.
Posted on 09/08/2021 6:31:39 AM PDT by Cecily
Watch a livestream of the Lee statue in Richmond being removed from its pedestal on Monument Avenue.
The stream, provided by VPM, will begin at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, and for the first hour the stream "will also feature relevant photos and footage related to the removal of the monument," according to a news release from the state agencies overseeing the project.
(Excerpt) Read more at richmond.com ...
I would probably agree with that. I don't think people realize how much Lee did with very little. He was tasked with defending the Confederate Capital, but he still fought an aggressive war that kept the Army of the Potomac chasing its tail. His aggressiveness helped sell the idea that the Army of Northern Virginia was larger and stronger than it was. After the surrender, many Northern generals were shocked to find out what a scarecrow/depleted force had faced them from the defenses at Petersburg.
Also, the South came a lot closer to winning than people think. All they had to do was keep up the war until the North tired of it. A "draw" in the war would have meant a victory for the South because they would have achieved their independence. After the bloody battles of The Wilderness and Spotsylvania, war weariness was setting in among the northern states. Had Lincoln lost the election in 1864, it's quite possible the North would have ceased fighting.
I don't think we will ever really "get" the loyalty some felt to their state over their country. Lee said that when Virginia seceded, she took him along. Had Virginia not seceded, he would have stayed with the Union. Too bad Lee did not stay with the Union. Imagine Lee in command of Northern forces at Antietam when the knowledge of the rebel army splitting into separate parts became known (due to a rebel officer dropping a map that showed the disposition of the Southern forces. The officer had wrapped some cigars in the map.). He would have crushed the rebellion then and there (as McClellan should have).
Of course, when we try to decide great generals, we have to take into account the times in which they lived. Maybe a 19th century general would fail in modern times, and vice versa.
Not according to R.E. Lee himself.
“I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grants superior as a general.”
R.E. Lee.
Quoted; General Grant. J G Wilson. New York; Appleton, 1913, 367.
.
You are correct, and i misspoke.
Thanks for shining a light on yourself and others
Who knew
It’s less complicated
Blacks own Richmond
Big daddy like other myopic south bashers here enjoys self righteousness especially over race
In today’s man it’s supplanted horniness in the pecking order of emotion for many
Lord where to being how full of shite you have always been sweetie
It’s so funny how the American Revolution is virtually the same. Even in your description.
Washington doesn’t get the credit he deserves. His situation was MUCH worse than the noted “rag-tag” Confederate army. He dealt with much worse, including trying to ensure Congress had a say in how the war was run so he was not a military dictator. Once Washington threw off that concern his natural genius becomes even more apparent. And it’s not all due to the French, despite constant refrains that it was. They hardly did anything besides supply. Washington had to hold it together with almost nothing, and wear them down also. He did so.
Tragic. He would be horrified to see the nation ripped apart again, by the communists this time. Lee was such a humble man, and worked hard at putting the war behind us. He would be sickened that people were again divided in his name.
I hope he never even knew what a communist was. But as well educated as he was, he probably did.
Tragic.
Oh cry me a River
You’re a damn liar
You love it
That was a very wise statement, and attitude, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he disdained Lee or even thought himself better.
Grant was right not to worry so much about Lee’s approach, regardless.
I agree that historian short change Washington’s military abilities. One key thing he had was the ability to learn from mistakes !
Go ahead, you get started.
May I suggest you begin here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3979429/posts
Lots of fun for one and all.
We look to General Robert E. Lee with wistful nostalgia. He towers like the Chrysler Building over the midgets who lead today's military--Mark Milley, who fights white privilege with far more enthusiasm than he fights Islamic terrorism, Tommy Franks, the bungler who let Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists escape from Tora Bora, Stanley McChrystal, who failed in Afghanistan and now supports Biden and advocates gun control and a universal draft, and the polyamorous David Petraeus.
I guess I rate him a little below Lee only because he did not skillfully wield large armies as Lee did (Washington didn't have any!). I read a 4-volume biography of Washington about a year ago and was kind of surprised how much less fighting occurred in the Revolution as opposed to the Civil War. However, Washington was the man for the job. His inspirational qualities as a leader held the Continental Army together. I think he would have been bitterly disappointed in Lee for deserting the cause of the Union.
I never meant to suggest that Grant disdained Lee. I know of no evidence indicating that he did. But I also have never seen anything to suggest that Grant was in awe of Lee or felt that he was an inferior commander to Lee.
He was a genius of slipping away.
Or at least, he was up against commanders who refused to believe it.
IIRC (after years I may forget which was which), after Trenton (which is more than people think - including the fact that Brits came in to re-enforce and pinned the rebel army across the Assunpink), Howe wanted to rest for the night. Subordinate generals including Cornwallis begged him to press the attack. They knew Washington would probably have something up his sleeve.
Next thing they knew, Washington and the army had slipped away east and headed to Princeton.
Watch the Democrat Robert E. Lee statue...
The Christian abolitionists formed the Republican Party when the Democrats adamantly stood for slavery and the Whigs only half pretended to be abolitionist.
I bite my tongue supporting Republicans today. But history is very much on the side of the Republicans and very much against the Dims.
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.