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]

Sir, Jim Robinson has spoken on the issue of advertising on FR in his post: Do NOT post ads, offers, solicitations or links to pages that offer merchandise, etc.

Increasingly, the anti-Southern/anti-American sentiment stretches to more sordid analogies and comparisons. Your remark about Confederates in the same bucket as Iraqis was the latest barb. This appears eerily similar to the NAACP's recent deragatory remarks about the GOP, America, and her history.

Strange bedfellows for a conservative.

Since you brought it up, let's compare Iraqis and Confederate Americans - you start.

[GOPcapitalist]

Some of us revere the truth

Considering your habitual dependence upon a form of semantical bullsh*t artistry by which a state ceases to be a state, a union is no longer a union, protection is not protection, and monarchs are not monarchs but are magistrates that are really monarchs, it is self evident that you are not among those persons.

[x]

They won because of the South's romantic notions about how war should be fought. Had Lee treated Pennsylvannia like Sherman treated Georgia and South Carolina things would have been a lot diferent. Sherman learned to burn civilian populations into submission from the example of the Indian fighting of Andrew Jackson, Architect of the Trail of Tears.

Sherman's division was defeated head to head at the Battle of Fallen Timbers by a few regiments of Calvary led by Nathan Bedford Forrest at the conclusion of the Battle of Shiloh in the spring of 1862. Forrest was the only man that truly scared Grant and Sherman every time his name was mentioned in connection with some military movement.

So far as I can tell, the Battle of Fallen Timbers was fought in 1794, well before Shiloh.

There probably were precedents to Sherman in the Indian wars, but I doubt he had anything specific in mind. There were also ample precedents in the American Revolution and in European warfare. When countries and generals get "serious" about war and pull out the stops, they do get destructive, regardless of precedents.

There doesn't seem to be much specific connection between the "Trail of Tears" and Sherman's March. Large scale fighting wasn't involved in the former and large scale deportations weren't involved in the latter. Jackson was only one of many commanders in a long series of Indian wars. I'd have to look a lot closer at the whole series of wars before I'd assert any definite connection. For now, it looks like dragging in the "Trail of Tears" is a red herring.

Sherman's March didn't win the war, though it may have accelerated the end and assured that the war stayed won. You could say the same for Sheridan's Valley Campaign. Grant and Sherman won the key battles by other tactics, but without "destructive war" of the sort that Sherman's army conducted in Georgia and South Carolina there might have been a long and bloody guerrilla struggle once the major armies had been defeated and cities taken.

Were the Confederates above using Shermanesque tactics? I think they would easily have used them against rebels in their own midst, but they weren't powerful enough or secure enough vis a vis the North to employ such methods in the main war. They were fighting on their own territory for most of the war and had little opportunity to get really destructive. The destruction of Thaddeus Stevens iron works in Pennsylvania and the return of free blacks to bondage, though, do tend to confirm Walt's point.

It does look as though the rebels were too much in thrall to textbook Napoleonic warfare, though. Maybe it was because Lee had done so well at West Point learning the textbook version of military history. Or because Southerners had made up the bulk of the prewar officer corps. Or maybe it was because, as rebels whose legitimacy had been questioned, the Confederates wanted the legitimacy of regular armies and set-piece battles. A more unconventional approch, involving guerilla warfare, might have served them better.

[GOPcapitalist]

As you know, I wrote the book to flush out of the Republican Party veneration for Democrat rebels of the 1860s.

Oh, so THAT'S what you are trying to do. Needless to say, I hope you enjoy left wing democrat presidents because that is exactly what your strategy will get you.

[GOPcapitalist]

Traitors in 1781, 1830 and 1860. Nothing like consistency.

Surely nothing South Carolina did could compare to the following from an avowed Hamiltonian Federalist of New England origin.

"But when and how is a separation to be effected? If, as many think, Federalism (by which I mean the solid principles of government applied to a federate republic,--principles which are founded in justice, in sound morals, and religion, and whose object is the security of life, liberty, and property, against popular delusion, injustice, and tyranny),--if, I say, Federalism is crumbling away in New England, there is no time to be lost, lest it should be overwhelmed, and become unable to attempt its own relief. Its last refuge is New England; and immediate exertion, perhaps, its only hope. It must begin in Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed in Connecticut; and could we doubt of New Hampshire? But New York must be associated; and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the centre of the confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow of course, and Rhode Island of necessity. Who can be consulted, and who will take the lead? The legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut meet in May, and of New Hampshire in the same month or in June. The subject has engaged the contemplation of many. The Connecticut gentlemen have seriously meditated upon it. We suppose the British Provinces in Canada and Nova Scotia, at no remote period, perhaps without delay, and with the assent of Great Britain, may become members of the Northern league. Certainly, that government can feel only disgust at our present rulers. She will be pleased to see them crestfallen. She will not regret the proposed division of empire. If with their own consent she relinquishes her provinces, she will be rid of the charge of maintaining them; while she will derive from them, as she does from us, all the commercial returns which her merchants now receive. A liberal treaty of amity and commerce will form a bond of union between Great Britain and the Northern confederacy highly useful to both." - Sen. Timothy Pickering, Jan. 29, 1804

[GOPcapitalist]

Sir, Jim Robinson has spoken on the issue of advertising on FR in his post: Do NOT post ads, offers, solicitations or links to pages that offer merchandise, etc.

