Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I have through what used to be taught in grade school in the 50s and early 60s, hours of research and reading, (before history was changed) that Lee chose to fight a "defensive war" hoping that the northern lobbyist controlled Lincoln would come to his senses.

At Appramadox, it is said that Lee foresaw the loss for both sides combined to be some 20,000 men on the first day should he choose to fight.
Lee being who he was, and what he was, as not only a remarkable general, but a remarkable person of he highest moral character, decided to go against Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and stop the slaughter on both sides.
With some 600,000+ deaths, and the North leading that death toll by over 100,000 northern troops.
I doubt Lee gave 1 second of thought, to the gross distortion of the "actual history" of this conflict, that would take place when making such a historically humane decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Attorneys, Politicians and the Greedy are why we are where we are today. Read history and it is that simple to figure out.
We need more ******** who's word is their word and their pride.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Attorneys, Politicians and the Greedy are why we are where we are today. Read history and it is that simple to figure out.
We need more ******** who's word is their word and their pride.
The problem with history today is it has been so distorted over the last 70 or so years from what actually happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmym1296

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
no matter how many confederate monuments are removed. it still does NOT change history.

as far as I'm concerned, the ones who participate in the removal and desecration of ANY monument are just as deplorable as the memory they seek to remove. they don't stop and think that THEIR own history may soon be attacked as well. many of them are deserving of having their history forgotten/removed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
they dont know what their own history even is not alone what their culture is. Dee is right, its all been corrupted unto some thing unrecognizable to any student of real history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
The Army of Northern Virgina under Lee was worn to a frazzle, clothing coming apart, shoes and boots falling apart,
Food was scarse, supply situation had to have been desperate.

But in my mind the only thing that would cause Marse Robert to say "Stop, that's enough" would be if he had insufficient ammo to continue. Knowing that the end was near would make that decision easier. But would not justify it on its own merits. He had to have been incapable of continuing. I do not believe his sense of honor would have let him stand down for anything less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Lee was completely surrounded when he surrendered. With no relief and no supplies getting to him. Going to see General Grant was his only option. The fact that the South extended the war as long as it did was nothing short of a miracle. The 2nd invasion of the North that was undertaken to relieve the siege of Vickburg. Ended in disaster at Gettysburg. The one glaring example that Lee made bad decision after bad. No doubt the desperate situation he was in factored into this. No one in past or future history will win fighting a defensive war. Lee had brilliant victories but they all occurred on Southern soil. His opponents could always replenish their losses. Lee could not the man power was just not there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
I respect the General, but he was not the guy to lead the ANV. We could not take the Union army on head to head because mathematically it was impossible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,504 Posts
Attorneys, Politicians and the Greedy are why we are where we are today. Read history and it is that simple to figure out.
We need more **** who's word is their word and their pride.
Funny how the politicians get elected and become millionaires overnight? Who’s paying off who?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
I heard that Grant looked so slovenly that Lee didn’t recognize him, and gave him his sword to clean. The rest, as they say, is history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
How could the south expect to win a war with nothing supplywise? My home state of MA with the Alger, Hooper, Ames and Revere foundries alone produced more cannon than the entire confederacy. Never mind Colt in CT and Remington in NY. In calvary engagements union troops armed with Spencer carbines and Colt or Remington revolvers went against confederates armed with shotguns and a pair of dueling pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
As has been said in many ways, "Lee was a 19th Century General fighting General Grant who had a 20th Century mentality of fighting a "war of attrition". General Grant came under a government that would provide an endless supply of men and equipment that would come from the 'industrial north". Before the "Emancipation Proclamation" was declared by Lincoln in 1863, the North did not hold the public's support in going on the offense in the South to make them come back into the Union and had lost several battles to the South. The South held the upper hand in warding off the North's offenses in battle, rhetoric, and propaganda by appearing to be the victim, or "under dog". However, the South's early decision to maintain a defensive battle posture while trying to enlist foreign help was not met with any real meaningful support due to their lack of any real trade enticements, other than cotton. Neither England, or Canada wanted any part of a Federal government that could still cripple their trade routes to their "empire" if the war went the wrong way.

In 1863, Lincoln was finally convinced that the "cause" lacked emotional attachment. And, even though Northern Democrats opposed him, he went with the abolition of "Slavery" by declaring the South was in violation of human rights! In his proclamation address, he freed the slaves in the South, but not the North, which legal or not, was a brilliant political move. The South retaliated by declaring it would not take any "opposition" black soldier alive as a POW if captured in a battle; the North declared the supporting population in the South was "fair game", which Sherman took full advantage. Norther Democrats sought to weaken Lincoln, while Southern Democrats made money in being able to openly violate federal trade arrangements through shipping and smuggling activities (like prohibition).

Speculation of alternate outcomes of the Civil war will rage on forever as to possible outcomes regarding battles and strategy. It has been suggested that if the South had just given up their slaves (less than 5% actually owned them) the North might have come to the negotiating table; but the southern states were mostly agrarian that relied upon (mostly) hand labor for production where the North had become industrialized that relied on machinery and materials available for production (Some even speculate that had Eli Whitney not invented the cotton gin, the South's economy would never have been able to support a war, much less for 4 years!) After 600,000+ deaths, injuries, and all the devastation of the South's infrastructure; Lee had little alternative but to surrender or face a protracted war of attrition with a "relentless" foe. (The last General to surrender was Brig. General Stan Watie, and they had to go to Oklahoma to make him do so.)

Slavery was wrong, pure and simple, but as usual politics and economic necessity made it easier for those involved in the trade to justify the means as a way of life and survival against ever increasing "over taxing" federal government. The "big money" was with the big plantation owners and corrupt politicians in the South who wielded the most political and economic power. The South has been portrayed by many in the North as "greedy", cruel "masters" with a whip in one hand and a demonic smile on their faces that characterize a population that was far from the projections. (The "victors" get to write the historic accounts, but fiction usually sells better than facts.) While many in the South viewed the North as aggressors, the first two years of that war never saw the level of vitriol that came until after "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written. And, because of "Reconstruction", which (I am convinced) Lincoln never intended to be as traumatic, the South has since carried with it a "open sore" that would have healed decades ago if the "political hacks" and "race baiters" of the 20th Century had been put out of business early on.

Even after that horrific conflict of brother against brother (some brothers in the same family), the soldiers who came from the South were never truly trusted until the Spanish American War in 1898 where they fought side-by-side with their fellow northern brothers. It took a conflict where we all came together (as politicians like to say) that we began to heal from one civil war to enter conflicts on an international scale. The Civil War is a part of our history where "Valiant" men fought for their "cause" whether it was for their state, region, or way of life; willing to put life and limb in harms way! It is part of our history, regardless of how it is told or "spun". I have no slaves in my background other than a "Bond Servant" who bought passage to what is now America and am grateful my ancestors made the sacrifice. If you or yours do, be glad they were deposited here rather than some 3rd world country where they still practice some form of "human trafficking" on an international scale. (We need to do something about the current problems, not fix that which can't be redone.)

What is amazing at this time in our history, the very party (Democrats) that refused to grant freedom to an unprotected race of people because of their skin color has now convinced a population that it champions that very segment of population. It is the party that denied the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, while forming the KKK to terrorize the black population and restrict their participation in the "fruits of liberty" with "Jim Crow" laws enacted in the very states it claimed to have freed! Yet, they have projected their historic guilt on the opposition party (Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitutionalist) through propaganda. Now we are witnessing "Critical Race Theory" being taught to our young people from elementary through college curriculums that "whites" are the "bad guys" because lack of their skin color (same old song; second verse, same as the first).

Sorry for the long post; for our civil war today is on going. Our fight today, just like in 1861, is a fight from within! It is a fight we have to win if we are to survive as a union. My .02
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,750 Posts
who said the south lost. Heck you sent half the blacks running up here and now we even have to excpept your stupid juneteeth or whatever its called holiday. Only ones in the south that really lost were the wealthy and the politicians. Way i look at it if we could clean up michigan and ship the welfare cases and muslims down south it sure would be a win for us.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,750 Posts
no matter how many confederate monuments are removed. it still does NOT change history.

as far as I'm concerned, the ones who participate in the removal and desecration of ANY monument are just as deplorable as the memory they seek to remove. they don't stop and think that THEIR own history may soon be attacked as well. many of them are deserving of having their history forgotten/removed.
I totaly agree. No matter what side they were on they were brave men willing to give there lives for what they thought was the betterment of this country. Bottom line too is its over and we have much bigger fish to fry today and a much greater threat to this country and thats the socialist running it right now. If you cant see its time to put that war and the animosity behind you and unite together as one force to fight them then there is NO hope for you. Your no different then the blacks claiming we are there enemy's and destroyed there lives. What do you tell them? Maybe that none of them bitching were alive when this happened. Maybe you should think about that yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
Lees army of about 28000 troops were completely surrounded and had no chance of meeting up with Johnstons troops in North Carolina. Richmond and the main rail hub of Petersburg had fallen, stopping all supply trains. Further, knowing all was lost, close to half of what was left of the Confederate army had deserted. At the surrender, Lee mentioned his army was starving, Grant gave the quartermaster general an order to send 100,000 rations to the Confederate camp. Kind of tough to keep fighting with an army, when completely surrounded and without a single round of ammo, or scrap of food for the troops.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,750 Posts
you can argue the reason for that war but its hard to argue the outcome. Lee was beat and surrendered but the whole country lost.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top