- 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: Myth of Robert E. Lee: Legend of Robert E. Lee's heroism and decency is based on fiction
Posted on 6/6/17 at 8:43 am to Crowknowsbest
Posted on 6/6/17 at 8:43 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I'm not sure what he could have done about that. I'm also not sure what the Confederacy's military failure out west had to do with Lee. He couldn't be in two different regions of the country at once.
I think he has Lee confused with Jefferson Davis because he blames Lee for everything.
The truth is Lee outfought northern general after general for several years. He made mistakes true, and he had no room for error so in the end he was a failure in that sense.
But to try and label him as anything but an elite general is just trolling and trying to drum up controversy.
1
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:01 am to doubleb
quote:
The truth is Lee outfought northern general after general for several years.
Pope, McClellan, Burnside and Hooker didn't have to be outfought. They were bumblers.
The only offensive success Lee can claim is the Chancellorsville campaign. But losing 13,000 men including 238 field grade officers and also Jackson helped ensure the failure of future operations.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 9:06 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:12 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I'm not sure what he could have done about that. I'm also not sure what the Confederacy's military failure out west had to do with Lee. He couldn't be in two different regions of the country at once.
Lee is held up as this paragon certainly but rebel resistance as a whole is touted, when everywhere -outside- northern Virginia it was pretty lame and lacking.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:14 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:Dude, we get it. Move the frick on.
WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:15 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Lee is held up as this paragon certainly but rebel resistance as a whole is touted, when everywhere -outside- northern Virginia it was pretty lame and lacking.
This is a credit to Lee.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:15 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
WhiskeyPapa
Dude, we get it. Move the frick on.
I don't ever start these and I would be glad for them to go away.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:19 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
I don't ever start these and I would be glad for them to go away.
Hell, probably half the responses in this thread are tied to you. You ain't practicing what you preach. And you called me stupid earlier.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:24 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Lee is held up as this paragon certainly but rebel resistance as a whole is touted, when everywhere -outside- northern Virginia it was pretty lame and lacking.
This is a credit to Lee.
Not really. He had every possible advantage. Including the War Department being a huge drag on operations in N. VA.
When Grant took over he set up a shadow chain of command that bypassed Stanton and Halleck. And Lee’s army before long was deserting en masse. People don’t consider that. Lee lost half his army in 10 days – 30,000 men decided they had business elsewhere. What kind of general does that make Lee?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:35 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
This is a credit to Lee.
There is a real contrast here. Sam Watkins is quoted on Ken Burns “Civil War” as saying “General Johnston would feed the army if the country starved.”
But Lee – despite proximity to Richmond and being co-located at a rail head – Petersburg – Lee’s army in the Spring of 1865 was half starved and incapable of effective resistance.
That is how it shed 30,000 men in 10 days.
This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 9:36 am
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:37 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Hell, probably half the responses in this thread are tied to you.
Usually in response to someone else.
I have been doing this for over 20 years, going back to the AOL Civil War Forum in 1995.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:39 am to WhiskeyPapa
I pray to kek every night that this irrelevant thread and topic disappear, never to return.
Let's get a sticky. The thread could be named "Anyone who cares whether Robert E Lee was a good person, come argue here".
Let's get a sticky. The thread could be named "Anyone who cares whether Robert E Lee was a good person, come argue here".
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:41 am to Jeauxseph
quote:
If Lee had the northern war machine and resources that McClellan and Grant had he would have won the war in less than 2 years.
Once Grant had hold of the entire war machine, and its resources, the war was over in 13 months.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 9:42 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
But Lee – despite proximity to Richmond and being co-located at a rail head – Petersburg – Lee’s army in the Spring of 1865 was half starved and incapable of effective resistance.
That is how it shed 30,000 men in 10 days.
By the spring of 1865, Lee's army had been under siege at Petersburg for 9 months. The Confederate leadership in Richmond couldn't rally any money or resources to resupply what was at that point almost certainly a losing cause. They couldn't feed the army or either city, really.
Of course those soldiers had better things to do. They had to rebuild their lives. The war was basically over. There was nothing Lee could have done as a combat commander to get his soldiers more food at that point.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:06 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Of course those soldiers had better things to do. They had to rebuild their lives. The war was basically over. There was nothing Lee could have done as a combat commander to get his soldiers more food at that point.
Yes, the so-called CSA died of a theory. It is hard to have an effective government when you hate the idea of government.
Lee had only 12,000 effectives on April 9.
The game was up when Lincoln secured reelection the previous November. Many lives could have been saved and they could have been saved at Lee's word, but he didn't give it.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 12:28 pm to Bench McElroy
Lee fought against Northern aggression masquerading as caring for the Minority Blacks as a front for stealing and controlling the wealth that was accumulated in the South as the Northern states were facing extremely hard times financially.
It was all a ruse. So obvious to see that it didn't take me 2 days researching the causes of the civil war to see it was all based on money. Always is. The North didn't give two cents about any blacks down here anymore than the south.
