• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee [W: 473]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
How would I know the attitudes of USMA at West Point NY about Robert E. Lee. <Snipped>

West Point Retains Mixed Feelings on Confederate Graduates, Historian Says

Robert E. Lee still generates mixed feelings at West Point, according to a professor there. Col. Ty Seidule, chief of international history at West Point, told an audience that “the Civil War continues to matter at West Point,”� which “still finds the issue of Confederate graduates confusing.”�

With 26 years of Army service, the colonel brought both a field officer’s and historian’s perspective to the topic, “Gentlemen Warriors or Traitorous Scoundrels? West Point’s Memory of Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Generals,”� in a lecture at the Foundry School Museum. He also spoke as someone raised in the South, accustomed to seeing a wall decorated with the Confederate flag and pictures of Lee and Gen. Thomas “Stonewall”� Jackson, who, like Lee, graduated from West Point.

As a veteran soldier, “I can’t imagine being in the Army as long as Lee was”� and then joining an enemy force, Seidule said. He expressed agreement with 19th-century officers who, after the war, thought West Point “should memorialize those who fought for America and not against it.”� The issue of how to treat West Point men who fought for the Confederacy proved contentious for 40-some years after the Civil War ended in 1865, with repercussions lingering well into the 20th century, Seidule noted. Friction arose when President Nixon wanted to install a monument to Confederate officers at West Point. Seidule explained that the then-superintendent managed to avert the plan, in part by consulting African-American cadets, who in turn conferred with African-American officers, and demonstrating the inherent problems in such a move.

Around 1890, the academy did complete a magnificent monument to Union dead, inscribing 2,230 names on it. However, cadets from the former Confederacy promptly dubbed it “the monument to southern marksmanship,”� he recalled. Sectional strife arose even before the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Seidule said. “West Point, on the eve of war, was more violent and divided than at any point in its history.”�

<snipped>.
Click to expand...

Left off.....

From your source:

Alumni subsequently fought on both sides in 55 of 60 Civil War battles and the academy contributed 400 generals, again on both sides, according to the West Point website. Prominent northern political figures attacked the academy “as a house of treason”� and den of traitors worse than anything “since Judas Iscariot’s time,”� Seidule said, quoting contemporary sources. Nonetheless, while many Southern sons of West Point went with the Confederacy, 162 others remained loyal to the Union, Seidule pointed out. One example, Gen. George Thomas, a Virginian like Lee, became the “Rock of Chickamauga”� for his fortitude and courage. Some criticized their Confederate counterparts, making such comments as “`you are abrogating your oath'”� and “‘treason is treason,'”� Seidule said. “Until 1902, West Point neither forgot nor forgave.”�
But attitudes had begun to thaw. Former Confederate Generals Joseph Wheeler and Fitzhugh Lee, both West Point graduates, served in U.S. forces in the Spanish-American War in 1898, promoting reconciliation. Likewise, Congress increased funding for West Point, “to recreate its physical and, more importantly, its political image,”� the colonel explained. Finally, in 1902, centennial celebrations at the academy included an apology from Confederate alumni, he added.
Now, Lee’s portrait hangs at West Point with that of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, West Point class of 1843, who ultimately defeated him. Ironically, “Lee had a huge affinity for West Point”� while “Grant did not like his experience”� there, despite being known for his superb horsemanship, Seidule observed. Lee’s ties in the area extended across the Hudson during his tenure as superintendent of West Point. According to biographer Douglas Southall Freeman, “Lee was a frequent guest in the home of Gouverneur Kemble, at Cold Spring, and there he probably met ex-President [Martin] Van Buren, his old commander General [Winfield] Scott, [historian] George Bancroft, and others of like distinction.”� Kemble established the West Point Foundry, located in Cold Spring but named for its cross-river neighbor, with which it maintained a close working relationship.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
What was left off....

From your source:

In 1975, Congress enacted a joint resolution reinstating Lee’s U.S. citizenship in what could be considered a final act to heal Civil War wounds. The resolution praised Lee’s character and his work to reunify the nation. It noted that six months after surrendering to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Lee swore allegiance to the Constitution and to the Union.

“This entire nation has long recognized the outstanding virtues of courage, patriotism and selfless devotion to duty of General R.E. Lee,” the joint resolution stated.

