Longstreet becomes target of Lee's admirers

WashTimes ^ | July 12, 2003 | Ken Kryvoruka

[stainlessbanner]

He was, at the war's end, the senior lieutenant general in the Confederate Army, Lee's trusted friend and second-in-command of the Army of Northern Virginia --- yet it was not until 1998 that a statue was erected anywhere to honor James Longstreet. This slight can be traced to his membership in the Republican Party during Reconstruction, but even more damaging to his reputation was the image created by his postwar enemies: He became a villain in Southern eyes, a scapegoat for the Confederate defeat, and one of the South's most controversial figures.

[stainlessbanner]

In addition to the Indian atrocities, he took pride in the wholesale destruction of Meridian as well.

[LS]

Sherman was a warrior, period. A great one. Like Napoleon, he didn't do much else well. In that sense, he was much unlike Patton, who was an intellectual.

The problem is, when a cause needs a warrior, you want EXACTLY the kind of "scumbags" like Sherman to be leading your troops, because it is their lives that will be saved in the end. He was phenomenally frugal with the lives of his men, unlike Jackson, Lee, or especially Grant and Burnside. For that he deserves praise.

[LS]

Ummm, Joe Johnston was pretty good. Stuart was exceptional, except for his propensity to do his own thing. Lee's artilleryman was better than anyone in the Union.

You can cite more Union guys because, ultimately, they had a bigger army. But I don't see you citing Hooker, Burnside, McDowell, or some of the inept commanders in Tennessee. But we'll call it a draw.

[labard1]

I don't know where people are reading their history these days, but it's hard to believe the Wilderness is considered a Grant victory. Perhaps the New York Times is the source.

[LS]

Bill, it's a weak, morally reprehensible argument. The "absence" of slave revolts said nothing about their will or desire and everything about the horrendous oppresive legal/social system that did not allow slaves to walk around in the fields without BELLS affixed to their persons. For Pete's sake, man, you are on JUPITER on this one.

The historical evidence is indisputable, irrefutable, and (I know I'm treading thin here) it is really only racial extremists who make such repulsive contentions any moer. I sincerely hope you aren't one of those, and just aren't informed of the historical evidence. I note you have not yet read the book I mentioned. Read it, look at the data, then we'll talk. No more communcations from you will be noted until you are willing to confront some evidence.

[Non-Sequitur]

But I don't see you citing Hooker, Burnside, McDowell, or some of the inept commanders in Tennessee. But we'll call it a draw.

Joe Johnston split the win at First Bull Run and it was all down hill from there, probably because Davis couldn't stand him. And I don't see you citing Bragg, Hood, Polk or other inept confederate corps and army commanders.

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't know where people are reading their history these days, but it's hard to believe the Wilderness is considered a Grant victory.

It was a victory in the same manner that Lee's campaign on the Penninsula in 1862 was a victory. Grant took the initiative and held it, in spite of casualties, just as Lee had done. Grant forced Lee to react rather than act, as Lee did to McClellan. Lee retreated time and again, relentlessly pursued by the Union army. He never had the upper hand. That is why it was a victory, NY Times notwithstanding. From the moment Grant started south in May 1865 until the day he surrendered, Lee never once held the initiative. He never had a chance to win, and he knew it.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Forrest was the most remarkable soldier the Civil War produced and is credited by Erwin Rommel himself as being the inspiration for swift moving, mechanized warfare that came to be known as "BlitzKrieg."

The word "blitzkrieg" came from the western press. It is not a German word. The German operational technique that they used so successfully in France involved advances down parallel roads that led generally in the direction of advance. Two columns would leap frog down the road net, striking enemy forces, if possible, by envelopment. This technique didn't have a name as such.

Interestingly, the French operation was the only time the Germans were able to use this doctrine as conceived. In Poland they weren't ready to execute it. In Russia or Africa, there wasn't enough of a road net to support this type of maneuver. It wasn't suitable in Italy, and in France, 1944, our air power made it impossible. A few U.S. formations were able to use this type of operation, notably the 4th Armored Division under John S. Wood, but most U.S. and no British unit could execute this form of combined arms in WWII.

Walt

[labard1]

And Grant's casualties as a percentage of Lee's army? What a victory! Especially at Cold Harbor! Lee did have slightly higher casualties on the Penninsula campaign, but he was new to the command, had terrrible communication problems, was on the attack, and still had only modestly higher casualties. Lee slaughtered Grant's troops in the Wilderness. Fighting well in a losing cause does not make the individual battles defeats. Look, I share a very high regard for Stonewall Jackson, but Lee was not entirely untalented. Forrest was able to win many of his victories with minimal casualties, which distinguishes his remarkable feats.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lee slaughtered Grant's troops in the Wilderness.

Compare the casualties, especially as a percentage of the army available, and you'll see that Lee bled his own army white in the Wilderness. And with no chance for replacements since the southern supply was empty. And you ignore the strategic aspect of the battle as well. From a strategic aspect Lee won nothing from May 1864 on.

