Thousands visit Appomattox to mark Lee's surrender

WDBJ7.com ^ | 4-9-2010 | WDBJ

[Non-Sequitur]

Sherman should have been convicted and executed for war crimes.

Then so should Robert Lee.

[Michael.SF.]

the North whipped up on the fancy Southern plantation boys

I would respectfully disagree, my friend. If the War had been apples to apples, the south would have prevailed. The north won in large part because of superior fire power and more men, not because they were either better soldiers, fighters or leaders.

Grant's primary strategy was to make the south bleed till they could bleed no more, while he would sustain equal or more losses and have them quickly replaced with more fodder.

Grant was not a brilliant strategist, but a determined man like no other.

[Michael.SF.]

What was a worse abuse, Lincoln merely jailing a suspected bridge burner in Maryland

So after initially denying Lincoln's violations ("purported") of the Constitution, you now try to justify it because it was merely a misdeameanor, as oppossed to Davis' felony violations?

I should remind you that both high crimes and misdeamnors are impeachable offenses.

[Moonman62]

It is gratifying that there are still Americans with a sense of history. The bravery and dedication of the Union and Confederate soldiers is something to admire and the final crushing of the crooked slaveowners' Confederate power grab is something to be celebrated. The day Lee's army surrendered was one of the best days in our history.

It's a shame that Grant isn't mentioned. Grant never required a surrender ceremony and let Lee keep his sword.

[constitutiongirl]

Actually, it was the outdoorsy, good-ole-Southern farm boy, not plantation owners (who were usually exempt from service) that fought an impossibly long time against an industrialized behemoth that had a much larger population and was able to import soldiers. You should read up on the big hoo-haws that erupted in NYC when the Feds pushed Irish immigrants off the boat and into service. On paper, the Army of Northern Virginia should never have been able to fight a campaign of such long duration. It speaks to the leadership of Robert E. Lee and the prowess of the boys in the field.

[nathanbedford]

Ah, the Gallant Pelham.

[Non-Sequitur]

Grant's primary strategy was to make the south bleed till they could bleed no more, while he would sustain equal or more losses and have them quickly replaced with more fodder.

And yet as a percentage of forces available, Lee's casualties tended to be higher. And while Lee commanded armies for about 6 months less than Grant did his total casualties in real numbers were higher. If either man deserves the sobriguet of 'butcher' then Lee has as much claim as Grant does.

[major-pelham]

A tip of the hat to you, General.

[NavyCanDo]

“I’m with you on most of this but you got to admit that the farmers and factory workers from the North whipped up on the fancy Southern plantation boys”

Oh yea, the much larger and better equipped Army of the North did real well at places like Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, The Wilderness, Manassas, Chickamauga, among other places where bleached Yankee bones left testament to the hard fighting Confederates. And where do you get the idea that confederates where “fancy plantation boys”. From movies like Gone With The Wind?

Most of these soldiers had been farmers prior to the outbreak of the war, and only about 5% owned slaves. And Not all Confederate soldiers were born in the South- many were Irish immigrants or northerners who had settled there and chose to fight beside their new neighbors and for southern homes.

I would suggest less Hollywood and more reading.....

THE TYPICAL CONFEDERATE SOLDIER

http://www.civilwarhome.com/typicalconfedsoldier.htm

[trimom]

The intent of the Constitution was that all issues not designated to the Federal government belonged to the states themselves.

Imagine if education was still a local/state responsibility!

[AuntB]

General Ely S. Parker, a member of the Seneca tribe,
drew up the articles of surrender which General Robert E. Lee
signed at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.
Gen. Parker, who served as Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s
military secretary was an educated attorney who was once
rejected for Union military service because of his race.
At the meeting, Gen. Lee was at first taken aback
at the presence of an Indian being in such a position.
After he got to know Parker,
Lee is said to have remarked to him,
“I am glad to see one real American here.”
Parker replied, “We are all Americans.”

http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/

[AuntB]

Actually, the war went on for several months in Arkansas, Indian Territory after Lee’s surrender.

[snip]
Cornelius Boudinot wrote to Stand Watie and the remaining troops of the Cherokee Volunteers on May 11, 1865 as the war was coming to it’s fateful conclusion. He was dispatched as delegate, as he had been many times, to meet with the Confederacy leadership in Shreveport, Louisiana.
“Dear Uncle,
The surrender of Lee and Johnson virtually puts an end to the war on the other side of the river. The people from Virginia to the Miss. river are willing to try the experiment of absolute submission and return to the old Union. Gen Smith in my opinion will hold on if possible a month or two yet, until the hopelessness of further resistance is apparent to the world, before he will yield the contest. From all that I learn his army will fall to pieces. The war will close in some shape by the 1st day of August, unless the old story of foreign intervention should be verified. Our policy should be to remain still and watch the current of events.
Aff’ly Yr. Nephew, Cornelius”

On June 23, 1865, Brigadier General Stand Watie and the remnants of the Cherokee Mounted Rifle formally ceased hostilities at Doaksville at Fort Towson near The Red River in the Choctaw Nation. Nearly sixty years old, he was the last general to lay down arms in the Civil War, two months after Lee surrendered to Grant.

From Chapter 14 PEACE of “Jesus Wept” An American Story
http://jesusweptanamericanstory.blogspot.com/

[x]

MYTH- Southerners supported slavery while Northerners hated it. No Southern alive today disputes that slavery was morally wrong, but the fact remains that all Northern states once had slaves, and virtually all of the slave ships were owned by Yankees. Profits from the slave trade stayed in the North.

We went through this before. Not every Northern state had slaves.

Vermont abolished slavery in 1777 -- there probably weren't very many slaves there at the time and the overall population was pretty small -- and didn't become a state until 1791.

The Northwest Ordinance (1787) barred slavery from what would become the Great Lakes states, so apart from a few very early settlers and Southerners bringing their slaves with them on short states, slavery was never legal in those stays.

Nor were all or virtually all of the slave ships that brought slaves here owned by "Yankees." Englishmen and other foreigners had the largest share of the slave trade.

NOT A MYTH - It was only in the NORTH where owning slaves was still legal during the Civil War.

WTF? In the laws of the Confederate states slaveowning was legal throughout the war. If they'd won, those laws would have continued in force.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation "gave" freedom to slaves in the rebel areas, but that freedom had to be taken by the slaves or won by Union troops.

The Emancipation Proclamation excluded the Border States loyal the the union (and part of Lousiana), but those weren't really part of the "North," were they?

In any event, an emancipation proclamation could only be justified as a war measure, so of course it couldn't be applied to areas not in rebellion. The 13th Amendment freed the rest of the slaves soon enough.

You can check these things out for yourself, and after you do, please stop posting things that you find out are untrue.

[Michael.SF.]

And yet as a percentage of forces available, Lee's casualties tended to be higher.

Thank you for making my point: Grant had superior number of forces and received continuous replacements. Lee had a diminishing number of men because of very limited reinforcements. Of course if they had the same losses day after day, the percentage fr Lee would go up, while Grants would remain flat.

Lee commanded armies for about 6 months less than Grant did his total casualties in real numbers were higher.

Grant vs Lee at three battles: Wilderness, Cold Harbor, Spotslvania

Lee's losses: 23,000*
Grant's losses: 49,000*

* rounded off and subject to variation depending on sources.

We can discuss numbers all day, but the fact is Grant's strategy to win the war was to simply continue the fight relentlessly, knowing Lee did not have the men or firepower to continue for very long. The fact that Lee continued as long as he did was testimony to his superior plans and strategies.

[Michael.SF.]

Then so should Lee

Making a case for charges of treason against Lee are understandable. But I do not think anyone would even argue that any action condoned by Lee compared to purposeful and vengeful actions condoned by Sherman on the March to the Sea.

Because you said he did? (referring or denying Lincoln's suspension of Habeous Corpus)

We have gone back and forth on the Civil War before and usually you have some comments that have some validity and can be readily countered. However, Lincoln's suspension of Habeous Corpus is a fact accepted by knowledgeable historians, reasonable people and those educated on the history of the Civil War period. Your contending that it never happened would preclude you from that group.

As such there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

[Non-Sequitur]

The intent of the Constitution was that all issues not designated to the Federal government belonged to the states themselves.

Or prohibited to the states by the Constitution. Don't forget that part.

[Non-Sequitur]

Making a case for charges of treason against Lee are understandable. But I do not think anyone would even argue that any action condoned by Lee compared to purposeful and vengeful actions condoned by Sherman on the March to the Sea

During his campaigns in Maryland and Pennsylvania Lee and his army lived by foraging from the local population, same as Sherman. His army appropriated any and all materials of use to them. They placed levies on Northern communities demanding that X amount of goods be delivered or the community would be burned. There were instances of looting and instances where private property was deliberately burned - an iron foundry belonging to a abolitionist Senator and the houses belonging to the workers. And there is considerable evidence showing that Lee's army rounded up free black residents of Maryland and Pennsylvania and sent them south into slavery. If the actions of Sherman's army makes him a war criminal then the action of Lee's army does the same to him.

However, Lincoln's suspension of Habeous Corpus is a fact accepted by knowledgeable historians, reasonable people and those educated on the history of the Civil War period. Your contending that it never happened would preclude you from that group.

You mistake my intent. I have never denied Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and if you mistakenly arrived at that conclusion then I apologize for not being clear. I have disputed, and will continue to dispute all claims that his actions were illegal or unconstitutional.

[John S Mosby]

I’m the wrong guy to ask to admit that- cause I don’t believe it is so. My point of view is that northern industrialists drafted poor new immigrants by the hundreds of thousands (about which see NYC draft riots) to do their dirty work. So in that instance there was a ready supply of “cannon fodder” which the South did not have in population. If there had been enough existing industry, infrastructure as in foundries and raw material, and the populations matched, there would have been a much different outcome. As it was, for the better part of the war the Union army was largely led by incompetents, until Lincoln found someone who didn’t mind butchering the vast numbers of soldiers Grant killed. Numbers by attrition is what won. Skill, military tactics, leadership and audacity (L’audace toujours L’audace) was all on the Southern side (with some exceptions- my favorite was Buford). If the war hadn’t happened the military leadership that would have survived would have been incomparable in future conflicts.

[Non-Sequitur]

Of course if they had the same losses day after day, the percentage fr Lee would go up, while Grants would remain flat.

If one general has an army of 50,000 men and loses 10 percent while the other general has an army of 100,000 men and loses 6 percent then in raw numbers it appears that the second general is more wasteful in lives. But the first general is sacrificing a larger percentage of his men. Which is really the butcher?

We can discuss numbers all day, but the fact is Grant's strategy to win the war was to simply continue the fight relentlessly, knowing Lee did not have the men or firepower to continue for very long. The fact that Lee continued as long as he did was testimony to his superior plans and strategies.

Look at Lee's actions at Malvern Hill or Pickett's Charge and it's clear that he would throw as many men as necessary away in order to achieve a victory. Grant chose his tactics because he knew that the path to victory was to hold on to Lee's army and keep fighting it until it was defeated. Had the shoe been on the other foot do you honestly believe Robert Lee wouldn't have used the same tactics if he believed they would allow him to win?

[John S Mosby]

Go Tar Heels. Just visited the Ramseur home near Roxboro. Carolina gave a large portion of brave soldiers to the belief in States rights.