President Ford traveled to Arlington House, Lee’s former home in Virginia, to sign the resolution into law on Aug. 5, 1975.

Ford quoted from a letter that Lee wrote to a former Confederate soldier: “This war, being at an end, the Southern States having laid down their arms, and the questions at issue between them and the Northern States having been decided, I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony.”

Ford said: “As a soldier, Gen. Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.”
Click to expand...


Yes thx.

It was the Republican Party of the Conservatifederates kissing up to the Old Confederacy Conservatifederates everywhere. The Nixon-Strom Thurmond Southern Strategy. So youse got smooched. And youse loved it.

President Gerald Ford did the actual smooching. Ford fell over forward doing it but it wuz Ford who did the smooching down there.

We recall Ford was Potus who was chosen by Potus Richard Nixon on his way out the door of the White House after Nixon's then Vice President, Spiro Agnew was caught taking brown paper bags full of cash that first had been delivered to Agnew while he wuz governor of Maryland. Which is the position Nixon selected Agnew from to become VP.

Ford who was unelected by the Electoral College pardoned Nixon then pardoned Robert E. Lee and then in the election the following year lost to Jimmy Carter (of all people) in a landslide. All of that was in 1973-76. My article linked to West Point and to the U.S. Army War College is of this decade thx.

Ford paid dearly for his pardons. "Jerry the Jerk" as the Manchester NH Union Leader newspaper called Ford.

Thanks for quoting my link cause as you see you just walked into a door. Again.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
More personal prattle...

Sherman has become a Macguffin in your quest to insult me.

You inquire because you need another reason to derail as you have been proven wrong time and again.

My rank has been given. Don't lie.
Click to expand...


Gunnery Sergeant K-9.

Got it.

And your Civil War expertise is.........

................is............................................................................

So then Gunny it might not be a good idea to call other posters whose view you reject "ignorant" or "uneducated" when they post about the Civil War. Ok? Cause nobody here I know of is a lance corporal box of rocks. You were a lance corporal once ne c'est pas?

Very good then thx.

That will be all sergeant.

So as we were saying....
 
Last edited:
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Lee was a tactician but as a strategist Lee was a disaster. So it is anyway good news for the good guys that Jefferson Davis listened to Lee above everyone else in command of the army and in the Confederate cabinet.

Thank God for Robert E. Lee. Because his victories were insignificant to the outcome of the war while his defeats were epic -- Lee singularly lost the war for the Confederacy. I do not diminish Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Farragut, Porter et al for their abilities and performance as Union commanders. I simply say Lee defeated himself which is the worst that a person can do.



The Failure to Link Grand-Strategy and Operational Objectives: Robert E. Lee and the Decision to Invade Pennsylvania 1863

Lee erred in invading the North for the simple fact that the risks far outweighed the possible benefits. It was a long shot and Lee was a gambler, audacious possibly to a fault. His decision to go north also exhibited a certain amount of hubris as he did not believe that his army could be beaten, even when it was outnumbered. Lee had to know from experience that even in victory “the Gettysburg campaign was bound to result in heavy Confederate casualties…limit his army’s capacity to maneuver…and to increase the risk of his being driven into a siege in the Richmond defenses.” [34] The fact that the campaign did exactly that demonstrates both the unsoundness of the campaign and is ironic, for Lee had repeatedly said in the lead up to the offensive in his meetings with Davis, Seddon and the cabinet that “a siege would be fatal to his army” [35] and “which must ultimately end in surrender.” [36]

Grand-strategy and national policy objectives must be the ultimate guide for operational decisions. “The art of employing military forces is obtaining the objects of war, to support the national policy of the government that raises the military forces.” [37] Using such criteria, despite his many victories Lee has to be judged as a failure as a military commander. Lee knew from his previous experience that his army would suffer heavy casualties. He understood that a victory over the Army of the Potomac deep in Northern territory could cost him dearly. He knew the effect that a costly victory would have on his operations, but he still took the risk. That decision was short sighted and diametrically opposed to the strategy that the South needed to pursue in order to gain its independence. Of course some will disagree, but I am comfortable in my assertion that it was a mistake that greatly affected the Confederacy’s only real means of securing its independence, the breaking of the will of the Union by making victory so costly that it would not be worth the cost.

https://padresteve.com/2014/06/24/t...and-the-decision-to-invade-pennsylvania-1863/


To make matters worse for himself, Lee chose to invade the Union in a location where there was zero local or area support of the Confederacy. Lee chose to fight the opposing army on hostile ground among a population hostile to the Confederacy and to Lee himself. It was an additional negative factor to the Gettysburg campaign that Lee did not need.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
As was Lee. Your point?
Click to expand...

