- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 34,144
- Reaction score
- 37,608
- Location
- With Yo Mama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
For some reason, when I read "cocky little general", I lol'd hard.
Lee was 5' 10", not that height made a difference.
For some reason, when I read "cocky little general", I lol'd hard.
Not only bold, but an expert tactician. His expertise in economy of force, along with Stuart's expertise in cavalry operations made the Army of Northern Virginia unstoppable.
Jackson was killed at Chancellorsville. Stuart did what he did during the Gettysburg Campaign--and I'm not even getting into that. Lee had a heart attack the night of the second day of Gettysburg. Hood was badly wounded at Gettysburg and was never the same. Armistead and Garnet were killed in Pickett's charge. Then Stuart was killed in '64. After all that, the Army of Northern Virginia was doomed.
The mistakes that were made at Gettysburg wouldn't have happened, had Jackson been there. Hell, I have my doubts if the battle would have even been fought, had Jackson been there.
Whether, or not they were, "right", is open to debate, but I'll admit that the country is better off with the Federal victory; even though the Federals mishandled reconstruction nine ways from Sunday and committed numerous atrocities during the war.
He was, and I believe that is why Anderson was chosen to defend Charleston Harbor. Anderson became a hero and rightfully so, but he was chosen IMHO as a lesser. He rose to the occasion and performed his duty with great honor. He could not win, but he exhibited great valor.
The entire war was an atrocity. You had American brothers killing themselves over a feud of human oppression. The north wanted to free slaves, the south refused to comply so they sacrificed thousands of lives to try and defend human oppression. There is a clear right and wrong.
The Northern extremists needed their, "Pearl Harbor", to justify the brutal strategy they proposed in dealing with the Confederacy.
The North didn't want to free the slaves. Your garden variety working stiff in the North didn't want to have to compete with former slaves for jobs. Plus, they didn't want a bunch of, "darkies", running around, free. In fact, Lincoln had planned to ship all the freed slaves back to Africa. Ever hear of Liberia?
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.
But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.
But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.
Texas v. White wasn't 100 years later. It was from 1869. It is completely appropriate to bring it up. Though precedence and usage of the Founder's interpretation of the Constitution, it demonstrated that secession was illegal.
No, your interpretation is not accurate. Hamilton was clear about the importance of a strong central govenment and the importance of no dissension or hostility between the states in order to support the central government.
You're confusing Lee with Grant. Your post describes Grant perfectly.
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.
But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.
Slavery was not officially ended until 1865, with the 13th amendment, at the end of the American Civil War.
So to say that the north was fighting to free slaves is entirely false.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool to encourage slaves in the Confederate states to revolt.
Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.
Some interesting arguments here, but I must rebut. The fundamental issue of the war was slavery. If one wants to call it "state's rights", the primary right was the existence of slavery. The South saw a creep towards abolition, with Northern states imposing their will on Southern states via the Federal Government.
The Emancipation Proclamation was more to rejuvenate the cause of the War, and not so much with an expectation of causing southern blacks to revolt. The victory at Antietam provided Lincoln with the foundation to make abolition the issue for the North, especially moving into the upcoming elections against the not-so-abolitionist Democrats. He also needed a Constitutional foundation, and if one notes, the slaves were only "emancipated" in the rebellion states. Not in such as Maryland, for instance. There was no legal basis upon which the Federal Government could free them in Northern States.
Prior to the War, there had been serious considerations in the Federal Government to come up with a formula to essentially "buy out slavery", that is to pass laws that phased it out state-by-state and to compensate the owners monetarily. This is likely what would have happened had there been no war. In the end, the cost would have been exponentially less than the War.
Lincoln and the rest of his generals thought that the War would be over in a month or two. It was a huge miscalculation. One for which Lincoln gets too much of a pass IMMHO.
That's the same revisionist history that some of us have been arguing against. You average Southerner didn't care about slavery, one way, or another and sure as hell wasn't going to go die to preserve it.
I am not sure what you mean. Slavery was at the heart of the issue. Primarily because of its economic value to King Cotton. Abolition was sweeping the North. Issues involving the admission of states in pairs so as to have one slave, one not-slave. State nullification of Federal Law, again primarily in how those laws would impact all things slavery, as that meant the economy.
That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.
Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Meh...anything after the first 2 reasons are simply revisionist history at work. The avergae northerner cared about as much about blacks and slavery as did the average southerner. When the slaves wanted to go north and settle into the northern cities...do you think they all said "hellz yeah...come on in...work with us...date our daughters..." No...they said "easy there nigger Jim...we meant you should be free down THERE...."
It was all about econimcs. Slavery WOULD have ended. Society was evolving. The north could have worked much more efficiently to bring about social change than they did. It became SOLELY about sovereignty. Tragic.
I have argued that the War was stupid. Avoidable. However, when you say "it was about economics", I am saying that the economics revolved around abolition. In particular, Lincoln was seen as one who advocated abolition, and that his election was a threat to continued movements against slavery, either by Amendment, or less obvious means, such as stacking the Congress against slavery by admitting more non-slave states.
I have documented my position, and could continue to do so ad-nauseum. Can you document that the primary economic issues involved were not primarily slavery-associated ?
FYI, the "average northerner" and the "average southerner" did not start the war. We are talking about who did, and why, are we not ? The powers in the South wanted to be free of any impositions from the North. Most of those impositions were inter-twined with slavery.