Posted on 03/03/2008 10:37:49 AM PST by Rebeleye
They will tell you the Civil War was not about slavery. Remind them that the president and vice president of the so-called "Confederate States of America" both said it was. They will tell you that great-great grandpa Zeke fought for the South, and he never owned any slaves. Remind them that it is political leaders - not grunts - who decide whether and why a war is waged. They will tell you the flag just celebrates heritage. Remind them that "heritage" is not a synonym for "good." After all, Nazis have a heritage, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Lee was often on the attacking side, which usually has more casualties.
But there was never any indication that he was cavalier with the lives of his soldiers except for perhaps Pickett’s charge, for which he immediately took full responsibility.
Look at some of his other battles; Malvern Hill, for example. Or any of the Seven Days. Lee was hardly thrifty with the lives of his men.
OTOH, after Cold Harbor, which he lost badly, Grant refused to ask for a truce to retrieve the wounded because it would be an acknowledgment that he had lost.
Did Lee ask for a truce after Pickett's Charge? Or did he leave his dead and wounded where they lay?
There were other similar instances.
For example?
That will get you a reputation as a butcher and you’d deserve it.
Only by those who don't study both men.
That is a lie.
Now why don't you do as I ask -- go play with your fellow history revisionists, and quit pestering me?
The Confederate flag, the U.S. flag and the British Union Jack are all RED, WHITE, and BLUE!
You were unable to show a provision of the Confederate Constitution that did so, and you show a lack of understanding of the structure of the Confederacy.
It could be that you are projecting modern understanding of the United States constitutional structure onto the CSA, but it doesn't change your basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.
You don’t win a war on the defensive. That being said, except for the campaigns surrounding Antietam and Gettysburg, Lee was forced to mostly defend against southward incursions by the North.
You don’t win a war without taking casualties. Lee mostly inflicted much higher casualties on his opponent.
The battlefield at Cold Harbor was still contested. Having lost at Gettysburg, Lee left the field. It was no longer contested and there was no need for a truce.
That is a fact.
Now why don't you do as I ask -- go play with your fellow history revisionists, and quit pestering me?
Stop posting bullsh*t and I will.
Lee was on the attack during the Seven Days, Chancellorsville, and Second Bull Run. As well as Gettysburg.
You don’t win a war without taking casualties. Lee mostly inflicted much higher casualties on his opponent.
Numerically perhaps. But as a percentage of his army his losses were frequently higher than his opponent. And during his whole time as an army commander Lee lost more men in real numbers than did Grant, though Grant commanded armies longer.
The battlefield at Cold Harbor was still contested. Having lost at Gettysburg, Lee left the field. It was no longer contested and there was no need for a truce.
OK, how about the second day at Gettysburg? All those troops left around the Union lines. No truce was requested then, was there?
Article 4, section 2: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." If North Carolina had banned slavery, a resident of Virginia could go the the state with his slaves and live there regardless of local laws.
GO PESTER SOMEONE ELSE.
Every one of your examples is a counter attack by Lee after an initial attack by the North. That’s still a defensive action.
Percentages? So what. Lee always had smaller armies. Even so, he left more of his opponents dead on the battlefield in engagements in which Lee, by all rights, should have lost and been wiped out.
Obviously if the North had let them secede there would not have been a civil war!!
Obviously if the southern states had negotiated on all matters of disagreement prior to their leaving then the whole question of Sumter would not have come up and there would have been no reason for the confederacy to start a war over it.
Sure it is . . . your story. You picked one element from your citation . . . a rather huge element, I admit . . . and regard the rest as meaningless space filler. My story tries to be accurate.
A confederacy of sovereign states, so long as the states stayed in line and didn't try to do anything radical like free their slaves, of course.
Texas could have freed the slaves and declared that any slave brought within its jurisdiction was emancipated. But, that would be a violation of the Confederate Constitution and would have necessitated Texas seceding from the Confederacy as it had left the Union. If Texas declared its right to secede from the Union, you can't possibly believe it surrendered that right when it joined the confederacy.
Not so sovereign when you have Montgomery telling you what you can and cannot do.
You almost have a point, but not in the way I think you meant.
There were times when most of Texas was under Confederate martial law, so much so that it effectively usurped State government and therefore State sovereignty.
But, that does not change Texas's status within the Confederacy, no matter how much you may wish to bend it to fit your story.
That's nonsense, as I've previously demonstrated to you. The Southern leaders certainly had reason to think that the North was going to evacuate the fort (such as, say, secretaries within Lincoln's administration TELLING them this was the case, at least before Lincoln reined them in), and the appearance of warships outside Charleston harbour BEFORE the first shots were fired.
Please, stow it with your unhistorical nonsense.
Not always. And not as a percentage of his forces. If I have an army of 60,000 men opposing an army of 90,000 men, and suffer 30,000 casualties to their 40,000 casualties then who is better off after the shooting stops?
We started with the war atrocities committed by Northern troops against the undefended civilian populations. Theater-wide. By multiple commanders. In multiple places. Please tell me again how barbaric the South is and how civilized is the North.
How about the confederate propensity for murdering black Union soldiers when they tried to surrender? Time and again, at Fort Pillow and Olustee and Plymouth and Poison Spring and the Crater. Is that atrocity enough for you? What about their orders to execute Butler and Pope and other generals if captured, without benefit of trial. Or their order that any black Union soldiers they bothered to capture would be returned to slavery and their officers shot. Where was their justification in that? How about the confederate army's habit of rounding up any free blacks they came across during their 1862 and 1863 campaigns and returning them to the confederacy for use as slaves? Is there a rule of war that authorized that? Be careful what path you want to go down.
BOTH sides were at fault. The South had elements within its leadership who were, in the very least, trigger happy (Davis included). The North ALSO contributed to the disarray by sending out all kinds of conflicting signals, and eventually settling on the most aggressive response to the crisis short of opening fire themselves.
I don't think the North was solely at fault, but I also don't do the Non-Sequitur style revisionism that we all learned in 8th grade civics class, either. A fair and accurate reading of the historical record in its entire context indicates that there is enough blame for Fort Sumter to go around on BOTH sides.
Typically, when you have to make fun of someone's spelling during a debate, it merely indicates that you're an idiot with no argument.
The Dixie defenders of freedom had to protect themselves while they were fighting for the right to self-government.
If the results had not been so tragic, the Confederate philosophical pretensions would be the biggest laugh in history.
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.