That godlike worship of a man, no matter his feats, is a bad idea because, in the end, he was still only a man.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
And the South often succeeded early on.



Ummmmmmmmmmmm. OK. Pope had success as a General of Army of the Mississippi. He defeated Sterling Price, took New Madrid, Island No. 10, and opened up the Mississippi all the way to Memphis. Then he met Lee.



Ignorant statement. The South was primarily agrarian, not totally. And the VAST majority of Southerners did not own slaves. That means the VAST majority did their own toil in the fields or hired others.

BTW - And a Godwin to boot. Where are the showers and the ovens?
Click to expand...

But they threw away men that they couldn't afford to for "successes" which were fleeting.

Sterling Price wasn't exactly varsity level opposition either.

The handful of industry that they did have was a spit in the bucket compared to the north, and hardly a centerpiece of southern society. The defenders of the antebellum south always focused on the rural, agrarian nature of the south and had naught but scathing words for the industrialized nature of the north.

But the people who mattered in the south owned slaves, and everybody else was happy to fight to keep it that way in order to keep the African American "in his place".

The African Americans worked in the exact same capacity as the Slavs did in the Nazi system.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
Who here has suggested he was not a man?
Click to expand...

The cult of personality which sprung up around him after the war and continues to this day.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Fledermaus said:
No argument. A suggestion. Before you look even more uneducated on the subject.

Where is Vicksburg in relation to Atlanta? Who were the generals who participated in the Vicksburg campaign?

Now tell me again why Grant could not do what Sherman did since Sherman was at Vicksburg WITH GRANT.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tangmo said:
Lee was a tactician but as a strategist Lee was a disaster. So it is anyway good news for the good guys that Jefferson Davis listened to Lee above everyone else in command of the army and in the Confederate cabinet.

Thank God for Robert E. Lee. Because his victories were insignificant to the outcome of the war while his defeats were epic -- Lee singularly lost the war for the Confederacy. I do not diminish Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Farragut, Porter et al for their abilities and performance as Union commanders. I simply say Lee defeated himself which is the worst that a person can do.



The Failure to Link Grand-Strategy and Operational Objectives: Robert E. Lee and the Decision to Invade Pennsylvania 1863

Lee erred in invading the North for the simple fact that the risks far outweighed the possible benefits. It was a long shot and Lee was a gambler, audacious possibly to a fault. His decision to go north also exhibited a certain amount of hubris as he did not believe that his army could be beaten, even when it was outnumbered. Lee had to know from experience that even in victory “the Gettysburg campaign was bound to result in heavy Confederate casualties…limit his army’s capacity to maneuver…and to increase the risk of his being driven into a siege in the Richmond defenses.” [34] The fact that the campaign did exactly that demonstrates both the unsoundness of the campaign and is ironic, for Lee had repeatedly said in the lead up to the offensive in his meetings with Davis, Seddon and the cabinet that “a siege would be fatal to his army” [35] and “which must ultimately end in surrender.” [36]

Grand-strategy and national policy objectives must be the ultimate guide for operational decisions. “The art of employing military forces is obtaining the objects of war, to support the national policy of the government that raises the military forces.” [37] Using such criteria, despite his many victories Lee has to be judged as a failure as a military commander. Lee knew from his previous experience that his army would suffer heavy casualties. He understood that a victory over the Army of the Potomac deep in Northern territory could cost him dearly. He knew the effect that a costly victory would have on his operations, but he still took the risk. That decision was short sighted and diametrically opposed to the strategy that the South needed to pursue in order to gain its independence. Of course some will disagree, but I am comfortable in my assertion that it was a mistake that greatly affected the Confederacy’s only real means of securing its independence, the breaking of the will of the Union by making victory so costly that it would not be worth the cost.

https://padresteve.com/2014/06/24/t...and-the-decision-to-invade-pennsylvania-1863/


To make matters worse for himself, Lee chose to invade the Union in a location where there was zero local or area support of the Confederacy. Lee chose to fight the opposing army on hostile ground among a population hostile to the Confederacy and to Lee himself. It was an additional negative factor to the Gettysburg campaign that Lee did not need.
Click to expand...

