Posted on 12/23/2008 4:51:52 AM PST by Davy Buck
It's really funny to read and observe those who believe they're the smartest people in the room when it comes to historical interpretation. Modern historians like for everyone to believe that studying history is akin to rocket science. Arrogance is so blinding. The faddish altar at which many CW historians are now worshiping has been christened "memory." Actually, it's a good concept--and a biblical one. The word "remember" is used 148 times in Scripture. It's important for a whole host of reasons. Scripturally, God wants us to remember His works in past generations, the consequences of rebellion, and the wisdom of great men of the past; what Scriptures refer to as the wisdom of "the ancients."
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
The war between the states was not one to free the slaves until AFTER Antietem, and then only by decree from Lincoln. it was at first a war to preserve the Union, to force the seceding states back into the nation.
The states and a lot of the founding fathers had little faith in a central government, and knew that would be a detriment to their way of life.
Lee believed that and Virginia was his 'country' if you will. The Emancipation Proclimation condemned the South to fight for a cause that was not an issue for a lot of them.
Lee was respected by the North, and loved by the men of the South. He could inspire them to great things, but could not make up for poor nutrition, poor clothing, poor armaments. The Napolianic theory of the 'great battle' was over due to advances in riflery and artillery. But niether side had any real 'thinkers' who realized this evolution until Grant.
Might want to read up on the Vicksburg campaign. Grant at his best, tactically and strategically.
Actually, no such position existed in the Confederacy until very late in the war. Jefferson Davis was the de facto "General-in-Chief" until he turned the job over to his disgraced friend Braxton Bragg in early 1864. Lee became "General-in-Chief" in early 1865, only a few weeks before his surrender, when it was far too late. Up to that point, he was only commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, with one mission, defend Virginia and the CS capital at Richmond. It wasn't his job to think about the big picture.
Also, most folks do not realize that he suffered a massive heart attack just after Chancellorsville, and had not recovered when he launched the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania a couple of weeks later. Throughout the Battle of Gettysburg, it's been documented that he was quite ill and not thinking clearly.
Specifically, when looking at the battleground and distribution of forces, it was irresistible to Lee to see the comparison with the Napoleonic battle of Austerlitz, perhaps the most studied battle of all time, and regarded as a masterpiece of tactics and maneuver.
Keep in mind too that by the time of Gettysburg, Lee had enjoyed his own successes, which paradoxically worked against him during that battle. For instance, he had seen first hand before at Gaines Mill, 2nd Bull Run, and at Chancellorsville, that his men could undertake successful frontal assaults at critical moments. He thought that they could do it again at Gettysburg, but he was wrong due to any number of reasons.
Some think Lincoln was the cowardly traitor. The Congress “clothed Lincoln with the military power of the whole nation; allowed him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and place all finances of the country in his hands; obliterated the state links, and abolished the state militias.”
Of course this led to civil war. The same thing is happening all over again, but with Obama at the helm now.
Lee was a great American and revered the General and the principles upon which this country was founded. Not so Lincoln!
Excellent post! Thanks.
Well said!
One of the most brilliant military minds to come out of West Point.
And he fought against the USA.
Doesn’t say much for West Point.
What's the motto? Duty, Honor, Country? Kinda tough for Lee to reconcile, wouldn't you say?
“....failing to defend successfully the rights of States to self-governance in such a distasteful matter has led to being unable to refuse the federal government anything, ever, even in the most righteous of matters, as is the situation we have now.”
Brilliantly stated!!
Thanks for reminding everyone that Lee was not made the “Supreme Commander” of Confederate forces until the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion. Lee should not be held accountable for the notable failures of others with similar command responsibilities. Gettysburg was a tactical failure for Lee, but the strategy (taking the fight to Union territory in an attempt to force an early stalemate and truce) was a sound one.
When I reported to my first company as an infantry lieutenant, my company commander had a quote from Rommel painted on the wall.
You guys are missing the point-—in the historical context of 1861, Lee did choose to fight for his country-—Virginia, a concept that is completely foreign to most people today.
That’s precisely what I was suggesting.
Not to mention he was not unilaterally forced to Surrender at Appamattox, he CHOSE to do so to avoid further bloodshed on both sides (thank God he did), however if he had wanted to carry out the war longer- I am sure General Lee and the talente southern dedicated soldiers could have marched on for another three years if they had wanted (and probably longer in gurilla form) if they had really wished and were so embittered as the modern liberal revisionists want to portray!
Very true, especially since northern Virginia was completely denuded of the resources needed to feed and supply his army by that point in the war. Quite frankly Lee realized that to continue fighting, he needed to head north and live off Pennsylvania's resources, while Virginia's farms and industries recovered during the respite. It was pretty much the ONLY strategy move that Lee had left after Chancellorsville, other than sitting back and fighting on the defensive in a war-torn, barren land, like Joe Johnston advocated.
I'm a Southerner, but that's just plain factually incorrect. The seccession documents of EVERY single southern state name Federal intervention on slavery as the primary cause of their secession.
I understand Lee's motivations for fighting on the side of the Confederacy. For a man of his social class, upbringing and standing, there was no other way, really.
But the man, through his command of his army, is responsible for the deaths of more loyal Americans than even Hitler. In terms of historical respect, he should not be placed in the same category as the Union generals who fought to preserve the Union.
hmmm..I guess Washington was a ‘traitor’ too, then since he I am sure violated some sort of oath of loyalty toward the British Crown, over the ‘outdated’ notions of liberty, freedom, and loyalty toward his fellow citizens and God??
The Founding Fathers knew, and accepted, that they were engaged in treason and rebellion against the British Crown. They made no pretense that what they were doing was legal under British law. Their rebellion was based on man's natural right to overthrow tyrants. However, the Founding Fathers knew what their fate would have been if they'd lost their rebellion- a short rope and a long drop.
In comparison, the Southern leadership made the ridiculous claim that their rebellion was somehow legal under the Constitution. When they lost, they were treated with much more restraint than probably any losing side of a rebellion in history, certainly with more restraint and forgiveness than King George would have shown to the Founding Fathers.
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.