LOL! Partisan is a walking infomercial for himself on FR.

[southern cross forever]

Your such a tory , had you lived in America during the Revolutionary war,you would be singing the praises of king George and joining up with Benidict Arnold to "get them traitors". Being a patriot sometimes means that you have to go against the powers that be. I love America too, but if Washington started massing troops against Oklahoma I'll be grabin' my guns and get out there to fight against them,I don't care what flag they carry. The confederate flag is better looking than that yankee rag anyway;-P

[Grand Old Partisan]

"that yankee rag" -- the neo-Confederate label for Old Glory, the flag to which American patriots pledge allegiance.

Neo-Confederates hate the United States of America just as much as the Confederates did.

[stainlessbanner]

I'm curious to see the Iraqi and Confederate comparison. Wonder if that's in Partisan's book or if it was just a spiteful comment.

[southern cross forever]

And why should'nt we, were getting taxed out the wazzoo ,
our leaders are all crooks (Democrats and Republicans) , and the supreme court has usurped the constitution. We have no right to self determination, and we've become nothing more than globe hopping imperialist. Shall i go on ?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Accurate description to GOPcrapitalist = semantical bullshiite artistry.

Note to the uninitiated. GOPcrapitalist routinely changes the meanings of words, routinely lies about comments to his posts, routinely distorts the meanings of others' comments, and routinely attempts to change the subject when defeated in argument. Thus, he is always changing the subject.

[justshutupandtakeit]

#225 is a great example of GOPcrapitalists willingness to change the subject from South Carolina treason and incipient treason to lunacy in the North. It is also a perfect example of his willingness to distort and lie. Hamilton can be accused of many things some of which might have an element of truth. However, to imply that he EVER supported or encouraged disUnion is a flat out LIE.

In fact, his opposition to Burr was largely based on his understanding that B would do anything to obtain power. Thus, he understood that secession would not be out of the realm of the possible with Burr obtaining more power. While he dispised Jefferson he knew that J. would never support anything like disUnion so he arranged that J become President. Of course, J was so opposed to the concept he ridiculed those who believed in secession in his inaugural speech and later prosecuted Burr for TREASON for trying to split the country. J. recognized secession for what it is, TREASON.

Hamilton lost his life because of the final act of opposition to Burr, preventing him from becoming governor of New York. Secessionists were counting on making B governor then leading NY state out of the Union joining New England in a separate country. Hamilton made sure Burr lost that race and that put an end to the threat of secession but it cost Hamilton his life.

It is difficult to be more mendacious than one implying Hamilton (or Jefferson for that matter) supported secession in ANY way. But I am sure that won't stop you from trying.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is not in the book which is a compendium of RAT evil. Of course, the same strain of RAT liars opposed Lincoln as oppose Bush. Enemies of the U.S. take many forms, even pretending to be patriots. But almost always they are tyrants opposed to freedom like the rebs and Baathists.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Secession was just as unconstitutional and illegal in 1812 as in 1830 or 1860.

New England states had agitators advocating this lunacy but were too intelligent to fall for such a disastrous scheme. Hamilton had put an end to this by preventing Burr from becoming governor of NY and leading that state into the plot. A true patriot to the end, he paid for that act with his life. Jefferson had Burr tried three times for treason for attempting to split the nation. So it is easy to see what he thought about Traitors and Treason. Andrew Jackson would have happily hung the proto-Traitors in South Carolina
for their treasonous activities. He would have personally put the nooses around their necks.

While better late than never is acceptable it is doubtful that any Slaver became an abolitionist after the trade was made illegal. Abolitionists existed as early as the 1780s and Hamilton, Jay and Burr founded the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves then. Quakers always opposed it. Franklin opposed it. Most of the Northern leaders (Federalists) opposed it.

While the Northern states went forward and banned slavery, the Southern states went backward and started to justify and protect it. During the time of the Revolution most of the founders North and South did not defend slavery as a positive good but as an evil which must be removed at some point. That changed in the South and its Rulers started to claim Biblical support and were determined to protect it at all costs, even the cost of destroying the Union and embracing Treason.

That ideological change lead to the destruction and impoverishment of the South from which it is still suffering.

[wardaddy]

LOL....reach of the day.....go long ...post pattern GOP!

[Grand Old Partisan]

Though he sympathized with their complaints about the tariff, the South Carolina-born President Andrew Jackson warned secessionists in 1830 that: "If one drop of blood be shed in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hanfg the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."

Virginia-born President Zachary Taylor threatened much the same thing in 1850.

Tennessee-born Vice President Andrew Jackson called for the executions of "Jefferson Davis and his pirate crew: [his words]

[Grand Old Partisan]

CORRECTION:

Andrew Jackson vowed to hang rebels in 1832, and Andrew Johnson was born in North Carolina -- but you get my point.

[Mr. Mojo]

During the Civil War, American patriots enlisted in the United States Army and Navy, while American traitors joined the rebels.

Irrational, simplistic, wrong.

Iow, so you.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"Every man must be for the United States or against it; there can be no neutrals in this war —- only patriots and traitors." -- Stephen Douglas, 1861

[rustbucket]

Tennessee-born Vice President Andrew Jackson called for the executions of "Jefferson Davis and his pirate crew: [his words]

Probably you mean Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson died in 1845, but maybe his ghost came after Jefferson Davis.