Posted on 06/22/2018 11:46:12 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
That was according to my 8th grade history teacher-retired military. The only one who came close was MacArthur. That brings up the politics of the left. If it is true that Lee was a great General isn't it at least worth acknowledging? This tearing down of statues should stop. Educated persons should acknowledge the truth. It's the left that's the intelligent ones as they would have us believe. I see no conservatives standing up for this truth. The Senate GOP candidate in Virginia should start an 'intellectual' conversation on Lee and let the left react. Don't wait for a baiting reporter to to knee-jerk him into a quick response that they can interpret their own way.
Confederate General Henry Heth had sent troops to Gettysburg in search of a warehouse full of shoes, when they stumbled into some Federal cavalry. Napoleon is reputed to have said "a dogfight can start a battle" but in this case it was shoes.
I think that's only part of it. "Waving the bloody shirt" has long been a useful political tactic, and I think it is politically advantageous to some extent to constantly bash the South, especially when you are courting Liberal voters.
I also think some of it is just "Rah Rah team!" When people live in states that are on one side of the conflict or the other, they adopt those state histories as their own, and they cheer their states past as they would a sports team.
Also, a lot of people want to be on the side of the winners, and of course there is the ever present propaganda on the topic which states the war was fought entirely over slavery, with the good side fighting the evil side.
People want to be on the "good" side.
Regarding Fort Monroe,
“After the War of 1812, the state of Virginia gave the Federal government 250 acres at Point Comfort to build Fort Monroe and 15 acres at the Rip-Raps shoal off Old Point Comfort to build Fort Calhoun. Construction of Fort Monroe started in 1819, the state agreed to donate the land in 1821, and the deed transferring the land to the Federal government was finally executed in 1838.2
The Rip-Raps shoal was enlarged with heavy rocks and new land was created above sea level. Fort Calhoun was constructed on top, so the cannon of that time could control various shipping channels.
To expand Fort Monroe on Old Point Comfort, the Commonwealth of Virginia sold 31 acres of submerged lands underneath Mill Creek to the Federal Government in 1908. The sale recognized that the owners of oyster leases would have to be compensated.” http://www.virginiaplaces.org/boundaries/accretion.html
With regards to Fort Sumter,
I stand corrected as it seems the feds bought that land from SC when it was empty and semisubmerged. http://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm
That is a bold-faced, bald-faced, barefaced, in your face, lie.
Grant had control of his wife’s slaves who were not freed until the passage of the thirteenth amendment in 1866.Lee was not a slave owner but was the executor of his father in law and following his will freed those slaves.
Captain Robert E Lee played a large part in that success.
That's an impressive list..and I'd wager if Lee had health issues he would have likely written to someone about them.
Without sending that fleet of ships with orders to attack the Confederates in Charleston, there would have been no war. The South didn't want a war, but they had no intentions of being a rug either.
Almost all of Lincoln's cabinet advised him against sending that fleet of warships because they all believed it would start a war. Major Anderson in command of Ft Sumter wrote that it would start a war.
No Warships, no War. Also misleading the South and making promises they had no intention of keeping was also a contributing factor to the war.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82014760/1861-03-11/ed-1/seq-2/
As much as New York belonged to the British.
The Grant slaves were freed in Jan 1865 when the State of Missouri outlawed slavery.
I still don’t get it, Lamp. The war is over. Why do so many freepers want to make sure that our great southern members have to get it rammed down their throats that they lost the war and that it was for an evil cause? What does it accomplish? Nothing! Your part of the country is fighting to keep America a safe, secure republic and yet even some freepers hate you! I just don’t get it. It saddens me.
I love the south. Always have since the first time I was taken to a battlefield and exposed to the writings of Margaret Mitchell. I’m also a huge fan of Lincoln and Grant. Go figure!
We have the 17th amendment to thank for that, in part.
>> He fought for the insurrectionists <<
> So did George Washington <
Well, yes, GW did fight for the insurrectionists. That’d be OUR (America’s) side. Lee fought for the insurrectionists. That’d be the confederacy’s side. So are you a Confederate or an American?
I didn’t say he didn’t!
I would imagine he’s an American.
What are you?
I hate the thought of agreeing with Gore Vidal, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds an acorn. Yes, I think it was about Empire building. In the last few years I have discovered quite a lot of people see it this way too. I think the roots of our modern "Deep State"/"Establishment"/"Uniparty", are the consequence of that Civil War. Certainly all power seems to continuously gravitate toward the direction of Washington DC.
I think what bothers me on FR, though, is the exquisite pc-ness affected by some people here over the issue of slavery. They reduce the whole war to that one issue - which is obviously not correct. But it makes people feel so...exquisite.
"Virtue Signaling." I think much hatred of the South is a consequence of the PC propaganda that we have all grown up with. What is consistently and inexplicably overlooked in these discussions is that the North had slavery too, and it lasted longer there than it did in the south.
It creates a cognitive disconnect to believe it was over slavery, and then not wonder why the Northern states could continue having it all through the war.
As I used to quip, "if it was over slavery, they should have invaded Maryland. Their supply lines would have been much shorter." :)
I see the war as primarily about Washington control of the revenue streams. If they couldn't control them, they destroyed them.
>> Fighting against the right of states to become independent is King George III’s position. Not George Washington’s position. <<
It’s not a question of whether states have the right to be independent. It’s a question of whether of a government has ceased to represent its people. Had the slaves revolted and killed every God-damned slave-holder (I mean that 100% literally, not as a cuss) and blinded sheeple who fought on the side of the slave-holders, THAT would have been just.
Grant was within a few thousand casualties in three months that it took Lee three years to accumulate. Had the war continued another year, I believe the North would be fighting another insurrection within itself as a result of the bloodbath Grant was bringing them.
American officer corps vs. American officer corps. That is why the war lasted so long.
Statues, both Union and Confederate should be an honor to American Military Might and a warning to other nations.
And how many Treason Trials were there? NOT ONE! Even Jeff Davis wanted a treason trial and was denied it by Salmon P. Chase. Davis even rejected Chase’s offer of pardon demanding a Treason Trial.
Chase was worried Davis would prove secession legal in a court of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.