Civil War

[Major B]

Children, children...

Lee and Grant settled this themselves. Lee surrendered when there was no point in continuing. Grant was gracious in allowing the officers to keep their sidearms and the men to keep their horses and mules. Grant was also gracious and wise in that he picked the idealistic Major General (brevet) Joshua Chamberlain, hero of Little Round Top to accept the surrender. Chamberlain rewarded Grant's wisdom by having his men "present arms" in salute as the CSA troops marched up to stack their arms.

Had Lincoln lived, his redemptive reconstruction plans would probably have triumphed because of his superior political skills (compared to the hapless Andrew Johnson, who was so abrasive he would have tried Job's patience).

The only war criminals in this story were the Quantrill types and W.T. Sherman, who was an equal opportunity hater of just about everyone, blacks, southerners, Indians, et. al.

 

[Major B]

The "Freedom loving North"

1. The "Freedom loving North" Possessed the only real war criminal of any major leader--W.T. Sherman, who gloried in attacking civilians and civilian property.

2. The "Freedom loving North" Took nearly three years to get the 13th, 14th , and 15th amendments ratified, and did not even begin to enforce them until the 1960s.

3. The "Freedom loving North" Sold out southern blacks in order to keep the White House in the uber-dirty 1876 election.

4. The "Freedom loving North" Did nothing at all to help the blacks of the South between 1877 and 1954.

5. The "Freedom loving North" Was the greatest growth area for the Klan post 1900. By the 1920s, several midwestern states were Klan controlled.

This war was about keeping the economic prosperity of the US concentrated North of the Ohio River!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Perhaps I should remind you which side won again. It was the USA.

You see, it wasn't North vs South. It was the USA vs the South. The North was preserving the country.

Wrong on both counts. The USA lost the war. And we have suffered the results of losing that war {example: everytime the Feds withhold my highway money if we don't abide by their speed limits)

'Preserve the Union' was a political ploy to try to lay a guilt trip on the slow-witted and recruit canon fodder for butcher Grant.

No nation invades "itself", kills hundreds of thousands of its "own" and wreaks havoc on its "people". North and South were different countries and sadly, the barbarians broke down the walls of Rome again . .

 

[rsr]

Major B, I thank you for your voice of reason earlier. But, because this is a debate forum:

1. The "Freedom loving North" Possessed the only real war criminal of any major leader--W.T. Sherman, who gloried in attacking civilians and civilian property.

There were lots of major war criminals; Sheridan, given his later career, would qualify. I hardly know what to think when I hear that N.B. Forrest was not a "major" criminal.

The "Freedom loving North" Took nearly three years to get the 13th, 14th , and 15th amendments ratified, and did not even begin to enforce them until the 1960s.

Three years is hardly the time it take to build Rome. But the real impediment was the re-admission of unReconstructed southern states, which wielded undue influence in the government through their Bourbon politicians.

3. The "Freedom loving North" Sold out southern blacks in order to keep the White House in the uber-dirty 1876 election.

Yes, that's what happened. The North had decided the South was not governable by military force (is G.W. Bush paying attention?) without the continued presence of troops in a hostile environment and a popular government (although rejecting blacks) that was opposed to the occupation.

4. The "Freedom loving North" Did nothing at all to help the blacks of the South between 1877 and 1954.

Mostly true. It was obvious that "helping the blacks" would require armed intervention, which the North had tired of and could not enforce given the re-admission of the southern states.

5. The "Freedom loving North" Was the greatest growth area for the Klan post 1900. By the 1920s, several midwestern states were Klan controlled.

The Klan in the early 1900s was inspired by Forrest's original creation but addressed a new set of circumstances. The Klan that gained power in the 1920s was not only anti-black, but also anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, which reflected not only the legacy of slavery but also of the immense immigration into this country in the early decades of the 20th century. While its virulent anti-black roots were evident, it was more like the Know Nothing Party than the Klan of the post-Civil War era.

This war was about keeping the economic prosperity of the US concentrated North of the Ohio River!

Well, maybe. Maybe not. The Northern capitalists understood, as capitalists do everywhere, that war is not necessarily good for business. An economically healthy South would have provided a good market for the North. Unfortunately, it was not econocomically healthy, being built upon a few cash crops whose fortunes were dependent upon the vagaries of weather and politics.

 

[rsr]

Dr. Bob said:

'Preserve the Union' was a political ploy to try to lay a guilt trip on the slow-witted and recruit canon fodder for butcher Grant.

Really, Dr. Bob, I expect better of you. That was Lincoln's plea from the beginning; the South decided, without any provocation, to pick up its marbles and go home.

Lee lost a greater proportion of his forces than Grant, yet he is not reviled as a "butcher." Though he could well be.

How in the world secesh sympathizers can call Grant "slow-witted" and realize he crushed Bobbie Lee is beyond me. Yes, he had the men, and the supplies. Unlike his luckless predecessors, he knew how to use them.

And it was Grant's example and practice that led the U.S. to victory in the 20th century.

 

[rsr]

I always hesitate to cross Jeff Weaver who is, after all, a Civil War historian and a sharp cookie.

However ... I don't have the references in front of me, but I still think that Lee and Breckenridge "schemed" to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia.

I don't disagree that Lee had more respect within the army than did Davis; that's especially true in the East, where the Bragg fiasco had brought the Army of Tennesse to the point of mutiny among the commanders.

But Lee had deference for civilian authority, and he would not have surrendered without its approval. I suggest that he received that authority from Breckenridge because he knew he would never, ever, receive it from Davis, who wanted to fight on to the bitter end.

Grant, on the other hand, knew exactly what Lincoln expected at surrender and carried it out.

The surrender was not settled simply among the commanders, but from a combination of civilian and military authority (on the side of the South) and civilian authority (the North.)

 

[mioque]

"Robert E. Lee is no doubt one of the most respected figures on the stage of human history. The love, admiration and respect given to this man is universal. He was loved by his soldiers, revered by his peers, respected by his enemies, and even his former slaves and servants cherished the time they were given to be with him. Posterity has placed Robert E. Lee in a unique position as one of the most respected men who ever lived."
''
NetPublicist
You do realize that Lee is only that famous in the USA do you?


"it was Grant's example and practice that led the U.S. to victory in the 20th century."
''
The military doctrine of the USA during WWII is vintage Grant (except during operation Market Garden, something that Lee might have planned and that one was a disaster).

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by mioque:
"Robert E. Lee is no doubt one of the most respected figures on the stage of human history. The love, admiration and respect given to this man is universal. He was loved by his soldiers, revered by his peers, respected by his enemies, and even his former slaves and servants cherished the time they were given to be with him. Posterity has placed Robert E. Lee in a unique position as one of the most respected men who ever lived."
''
NetPublicist
You do realize that Lee is only that famous in the USA do you?


"it was Grant's example and practice that led the U.S. to victory in the 20th century."
''
The military doctrine of the USA during WWII is vintage Grant (except during operation Market Garden, something that Lee might have planned and that one was a disaster).

Encarta Encyclopedia says Lee was a brilliant Confederate general, whose military genius was probably the greatest single factor in keeping the Confederacy alive through the four years of the American Civil War.

I believe Stonewall Jackson, who Lee referred to as his "right arm" possessed the strategic insight that might have won Confederate independence. The turning point in the war came at Chancellorsville in 1863 where the South might have annihilated the Army of the Potomac had Jackson not been mortally wounded.

Jackson was mistakenly shot by his own men. He had his left arm amputated, and died eight days later. It was as if Lee's right arm was amputated, too. Two months later came Gettysburg; it was all downhill for the South from then on.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

Stephen

It might be how we define scheme. I know that Lee and Breckenridge discussed things out of sight of Davis, but Lee didn't hide it from Davis either.

Jeff.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
No nation invades "itself",

We can stop there. Remember when Rodney King's arrestors were declared innocent? Remember the riots in L.A.? Remember that the President called in the NATIONAL GUARD. That is right, a MILITARY was sent in to squash the rebellion.

It would have been an invasion if the United States started the war. They didn't. It was the terrorists that started it. The US finished it though.

If the south didn't want its butt handed to them on a platter, they shouldn't have picked the fight.

 

[rsr]

That may well be, Jeff. The account I have related is from William Davis' "An Honorable Defeat," which pictures Breckenridge as the pragmatist and J. Davis as the idealist bent upon taking the war to its bitter end.

Breckenridge, I think, is one of the overlooked major figures of the war (along with Union General George Thomas). There is a fair study in (I think, but my memory may fail me) in Saffire's "Lincoln." Maybe it was Vidal's book, though. Saffire also treats McClellan more gently than most historians and credits him where credit is due.

I have not read William Davis' biography of Breckenridge, though it's on my list.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by mioque:
(except during operation Market Garden, something that Lee might have planned and that one was a disaster).

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think that Operation Market Garden was something that General Robert E. Lee might have planned.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The US finished it though.

You are totally incorrect to say it's finished. As long as people anywhere in the world desire to live free from tyranny such as Southerners endured from Yankees it will never be finished.

 

[mioque]

"Encarta Encyclopedia says Lee was a brilliant Confederate general, whose military genius was probably the greatest single factor in keeping the Confederacy alive through the four years of the American Civil War."
''
According to a military historian I know, Lee's specialties as a general were daring, versatile strategies making good use of both the mobility of his units and their ability to effectively hold well chosen positions against all odds. all this to compensate for the fact that he was somewhat outnumbered a lot of the time.

Grant's specialty on the other hand was to efficiently exploit the advantages that he had and preventing the daring strategies of his opponents from working. He didn't need to take risks, he just had to make sure the risks his adversaries took did not pay of.

Operation Market Garden*, was exactly the sort of brilliantly conceived hairbrained scheme he, Custer, picket, Forest and Jackson would have loved.
If it had worked it would have shortened the war in Europe by half a year.

*If you have no idea what Market Garden was all about, just watch the film "A bridge too far".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075784/

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by mioque:
Operation Market Garden, was exactly the sort of brilliantly conceived hairbrained scheme he...

I totally disagree with your analysis. With the changes in weaponry, especially air power, I don't believe that General Lee would have gone for Operation Market Garden.

I have watched the movie - it was the first movie I bought for myself when we purchased our DVD player a couple of years ago - and to be honest I think that as a movie it is as lousy as the operation turned out to be.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

That may well be, Jeff. The account I have related is from William Davis' "An Honorable Defeat," which pictures Breckenridge as the pragmatist and J. Davis as the idealist bent upon taking the war to its bitter end.

Breckenridge, I think, is one of the overlooked major figures of the war (along with Union General George Thomas). There is a fair study in (I think, but my memory may fail me) in Saffire's "Lincoln." Maybe it was Vidal's book, though. Saffire also treats McClellan more gently than most historians and credits him where credit is due.

I have not read William Davis' biography of Breckenridge, though it's on my list.

Stephen

The Breckenridge Book is a good read. Side note, my house sits at the site of Breckenridge's HQ for part of his tenure as commander of the Department of Western Virginia. There are still old gun emplacements on the hills on either side of the house. Yes, I actually live on a Civil War Battlefield, and no metal detecting is allowed on my plot.

Davis, like the rest of us, is not perfect. He has probably an elevated estimation of Breckenridge at the expense of Davis. Civil War historians can be like that. Don't know how many books I have read that come across like, if the person had had just a little more help he could have won the war all by himself. Some of Davis' books get into that to some degree. In other words he gets a little too involved with his subject to be as objective as I would like. That said, it is very difficult to do otherwise. Hope that made some sense, but it probably didn't.

Some of the Kentucky Confederates were quite colorful. The 350-pound Brigadier General Humphrey Marshall who slept under a wagon, rather than pitch a tent, and lit his cigars with currency, is one who is just fascinating. Brigadier General J.S. "Cerro Gordo" Williams; Colonel Nathaniel McClure Menifee; Colonel George Jessee, Colonel A. J. May, General Basil Duke, General William Preston, and the list can grow from there of fascinating characters from Kentucky. John Hunt Morgan on the other hand is over rated, and overhyped. Basil Duke was the brains behind his brother-in-law.

As a side note on Kentucky -- those boys were lazy. Every unit that Kentucky put in the Confederate army was either cavalry, or mounted infantry, save a couple of early units which were disbanded. I have spent hours and hours driving around Kentucky tracing the routes these fellows took on their various and sundry raids. I'm a visual kind of guy, and it helps understand the battles, movements to actually see the terrain, etc.

Sorry to have digressed so far from the point.

Jeff

 

[rsr]

Jeff, sometimes disgression is the better point of valor.

Thanks for your insights, which I respect.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I have stood at Cold Harbor, Virginia. 7,000 Union dead in 20 minutes. Why? Grant the Butcher, as did almost all the Union generals ahead of him, felt that his superior numbers in manpower could overwhelm the enemy.

Think of the millions of Russians who died useless in that same manner on the way to Berlin.

Or Japanese on Guadacanal in their Banzai charges against machine guns.

Or ANZAC's at Gallipoli.

We condemn such tactics and villify the generals who have such callous disregard for the lives of their men. We have 25 examples of such imprudent waste of life we could share - only one (Day 3, Gettysburg) is Lee.

 

[mioque]

"nd to be honest I think that as a movie it is as lousy as the operation turned out to be. "
''
Historically accurate movies often are. And yes by hollywood standards this one is reasonably accurate.

"With the changes in weaponry, especially air power, I don't believe that General Lee would have gone for Operation Market Garden."
Don't forget, the Germans got lucky and had more (and better) troops present than the allies expected.
It was a good plan.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by mioque:
You do realize that Lee is only that famous in the USA do you?


The military doctrine of the USA during WWII is vintage Grant (except during operation Market Garden, something that Lee might have planned and that one was a disaster).

Actually, Lee's tactics (and for that matter Nathan Bedford Forrest's calvary tactics) are still seriously studied in military schools in places other than the US

Not so Grant. Grant's frontal, costly assaults remind one of the Russians on the Eartern Front. The US Generals, especially MacArthur, with his island hopping, were much more into slash and bypass.