You lose any credibility when you state Lee's "victories were insignificant to the outcome of the war".

It was Lee on the offensive that drove back the Peninsula Campaign.

It was Lee that caused a number of Union generals to be sacked.

It was Lee on the defense that held time and again.

And, no, Lee did not singularly lose the war. That is ridiculous to the extreme. Lee wasn't to one that lost Vicksburg, New Orleans, Missouri, Atlanta, etc, etc. Nor was Lee the reason the south was short on practically everything but cotton. Nor was Lee the cause of having practically no navy which allowed the blockade to have such effect....
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tigerace117 said:
But they threw away men that they couldn't afford to for "successes" which were fleeting.

Sterling Price wasn't exactly varsity level opposition either.

The handful of industry that they did have was a spit in the bucket compared to the north, and hardly a centerpiece of southern society. The defenders of the antebellum south always focused on the rural, agrarian nature of the south and had naught but scathing words for the industrialized nature of the north.

But the people who mattered in the south owned slaves, and everybody else was happy to fight to keep it that way in order to keep the African American "in his place".

The African Americans worked in the exact same capacity as the Slavs did in the Nazi system.
Click to expand...

Handwave notwd.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Tigerace117 said:
Grossly simplistic and ignores the fact that the South launched just as many "wasteful assaults".
Click to expand...

Had the South launched "just as many," they would have been out of the war before 1863. They couldn't. Numbers alone.

But it was, because he wasn't in any position to end it quickly either way.
Click to expand...

Either way? As in if Lee were in the Norrh? Yes. He would have had the man power and the industry to win the war quickly. No question. His losses (the major ones) were due to poorly followed orders, or even losing plans. And when it wasn't that...it was due to the fact that the Union had an amazingly well supplied and working industry. And then the man power to throw as well. The war itself? It wasn't winnable in my mind. But you couldn't have put any other general in Lee's position and expect a win, let Alone the success he had. I am still waiting for you to name one. Even Union officers like Winfield Scott admitted as much.

Oh, I think there were at least a few generals who could have held off defeat for five years, especially fighting the JV generals as Lee did in the first two and a half years.
Click to expand...

I think you are severely underestimating the campaigns Lee undertook in that time.

The absolute irony is that you are the one whose been shrieking about the republicans. I don't care about the republicans. They've done a complete 180 from their positions in the 1850s and 1860s, but that's not too suprising.

Have I mentioned Trump in this thread? At all?

Your hysteria would suggest otherwise. But for all the "you liberals hate the military" claims that posters of your ideological bent have made......we aren't the ones celebrating the deaths of American soldiers and sailors. And, like it or not, that's what the Confederate flag represents.
Click to expand...

And there it is. Like I said. You want to tie the civil war around the republican necks. You want to create a strawman for me. You want SOO bad to labor me as "confederate flag waving supporter" because UNLIKE you...I actually read the history books and visited the battlefields (after all they are all around my home), and I learned about the devastation the war brought. I have seen the problems from both sides and I see how I had family who fought for their home (in their memoirs), and for their country. One member was even a prisoner in one of the closest places to hell on Earth you could find...Andersonville.

So I CAN see the stupidity of waving the "confederate flag," but I also see the utterly devoid of logic and complete partisan Hackery involved in trying to claim Lee was anything OTHER than a superb general whose tactics SHOULD be studied at West Point for their brilliance. But none of my actual views on this matter are relevant to you. You want to claim "the republicans made a 180" on the civil war as if they are supporting slavery.

Like I claimed from the outset...90% of these threads have nothing to do with discussing the actual war. They are just political crap trying to blame people in modern day for something that happened 153 years ago.

The Confederacy was every bit as evil as Herr Idiotic Mustache's goons.
Click to expand...

And this matters why? Oh! That's right. Because you want to blame republicans for the war. Lol

Godwin's thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom