Posted on 06/03/2018 4:42:36 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
But it was about slavery as many Southerners stated...
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." - John S. Mosby
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
... and the average Southerner owned no slaves.
They still apparently had a dog in the fight.
"The vandals of the North . . . are determined to destroy slavery . . . We must all fight, and I choose to fight for southern rights and southern liberty." - Lunsford Yandell, Jr. to Sally Yandell, April 22, 1861
"Better, far better! endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar." - William M. Thomson to Warner A. Thomson, Feb. 2, 1861
"A captain in the 8th Alabama also vowed 'to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us. . . . [We are fighting for] rights and property bequeathed to us by our ancestors.' " - Elias Davis to Mrs. R. L. Lathan, Dec. 10, 1863
"Even though he was tired of the war, wrote a Louisiana artilleryman in 1862, ' I never want to see the day when a negro is put on an equality with a white person. There is too many free [n-word]s. . . now to suit me, let alone having four millions.' " - George Hamill Diary, March, 1862
"A private in the 38th North Carolina, a yeoman farmer, vowed to show the Yankees ' that a white man is better than a n****r." - Jonas Bradshaw to Nancy Bradshaw, April 29, 1862
"A farmer from the Shenandoah Valley informed his fiancée that he fought to assure 'a free white man's government instead of living under a black republican government.' " - John G. Keyton to Mary Hilbert, Nov. 30, 1861
"The son of another North Carolina dirt farmer said he would never stop fighting the Yankees, who were 'trying to force us to live as the colored race.' " - Samuel Walsh to Louisa Proffitt, April 11, 1864
"Some of the boys asked them what they were fighting for, and they answered, 'You Yanks want us to marry our daughters to the n****rs.' " - Chauncey Cook to parents, May 10, 1864
"An Arkansas captain was enraged by the idea that if the Yankees won, his 'sister, wife, and mother are to be given up to the embraces of their present dusky male servitors.' " - Thomas Key, diary entry April 10, 1864
"Another Arkansas soldier, a planter, wrote his wife that Lincoln not only wanted to free the slaves but also 'declares them entitled to all the rights and privileges as American citizens. So imagine your sweet little girls in the school room with a black wooly headed negro and have to treat them as their equal.' " - William Wakefield Garner to Henrietta Garner, Jan 2, 1864
"[If Atlanta and Richmond fell] we are irrevocably lost and not only will the negroes be free but . . . we will all be on a common level. . . . The negro who now waits on you will then be as free as you are & as insolent as she is ignorant.' " - Allen D. Chandler to wife, July 7, 1864
So your your "theory' is well...BS.
A lot of that goes on in these Civil War threads.
No doubt, but the fact that he had them does play a significant role as well. Leadership coupled with resources outweigh either singularly. Had the south had the resources then the outcome would have been different. Like I said I take nothing away from General Grant, but his vast available resources ultimately led to his success.
Grant had a lot of good commanders in his armies.
He was also a man of the times and a true leader, unabashedly brutal, as well as, a military genius.
Sherman was a loyal subordinate and carried out Grant's orders very well. But on his own? If you look at Sherman's Atlanta campaign one has to come to the conclusion that he was a better strategist than tactician. His strategy for forcing Johnston back on Atlanta and his later overland campaign to Savannah and through the Carolinas was brilliant. But his execution of that plan between Chattanooga and Atlanta left much to be desired.
"If all earthly power were given to me […] my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.[22][23]"
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races"
"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
"I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. "
Grant was not the brilliant tactician Lee or Longstreet were. He didn’t need to be. Where they fought with a scalpel, he fought with a bludgeon.
But in the end, as all good generals do, he used the resources at his disposal to defeat his enemy. Unlike MacClellan, who hoarded the resources to little effect, or Hooker, who sacrificed them for nothing.
“Except the war wasn’t about slavery as Lincoln stated and the average Southerner owned no slaves. So your your “theory’ is well...BS.”
Wars are started and supported by politicians and moneyed interests, both of which were the ruling class of the South.
Much like our Middle East oil wars it wasn’t the common soldier who decided to start the war.
None of which indicate that Lincoln pursued the war that the South had started to end slavery. All of my quotes, on the other hand, make it clear that top to bottom the single most important reason why the Confederacy fought was to defend slavery. Which made your claim in reply 50 inaccurate.
Had the South had the resources, then the outcome might have been different.
You can have the resources but you still need the will and the leadership. The Confederacy had neither.
you call Malvern Hill, or Pickett’s charge a “scalpel” approach to tactics. Head long frontal assaults up hill against an enemy that was awaiting the attack backed up by hundreds of field artillery pieces. Real tactical brilliance at its best.
You are right the U.S. did not go to war over slavery. They were attacked by rebels who attempted to break apart a perpetual union over the results of a constitutionally mandated election. Why did they rebel? Because they feared that the newly elected republicans would stop the spread of slavery and eventually try to end it. Later the U.S. adopted freedom for the enslaved as a war aim.
As far as Lincoln being a racist? Almost everyone was during that time compared to now. However, Lincoln, from an early age, detested slavery and wanted to see all men be free. Which you would know if you did any research on Lincoln. This put Lincoln, morally, head and shoulders above every leader in the pretend confederacy.
“wherever he goes” Grant went to fort Donaldson, there he accepted the surrender of the fort and a Confederate Army. Grant went to Vicksburg. There he accepted the surrender of the city and a second Confederate Army. Grant goes to Chattanooga, within a week he has the besieged forces being resupplied and within two weeks drives Bragg’s Army of the Tennessee completely off of the high mountains surrounding Chattanooga. In the Spring of 1864 Grant decides to go South toward Richmond. Within eight weeks, the Army of Northern Virginia is penned up in Petersburg like a lamb awaiting slaughter. Within ten months, the Capital of the Confederacy falls to Union forces and a week later Grant will accept the surrender of a third Confederate Army.
Pretty fair track record for a man that was not a sophisticated opponent. “wherever he goes” Union victories follow.
Agreed. Trump was and is exactly that man we needed, at exactly the right time. Could any other person, let alone a political newcomer with a big mouth, have defeated the Hildebeast? And this despite massive vote fraud, FBI skulduggery and a toxic media, to name but a few of the bumps in the road to Washington?
Anybody who can’t see the Hand of God in all this just isn’t looking.
No, but I call Lee’s brilliant decision to split his forces at Chancellorsville an example.
And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Pickett’s charge was more Pickett’s idea than Lee’s.
Lee’s handling of his forces at Chancellorsville was excellent. But to what end. He won the battle, the victory produced not strategic advantage for the Confederacy. As far as Gettysburg, What evidence? Lee’s original plan was to use of all of Longstreet’s Corp for the attack. That proved impractical, it would have stripped all of the troops facing Lee’s right flank, leaving it exposed. Pickett’s division was chosen because his division was the only major unit of the Army of Northern Virginia that had not been in combat at Gettysburg. The decision to attack Meade’s center on the third day of the battle was Lee’s and Lee’s along.
And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Pickett’s charge was more Pickett’s idea than Lee’s.
I'll grant you the first one but I've never seen any evidence of the second.
I won’t try to compete with the military pundits of FR, but it seems to me that Lee was (mostly) an excellent tactician. He often knew how to win battles that most other generals would have lost. But I wouldn’t rank him as a great strategist.
George Washington, on the other hand, lost a lot of battles. But Washington won his war. Because Washington was a heck of a fine strategist. Strategy is more important than tactics.
a good case can be made that General Lee’s strategic thinking was less developed than his tactical skill.
Lee won a lot of battles where he defended the high ground and lost most battles where he attacked when the enemy held the high ground.
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.