts and fears was part of Lost Causers’ ambitious attempt to fuse all of white southern history into a sweeping, attractive abstract of regional heritage.
They faced a challenge, however, in that the Confederacy had seemingly been the culminating experiment in the quest to realize white southern advocates’ longstanding vision. With the experiment crushed, how could Lost Causers maintain older ideals? By exploring the Lost Cause’s roots, we can begin to answer that question. Many of the early Lost Causers sought to achieve with memory what they had not achieved with war, re-fighting “the war with a pen,” in the words of Rollin G. Osterweis. The Lost Cause, while not a denial of the war’s end, did often seem a perennial effort to stave off unconditional surrender. And that effort meant holding onto ideas that had led them to war. As E. A. Pollard of Virginia wrote in 1866, the South had “thrown down the sword to take up the weapons of argument,” but postwar southerners did not have to “lose their…former habits of thought.” Thus, even as Lost Cause literature made nostalgic pronouncements about a doomed, vanquished southern world-a “Lost Cause“!-it also sought to sustain as much of the earlier celebration of the Old South as possible.
This post was edited on 6/5/17 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 6/5/17 at 1:39 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:The author in the piece explicitly attempted to avoid this by comparing him with Longstreet's POST-war actions. Also, how does Lee's religion fare in all of this? Back then, Christianity was FOR chattel slavery, but now it's not?
I think it's very unfair to sit here in 2017 and rip apart the morals of men raised in the 1700s and early 1800s, which is why I think the condemnation of Lee and co. 150 years later is petty and absurd.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 1:57 pm to Bench McElroy
You're so fricking stupid, that you don't even understand that fighting a "conventional" war was the honorable thing to do. If Lee had chosen to use terror tactics, he would have been labeled a POS.
Damned man, do some actual reading on your own. I would start with Grant's own biography.
Then I would try and do some critical thinking. If Lee was such a POS or dishonorable man, why didn't he swing from a rope at the conclusion of the war? Why was he revered in both the North and South...so much so that one political party came very near asking him to run for POTUS.
Let it go man, it's over
Damned man, do some actual reading on your own. I would start with Grant's own biography.
Then I would try and do some critical thinking. If Lee was such a POS or dishonorable man, why didn't he swing from a rope at the conclusion of the war? Why was he revered in both the North and South...so much so that one political party came very near asking him to run for POTUS.
Let it go man, it's over
Posted on 6/5/17 at 2:44 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Tribe and race over country is the core of white nationalism,
Such ironic wording from this imbecile.
Who is the author, is he a historian? Why should I belive him?
Posted on 6/5/17 at 2:45 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Like I said, I'm a fan of his. I think it's very unfair to sit here in 2017 and rip apart the morals of men raised in the 1700s and early 1800s, which is why I think the condemnation of Lee and co. 150 years later is petty and absurd.
This " Men of their times" is a bunch of BS.
" Madness that a revolution for liberty should maintain slavery"- Simon Bolivar
" Slavery is the worst human indignity"- Bolivar
Simon Bolivar born 1783- 1830 was a man of his time who became a staunch Abolitionist who literally fought side by side with slaves to end Spanish rule & end slavery.
Unlike Lee Bolivar was actually successful in his uphill military fight against Spain & directly led to Independence for 6 Nations in Latin America( with much help from Haiti).
Bolivar was an Abolitionist , Canada was a beacon of freedom to slaves , Europe was free of slavery, Haiti was free of slavery , Northern US States ,etc.......
Robert E Lee was surrounded by " men of his time" who were repulsed by slavery/ ended slavery.
Robert E Lee was a treasonous loser who took up arms against the USA.
Posted on 6/5/17 at 2:48 pm to sugar71
quote:Apply that to Lincoln, if you don't mind.
This " Men of their times" is a bunch of BS.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News