Oh, and before anyone goes off the rails, my family owned slaves in Natchitoches Louisiana and was the first settlers in the city making claim to the city. They owned both Indian and Blacks. But, strange thing was when researching the history of the family you find that the slaves were treated very well and that one of them married one of the sons and bore children while being "freed" (if that is what you want to call it). She later went on to own the plantation and still had freed slaves working the plantation.
Most of the horror stories that did exist were overblown and extrapolated to represent the whole south. What a crock of shite. All of it.
Lee fought for states right and he obviously knew the truth as to what was going on in the south and north. Most businessmen who have labor workers know to feed them well; cloth them; and have good shelter. If you lose your labor or they can't work you don't make bank. what a crock of shite.
It was all a ruse. So obvious to see that it didn't take me 2 days researching the causes of the civil war to see it was all based on money. Always is. The North didn't give two cents about any blacks down here anymore than the south.
Oh, and before anyone goes off the rails, my family owned slaves in Natchitoches Louisiana and was the first settlers in the city making claim to the city. They owned both Indian and Blacks. But, strange thing was when researching the history of the family you find that the slaves were treated very well and that one of them married one of the sons and bore children while being "freed" (if that is what you want to call it). She later went on to own the plantation and still had freed slaves working the plantation.
Most of the horror stories that did exist were overblown and extrapolated to represent the whole south. What a crock of shite. All of it.
Lee fought for states right and he obviously knew the truth as to what was going on in the south and north. Most businessmen who have labor workers know to feed them well; cloth them; and have good shelter. If you lose your labor or they can't work you don't make bank. what a crock of shite.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 1:04 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Once Grant had hold of the entire war machine, and its resources, the war was over in 13 months.
After the ANV had been defeated at Gettysburg, of course. That does change the calculus. On the other hand, Gettysburg was clearly Lee's blunder, so it all balances out in the end.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 1:12 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Chancellorsville was not an offensive campaign. The Union was invading Virginia.
Lee split his army into three groups, left on group at Fredicksburg and used the two others to deliver a staggering blow to the North which stopped their move on Richmond.
Lee split his army into three groups, left on group at Fredicksburg and used the two others to deliver a staggering blow to the North which stopped their move on Richmond.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 1:14 pm to reo45
quote:
Lee fought against Northern aggression masquerading as caring for the Minority Blacks as a front for stealing and controlling the wealth that was accumulated in the South as the Northern states were facing extremely hard times financially.
The South fired first. Lee was a white supremacist fighting to secure a nation explicitly founded on white supremacy. If you think that's noble, you're fricked.This post was edited on 6/6/17 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 6/6/17 at 1:16 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Ask the Union troops at Shiloh, Vicksburg, Port Hudson and elsewhere if the Southern effort was lame and lacking.
Your curt treatment of the South is in total disrespect to the Union soldier and their leadership. The North fought hard and well or they would not have won, to act as if the South rolled over in the West is pure BS and an insult to both sides.
Your curt treatment of the South is in total disrespect to the Union soldier and their leadership. The North fought hard and well or they would not have won, to act as if the South rolled over in the West is pure BS and an insult to both sides.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 1:58 pm to rhett
The aggression all but started with the Northern states demanding that the south had better advantage over the North. Virginia was one of those states blabbering about how well the south was doing and how they had advantages. They used slavery as the major advantage and used it as a fire-rod to get the public to back any aggression against those evil plantation owners.
Were there certain advantages? Sure, there were, but there was also a wealth of resources that the South had and knew how to manage better than the Northern states. The south was vibrant and wealthy. Every since the civil war we have seen the poorest states come from the south. Job well done big banks, crooked politicians, and filthy businessmen of the North. No way economic clout would EVER shift from the North to the South, Midwest, West, overseas, anywhere in the world without some war to stop it in the name of some evil.
That is how things have been for as long as man has been alive. One day Washington, New York, the big multinationals will lose their power grip just as power is transferred every so often through time to others.
Had zero to do with slavery. Never was about slavery. The mother of my line of the family is a black woman who was freed by a white man who adored her and married her outside the churches blessings. The "slaves" were treated with humanity and decency while thriving and growing families.
Were there certain advantages? Sure, there were, but there was also a wealth of resources that the South had and knew how to manage better than the Northern states. The south was vibrant and wealthy. Every since the civil war we have seen the poorest states come from the south. Job well done big banks, crooked politicians, and filthy businessmen of the North. No way economic clout would EVER shift from the North to the South, Midwest, West, overseas, anywhere in the world without some war to stop it in the name of some evil.
That is how things have been for as long as man has been alive. One day Washington, New York, the big multinationals will lose their power grip just as power is transferred every so often through time to others.
Had zero to do with slavery. Never was about slavery. The mother of my line of the family is a black woman who was freed by a white man who adored her and married her outside the churches blessings. The "slaves" were treated with humanity and decency while thriving and growing families.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News