Robert E. Lee: Remembering an American Legend

Canada Free Press ^ | January 15, 2012 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[Samson0254]

“If he had not married who he did he would have still been an unknown, sorting toilet paper in some no name post.”

His service in the U. S. Armed Forces before the Civil War disproves this statement in and of itself. His private life both before and after his service is more than sufficient evidence to make your statement ridiculous.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Being that I’m from the Midwest originally (though my state had its own nasty little civil-war-within-the-Civil_war), I just don’t see why people are still going on about it 150 years after it ended.

[Yashcheritsiy]

You just think that Sherman's March was bad. If the Civil War had turned into a stalemate resembling the trench warfare of World War I, there would have been a lot more death and suffering, both among the civilian and military populations. Some of Lee's trenchworks were downright scary.

Ironically, Sherman's march helped to shorten the war. Sherman was smart enough to avoid a lot of the stalemating head-on collision of forces that were so common in the CW. He preferred a war of manoeuvre and surprise. Part of what made him so feared by the South was that you just didn't know exactly where he was going to turn up striking. He split his columns, and they didn't know if he was going for Savannah, or if he was heading south into Florida, or if he was going to turn up into South Carolina, or what. As a result, the Southerners tended to hole up behind entrenchments in cities, while he just went around them and lived off the land, while demoralising the entire Confederacy, but especially its plantation class.

Shoot, if I'd been a Northern general, I'd have done the same thing.

Of course, if I'd been a Southern general, I would have cut loose and burned an arc from Cincinnati to Philadelphia, shipping machinery and machine tools back along my track the whole way across.

[Locomotive Breath]

Lee’s real problem at Gettysburg was the loss of Jackson who was his #1 offensive field commander. Longstreet was much better on defense. That and Stuart suffering from an attack of the stupids and depriving Lee of intelligence by riding off in search of glory.

[central_va]

Let me guess, you're one of those types that thinks we shouldn't have dropped atomic bombs on Japan and should have invaded instead, since we were "waging warfare on an unarmed and defenseless civilian population."

Let me guess, you're one of those types that equates the War of Southern Independence to Naziism and Japanese Imperialism. Placing Southerner in your pathetic mind on par with those peoples, really?

[Brilliant]

You are very right about Jackson, but Lee’s mistakes at Gettysburg were so incredible that I find myself asking if maybe it was actually Jackson who was the smart one instead of Lee.

I heard recently while watching a History Channel show that some scholars think Lee may have suffered a heart attack just before Gettysburg, which precluded him from thinking clearly. I can see why they might think that, given what he did, but it strikes me as just an attempt to make excuses for him.

An interesting question in my mind is whether Longstreet maybe should have handled it differently. Could he have removed Lee? Could he have at least been more forceful in his argument? He clearly knew that what Lee was doing would bring down the Confederacy, but he did not stop him.

Apparently, his deference to authority was greater than his desire for a Confederate victory. I suppose that is something he learned at West Point, but actually having to make the decision in real life is something very different from theory.

[Locomotive Breath]

Next you’ll be telling me that the victorious Japanese raping undefended Nanking, Manilla and so many others was also justified as a normal part of war.

Hamburg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki all were legitimate military targets surrounded by civilian populations. To attack military targets, the civilians also ended up being attacked. In modern parlance, this is known as “collateral damage”.

As there were no effective military forces opposing him, the only legitimate military objective for Sherman was the southern rail net. Transportation of goods and military supplies having been completely brought to a halt, pillage and killing in the surrounding undefended rural countryside had no military value and did nothing to shorten the war. As Sherman himself proudly stated it was simply for the sake of retribution and revenge.

Find me another more example in U.S. military history where an undefended civilian population was attacked specifically for the sake of attacking civilians without any legitimate military objective.

In any event, his actions don’t make Sherman some kind of military genius. In the long run, if the goal was to reunify the country, Sherman’s actions, and the subsequent revenge and retribution in the form of “Reconstruction”, were counter productive.

As the north, from Wisconsin to Massachusetts, spirals into economic oblivion the south will be arriving to help any day now. Or maybe not.

The war DID turn into stalemate trench warfare around Richmond. Beyond tearing up the railways, Sherman’s rapine had no impact in Virginia. Grant made costly frontal attack after costly frontal attack against heavily fortified positions. The eventual difference there was that Grant had overwhelming superiority and could “afford” the losses. Grant was simply able to stretch the lines to such a distance that the defenders were spread too thin and Grant was about to get around behind the defenders.

[RJS1950]

I would probably agree that Grant was probably superior and the evidence is in the fact that he along with his handpicked subordinates such as Sherman proved that they were superior by winning. Longstreet is another whom I believe was better than Lee in strategic and tactical thought. Longstreet seemed more able to evaluate the circumstance of the moment and come up with viable plans of action. The difference between him and Lee was that Longstreet’s thinking was not skewed by the accolades he received. The mythology of Lee and his invincibility will not go away anytime soon, even after all of these years.

