Posted on 06/30/2015 6:19:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
x: No, there aren't.
How about this one from an FR Lee thread of yore:
"Robert E. Lee, along with Jefferson Davis, were directly responsible for the deaths of more Americans, over 600,000, then Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, COMBINED!"
Without a doubt. But what would Lee have thought if his subordinates had decided that they were no longer part of the US when they were risking their lives in Mexico or on the Texas frontier? When Lee was fighting in the Mexican War, did he really think of himself as a Virginian first and foremost with his actions to be determined by whether Virginia's government supported the war?
Winfield Scott, a Virginian who served in both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, didn't think so. 2/5ths of the Virginians in the US Army in 1860 didn't think so either. The number similar if not higher among Southerners in the Navy and Marines. Many of them faced great enmity from their families and neighbors, but their choice did represent an honorable alternative to Lee's.
Many of Lee's relatives stayed with the US, rather than go with the secessionists. They wondered why someone who believed secession would mean "ruin and anarchy" as Lee did, would go along with the Confederacy. Was that really the wisest and best choice? Is it really something we aren't allowed to question and criticize?
Good reads on this point are the books “April 1865” and “Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Gary Wills.
Garry Wills had a very definite agenda in writing that book (and the rest of his books). He also loves to show off how smart he thinks he is. He's a very bright guy indeed, but he's not the most reliable commentator.
Certainly the Civil War changed America, but a major reason why it did was because many Americans already thought in national terms. That more didn't had a lot to do with the controversies over slavery and abolitionism.
You’re asking the wrong question.
The question is, had Virginia seceded rather than take part in the Mexican War, and the US President decided to invade to force the state back into the Union, would Lee have resigned and gone home?
I think the answer is yes.
Also, resigning one's commission and not fighting and resigning to take on a commission from another army that could and would fight against the army that you were in are two very different things.
People wouldn't object so much if Lee had left the army and sat out the war. Plenty of the Southerners who stayed in the US Army didn't see action in the War, but were given other assignments in the West or at West Point.
Makes no difference to me in re: WBTS.
Custer had it coming. He was a megalomaniac. So, if you like that kind of leadership, in a velvet custom uniform, then you’d like a Wesley Clark. Presentation impresses, reality of leadership and facts, do not. Longstreet ate this little creep’s lunch, as did JEB Stuart. His own men deserted him at LBH— because he disregarded obvious expert intel.
Always love the story of the squaws who came to rob the dead and continue insult on them— they pierced both his eardrums to open his ears so he would hear better before the Great Spirit. Deo Vindice.
Foolish, foolish remarks. You are entitled to your opinions although I have a feeling that you probably hate all Union leaders. I do not. The war is over. Both sides had amazing soldiers - Custer was one of the most interesting. And, yes, he was amazingly charismatic. Wesley Clark is practically a metrosexual and Custer was one mean hombre.
Yes, the Confederate soldier-haters are riff on FR. I’ve been there along with you. Of course, there are some southerners who hate Union soldiers but there seem to be less of them - or perhaps, less inclined to go nuclear.
I’d like to read that essay. I’ll see if it’s online. To be honest, I don’t think Rush is a neocon. I also have never heard him talk about the civil war. He is certainly against the flag ban - and is, surprisingly, Mark Levin. Now going to look to this essay!
Lee didn’t exactly quit the US Army and take up a commission with the CS Army the next day.
He resigned from the US Army. He was then persuaded to take up leadership in what was the then-equivilant of Virginia’s National Guard. Which he saw as being defensive in nature.
He was only persuaded (and “persuaded” is the right word to use) to join the CS Army (first as a military advisor and then field commander) because he saw it is the only way to effectively defend Virginia.
Even his two invasions of the North were largely defensive in nature. A primary goal of the campaign that led to Gettysburg was to get the Union Army out of the Shennandoah Valley during the planting season and resupply the Army of Northern Virginia from Pennsylvania farms. While the Battle of Gettysburg was a major military defeat, when it came to those other goals it was actually quite successful.
One of his callers was going on about the North went to war freeing slaves blah blah blah and Rush shut him up and quoted Lincoln about freeing none of the slaves and preserving the union. He also said the South wanted to be left alone to do their own thing, states rights.
Rush's pre show prep is Freeping of this I am convinced.
I'm reminded of Gore Vidal's rage at Norman Podhoretz saying that the civil war meant nothing to him - it was as far removed as the Peloponnesian Wars! Gore Vidal is one of the most brilliant writers on early American history - even though he became a bigoted nut in old age.
I think some of Rush’s staff do look at FR. I have no doubt of that. They particularly look at the people who are listening during his broadcast.
Foolish? Your opinions are yours. Facts are otherwise. You are simply, wrong. You can’t put humpty dumpty back together again. Wartime promotions in a large mostly poorly run union army commanded by multiple perfumed prince crippled failures— these do not make a warrior no matter how some writer apologist tries to rewrite it (not to mention the basket case who was president who admirably and desperately was trying to satisfy his oligarch railroad masters and stockjobbers who had reached their limits of capital expansion, short of the war he delivered to them). “Mister, here’s your mule”! It must have been the “celibacy of the saddle” that drove Custer to wear velvet— yep, rock star.
There are numerous Union military leaders who stand out as superior: Winfield Scott Hancock,John Buford,Joshua Chamberlain,David Farragut- to name a few. Many more notable exceptions- Sickles, Custer,McClellan, Hooker,Schurz,and the psychopath Turchaninov come to mind.
Not one to wax romantic about the old South, and holding no hatred for any but the northern lying oligarchs, the practical fact is that the war should not have happened- but was driven to happen, as they always have— by power brokers and the moneyed interests, and in this case the West expansion, Mexican/European intrigue and greed.
They placed the human dregs of the post WBTS union army on the frontier for indian eradication, people who were disengaged- immigrants, psycho glory seekers and profiteers. A sad chapter. Custer had it coming and the Lord, and Custer’s equally despicable command saw fit.
They DON’T teach Custer (except as what NOT to do) at ANY military academy of repute. Not Sandhurst, West Point, USNA, USAFA... not even École spéciale militaire de Saint-Cyr. They do teach Lee, Longstreet, some Grant (some). They teach Cetshwayo kaMpande,and... Stonewall Jackson,Douglas MacArthur and George Patton.
In any event, historians now consider that with the passage of time, Lee became more of a dedicated, convinced Confederate, less reluctant and more determined. Indeed, it would have been surprising, if commanding an army and sending men into battle, if he wasn't committed to the cause. But when we take the full measure of the man, we have to consider who he was and what he believed when the war was at its high point, as well as who he was and what he may have believed in 1860 or 1870.
“To be honest, I don’t think Rush is a neocon”
I don’t either but sometimes he shows their influence. One reason being that for a long time Rush appeared to be clueless what they were about and that some of them harbor a dislike for pre-Reagan America. They were happy Cold War liberal Democrats until the isolationist McGovern and the inept Carter crew took over their party.
I’m glad you found it. It’s a great essay but unfortunately we can’t link to it.
I have no idea what they teach at military colleges today - probably gender neutrality and what to do when stuck in a foxhole with a horny transgender woman (or is it man?) But if you want to study a strong, determined manly soldier from a family of brave warriors, you could do worse than Custer. Or Grant, for that matter.
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.