Posted on 07/15/2003 6:06:12 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:05:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dynamic.washtimes.com ...
According to "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 4" Grant started south in May 1864 with 118,000 men. Opposing him was Lee's Army of Northern Virginia with 61,000 men. One year later at Appomattox Grant had 120,00 men facing Lee who had about 25,000 men. Who ran out first?
I agree with the second part of the author's statement, but find the first laughable. Before I had studied history in depth on my own, I too had fallen victim to the Longstreet martyr myth. The battle reports of his own field commanders after Gettysburg expose the "excuses" and "reasons" in his memoirs for what they are - selfserving lies. He was brilliant at Chickamauga, and I have long stated that he deserved a statue at that location. I have also long stated that he should have been shot following Gettysburg for his repeated and willfull disobedience of Lee's instructions in regards to the timing and purpose of attacks. A good example is the attack on roundtop. It is often repeated by victims of pro-Longstreet revisionism how Hood wanted to reposition so he could mount a flank attack instead of a frontal assault, but that Longstreet said Lee insisted they attack "as planned". What they don't realise is that if Longstreet had not delayed the attack for over five hours, Hood would have been mounting a flank attack, which is exactly what Lee had planned and ordered in the first place. During those many many hours of delay the union extended their flank and Longstreet did NOT report this fact back to Lee. What Hood wanted to do is what Lee had planned all along, and what would have happened if Longstreet had not needlessly delayed and delayed. Longstreet, of course, never saw fit to mention this fact after the battle. Another good example of the Longstreet myth is "his plan" at Gettysburg. According to the union commanders' reports and letters, what they expected Lee to try and do is exactly what Longstreet's bemoaned plan was. It's EXACTLY what they were most prepared to defend against if it were attempted. Another little tidbit that Longstreet fans and "historians" forget to mention.
You're absolutely right, because the Allies would have fractured and the Nazis would have won. Montgomery and DeGaulle would have GONE HOME.
However, the idea that the Brits would have gone home, simply because their egos would have clashed with Patton's, is a bit ridiculous. Britain had a much more immediate, as well as a greater stake in defeating Germany than we did. She had no choice but to fight on.
But again, my purpose was a dry comment, based upon Patton's expressed interest in getting it on with the Communists.
William Flax
Maybe. The military speculation parts of this thread are all in good fun, so there is no problem.
It is another matter, of course, with those who cannot have an historic argument, without trying to demean traditional American values. But perhaps those folk have lost a little of their taste for the combat they stirred up. Or maybe, I will come back in a day or two, and find my reputation being aspersed.
Have a good weekend!
Julian Bond? Is that you? Nice to see a so called Republican ape-ing the rhetoric of the left. I'll Ping you to more NAACP press releases to show you boys how much you sound like them.
I didn't know true Republicans parroted the cheap smears of people like Julian Bond to make a false point.
Also, Julian Bond likes to compare the GOP to the Taliban. You sound a lot like him.
And you are a flipping idiot for even making that statement. I've done a lot more than write a book and try to use a conservative web forum to sell it. Because of posting guidlines, I can't post what I really think about you and your attempts to hawk your book here.
That fact that you and your buddies sound just like Julian Bond and the NAACP is what really gets your goat. Just like Bond, you compare southern heritage supporters to the Taliban. What a piece of human excrement you are.
New test - who said it - the Wlat Brigade or the NAACP?
Buford took two of his three brigades into Gettysburg for a total of about 2750 men. He suffered 127 casualties. And as any of the excellent histories of the battle could tell you, once the infantry was up Buford was not sent to guard the supply lines but was instead posted on the flanks to guard against confederate incursions.
The Constitution was not a compact or a federation among sovereign states. It was "ordained and established" by "We, the people of the United States."
To which I responded:
How silly can you get. What are the United States, but the States that are united. For your theory to have any meaning, or make any sense, the entities would be an entity, and it would not have a plural name. It might be a United State of something, but it would not be the United States. However, one need not even point out the obvious use of words. There is compelling legal authority to absolutely refute this nonsense:
1. The Declaration of Independence declared the independence of the original 13 States, and clearly defined them in unmistakable terms.
2. The Treaty Of Paris, which ended the War and obtained international recognition, specifically defined the term "the United States of America," as precisely what we have contended it to mean. That term having been clearly defined legally, 4 years before, obviously meant exactly the same thing, when it was used in the Constitution.
3. You quote the preamble of the Constitution, but ignore every thing about it. Note Article VII: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." Pretty clear, isn't it that they are talking about a union of States.
4. The signatory clause is equally unequivocal: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present this Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America, the Twelfth."
5. Suffrage for Federal elections was to be determined by each State, for itself. Thus Article I, Sec. 2. merely provided: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." What that meant as a practical matter was that who could vote in Federal elections varied very considerably from State to State--the Union was hardly the Nazi style monolith that you try to suggest--with some States soon extending the suffrage to a broad spectrum, and others such as South Carolina, which continued to have a very restricted suffrage at least into the 1840s, very restricted.
6. The basic actions of a sovereign with respect to the daily affairs of a people are taken under what are called the "Police Power," the right to act to protect the Safety, Health & Morals of the body politic. These powers are not conferred by the Constitution to the Federal Government, they were left entirely to the States.
I could go on, with many other proivisions of the Constitution, which are wholly inconsistent with your absurd claim. Had what you claim been intended, however, the Constitution would not have employed the terminology of the independent States, but would have created an entity called "America" or perhaps "Columbia," as in "Columbia the Gem Of The Ocean," (since there was no nation known as Columbia in those days).
To the extent that the Founding Fathers recognized a common nationality, they were "Americans." When they talked about the sovereign States, they were Virginians, or Carolinians, or Pennsylvanians, etc.. Practically everyone, had a dual identity. They were, as Booker T. Washington was later to define it, in terms of race relations--one as the hand in all things common (American) but separate as the fingers in other matters.
But enough. Your claim flies in the face of the documents. I do not know what your motivation may be for insisting upon it so beligerantly, but it is not sustainable among people who have read the basic documents of American history.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Thanks for your answer.
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.