[Locomotive Breath]

Lee knew Longstreet was always “Mr. Negative” and discounted his advice on many occasions. Had Jackson been there and advised then something else might have been done.

In battle after battle, Longstreet defended against a Union attack while Jackson maneuvered for a counterstrike with Lee conducting from on high with faith in each field commander’s strength in his respective role. Lee’s version of Patton’s “We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass.”

With Jackson gone, one of the essential elements that had served the south so well was gone. Cut off one leg from a three-legged stool and the stool falls over.

[RJS1950]

Where is the documentation that any of that happened? As in all wars, those things happen and did I’m sure along the way there were incidents but there is little evidence that most of what went on was anthing more than sporadic and to say that Sherman or his subordinates ordered it is pure BS. As far as taking food from little kids mouths goes, the confederate armies also confiscated what they needed as they marched through the south in the latter part of the war. There are so many claims that this town or that was pillaged and burned when the towns mentioned were nowhere near the path of the troop movement that the whole narrative becomes ridiculous.

The south lost, get over it.

[fabian]

Yes...what great general would march troops in open fields to be basically mowed down in hopes of breaking through the enemy lines? Insanity. And not just Lee...

[ßuddaßudd]

I didnt know that. . . thanx

[Locomotive Breath]

“I intend to make Georgia howl.”

If I have to educate you on Sherman’s scorched earth policy in Georgia there’s no help for you.

The south is over it. As the rust belt sinks into decrepitude the south is gloating at how over it the south is.

[Locomotive Breath]

They were all practicing Napoleonic tactics in the industrial age. Tactics lag technology. The generals of WWI repeated the same mistakes.

[central_va]

As far as taking food from little kids mouths goes, the confederate armies also confiscated what they needed as they marched through the south in the latter part of the war.

Care to document that? Reference to that?

[duffee]

My favorite of the War Memorials is on the South side of the Mississippi State Capitol, I can’t remember when it was erected but I believe it was by one of the Confederate Vetrans Organizations in the late 1800s. It is dedicated to the women of the Confereracy and the four sides of the monument, each carry a tribute to the Mothers, Wives, Sisters and the Daughters.

[af_vet_rr]

Let me guess, you're one of those types that equates the War of Southern Independence to Naziism and Japanese Imperialism. Placing Southerner in your pathetic mind on par with those peoples, really?

I was talking about targets, not political ideologies. You made the leap between targets and political ideologies. Would this example make you feel better: Germany bombing London, the V1 and V2 rocket attacks, Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in both World War I and World War II that saw many a civilian sent to a watery grave. You could easily argue for and against all three of those. Even the V1 and V2 rocket attacks, as inaccurate as they were, tied up valuable military resources.

But now that you mention it, if you were a black slave that watched your children and your wife being sold off as if they were livestock, your opinion of the South would not be very high.

[fabian]

yes but any really bright general woullmd have acted like Washington did in defeating the British. It is commonsense!

[af_vet_rr]

Next you’ll be telling me that the victorious Japanese raping undefended Nanking, Manilla and so many others was also justified as a normal part of war.

What Sherman did came nowhere close to Nanking or the atrocities in the Philippines. I'm not even sure why you'd make the comparison. A better modern equivalent to what Sherman did was a combination of unrestricted submarine warfare/naval blockades to deprive both the civilian and military populations of foodstuffs and other resources, with some of the terror of the V1/V2 attacks and the Blitz (the "retribution and revenge" part as you put it) and a touch of Hamburg/atomic bombings.

Had the Royal Navy not been so successful in blocking food and materials from reaching Germany in WWI, WWI could have dragged on further. If the German U-Boat campaigns of WWI or II had succeeded in depriving England of food and materials, it could have drastically changed the war.

In all of these cases, civilians bore the brunt of the suffering. As you said, that is "collateral damage".

As there were no effective military forces opposing him, the only legitimate military objective for Sherman was the southern rail net.

It was not Sherman's fault that Hood gave up so easily and ran, but you forget a vital piece of the puzzle: Food. Sherman had completely isolated himself from Northern supply lines both from the west and the north. Sherman's men had to eat. They were going to eat.

Food has always been a valid military target. History is chock-full of examples of this. The saying "An army travels on its stomach" applies to the 1810s, 1860s, the 1910s, the 1940s, etc.

As I said, Shermans' March was not random. He deliberately picked areas that were producing a lot of food, both to feed his men and to deprive the Southern forces and civilians.

[rockrr]

Hiya BigReb555 - I see it’s time for your sockpuppet act again.