[Ohioan]

What is weak, and morally reprehensible is your need to hurl aspersions against your fellow Americans who had a different system, than you or I think was a good system. While there were some harsh slave owners, there were many who were not. There were also laws which protected the rights of slaves in every State but Louisiana.

As for reading your material, I have read a great deal of such material. As a student at Oberlin College, I had access to the vicious propaganda that the Anti-Slavery Societies put out against the South from the 1830s up until the War. It was a bad as anything in Pravda. The facts are as I represent, and I suggest you reread my last post, which correctly describes the type of argument you are using.

If I wanted to respond to a listing of individual incidents, rather than looking at the broad picture, as an argument, I would cite to you the thousands upon thousands of Southern Negroes who named their children--even well into the 20th Century for prominent Whites--prominent slave holding Whites. (That was why Cassius Clay changed his name, when he became a Moslem.) But your type of argument is not a rational one, so I will not respond in kind.

The reason that Booker T. Washington was such an effective leader was because his references to behavior and sentiment were well known by those who had lived through the era. The sort of hate spreading effort, you seem to be embracing, really never got past a narrow range of Northern Abolitionist fanatics--i.e., the propaganda in the Oberlin Library, that I mentioned--until all of those who had lived through the era, had died off.

Be honest. Are you really interested in a fair assessment of Southern History, or in justifying sociopaths like John Brown, and the obsessed Thad Stevens?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[LS]

"a good system"

Slaveocracy.

No need to hurl "aspersions." You hurl them at yourself. Morally reprehensible.

[mac_truck]

I would cite to you the thousands upon thousands of Southern Negroes who named their children--even well into the 20th Century for prominent Whites --prominent slave holding Whites.

Cassius M. Clay of Kentucky, was an ardent anti-slavery Whig, with a reputation for recklessness. He was elected to the Kentucky state legislature several times in the 1830s until his ardent anti-slavery views caused him defeat. Cassius Clay then started an anti-slavery publication called The True American in Lexington Kentucky, which he moved to OHIO after a mob in Kentucky burned down his office. He left the Whig party in 1850 to run for governor of Kentucky on the anti-slavery ticket. He became a Republican in 1856.

(That was why Cassius Clay changed his name, when he became a Moslem.)

No, it isn't. Sounds to me like you need to spend less time hurling aspersions and learn some basic facts about the Republican party. While you're at it, see if you can get your money back from Oberlin.

[LS]

BTW, the notiont that blacks had control, on most plantations, of naming their children is itself a myth. The masters named them, and often sold them.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thaddeus Stevens was the greatest Republican who ever lived.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"slaves remained loyal" -- a contradiction in terms

[BlueLancer]

"...Forrest expressed his utter contempt for the way Hood threw away the lives of men who could not be replaced, and whose absence led to the total destruction of the army at Nashville ..."

Oh, I'm going ever southward to tell my tale of woe,
I'm going back to Georgia to see my Uncle Joe.
You can sing about your Beauregards
Or talk of General Lee ...
But the gallant Hood of Texas
Sure played hell in Tennessee.

Shelby Foote, History of the Civil War
(song allegedly sung by survivors of the Army of Tennessee as they withdrew south after the Battle of Nashville...to the tune of "Yellow Rose of Texas")

That being said, I'm a Longstreet/Joe Johnston man ...
Maneuver the enemy around the field and then force him into a position where he has to attack you (Strategic offensive/tactical defensive)

[Ohioan]

Thaddeus Stevens was the greatest Republican who ever lived.

Thad Stevens was a hate driven fanatic. If you choose to identify with him, that is your choice. But for the Republican party to identify with him, would be to commit suicide.

I suppose by the same token, you identify with Citizen Robespierre in the 'reign of terror?' Or do you just prefer your egalitarian fanatics to be closer to home?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Ohioan]

"slaves remained loyal" -- a contradiction in terms

To suggest that one in bondage may not be loyal is an absurdity. History is full of the loyal and faithful servants. They are celebrated in the Bible; celebrated in the classical world; celebrated throughout European history.

Not all of the brave lads who stood with Henry V at Agincourt, were freemen; many of the seamen who did what England "expected" for Nelson at Trafalgar, had never intended to join the British Navy--nor had their being seized by press gangs, been according to some equitable formula, like the modern draft.

Your Thad Stevens endorsement made your point. You have a fanatic need to fight an historic battle against the Old South. But that doesn't make your hatred rational.

William Flax

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thaddeus Stevens did not hate anybody -- he opposed capital punishment and even offered to denfed Jefferson Davis against a possible death sentence. Enemies of the greatest Republican who ever lived honored him by caricaturing him as the villain of the pro-Ku Klux Klan movie, Birth of a Nation. Unlike the rebel traitors and their neo-Confederate propagandists today, Stevens loved the United States of America and had no respect for slave masters or their apologists.

The euology at his funeral, attended by 20,000 patriots, half being emancipated Americans, was:

"God give to Vermont another son; Lancaster, another citizen; Pennsylvania, another statesman; the country, another patriot; the poor, another friend; the freedmen, another benefactor; the race, another friend; and the world, another man like Thaddeus Stevens"

Amen!