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 ...
I thoroughly disagree that Lee had no choice. He had every choice. Falling back towards Washington would have forced Meade to follow, and given his Army command inexperience, he likely would have blundered into a well-laid Confederate trap, although certainly Lee did have to worry, himself, about being pinned between armies in Washington and Meade.
I assume you have been to Gettysburg. I don't know how anyone can look across that plain and expect 15,000 men, regardless of their artillery support, to attack troops who were dug in, and who outnumbered them. I stand by "moronic."
As for Grant, his attack at both Cold Harbor and right outside of Vicksburg under EXACTLY the same conditions was equally "moronic," and the only saving grace I find for Lee is that he only made that mistake ONCE, while Grant made it twice. But Sherman, on the other hand, managed to avoid those kind of frontal charges. But, then, that was partly due to Grant using up his own army in keeping Lee pinned.
I don't subscribe to the "Longstreet was late" theory. Lee was responsible for the destruction of the Confed. Army at Gettysburg. A more attuned commander would never have attacked once he lost the tactical advantage and certainly would not have moved without his cavalry providing intel.
Indeed, if Lee was as good a general as many think, he above all would have learned from BURNSIDE'S mistake at Fredericksburg, as the situation was almost exactly a mirror image.
It is said that Burnside was a good corps commander, but, obviously, a weak commander of the army.
Likewise, as great as he was, I would not want a Patton in Eisenhower's position as commander in of the entire theater. His initial successes would come at a cost to alliances and systems of support that would threaten the ultimate objective.
You have been snowed by advocates of a point of view, making out a case. But the reality is much closer to that which Booker T. Washington recounted than what you have been given to believe.
Again, I accept your claimed evidence. It does not prove your point. Indeed, so extensive was the acceptance of Southern culture, among the Southern Negro population, that to this day, it provides a major ingredient in cultural habits. (And in fact, it works both ways.)
William Flax
It's a weak, wrong, and morally reprehensible argument for any FREE person who believes in liberty to try to make.
On that, we can agree. Eisenhower was kicked over others, precisely because his one strong suit was getting different types to work together. On the other hand, had Patton been the Supreme Commander in Europe, we probably would not have had a Cold War!
The order of battle for the U.S. and our western allies in 1946 compared to the massive army the Russians had was overwhelmingly stacked against us. Try looking at Col. Harry Borowski's book on the post-war Air Force, where he shows that the US Army Air Force was virtually incapable of bombing anywhere inside the USSR, meaning that any battle would have taken place over Germany and France, and, likely, England. While I don't think the Soviets ever could have invaded us, we would not have won that exchange on the Continent.
What a foolish argument. I did not suggest that anyone "liked" his circumstances, whether master or servant, child or adult. I am sure that there were people who were content and there were people--as in every period in the human experience--who were not content. That is totally beside the point. The point is that there was no general slave revolt. The point is that most of the slaves were loyal to their society; just as most of the serfs in Europe were loyal to their societies.
The argument that you are using is that of the propagandist. I did not agree that the evidence (your evidence) was right, in the sense of being dispositive. I conceded for the sake of argument, that you had in fact seen hundreds of accounts of slaves who were rebellious against their condition. That does not mean that slaves in general were rebellious.
In fact, I remember reading some years ago, about the project to gather just such material. It was not gathered for the purpose of objectivity, but to further the aims of groups devoted to confrontational policies. The Left has always tried to exploit all human grievances, and has never scrupled at exaggerating those grievances. The purpose is to drive a wedge of hostility between the races in the South--only the Left gains from that--although many nominal Conservatives have lately been given to singing the praises of some of those who have promoted that hostility.
This tactic, gathering a list of exceptions--not to prove the rule but to prove the exceptions--has been employed effectively by totalitarian movements in the Century just ended. For an obvious example, consider how Hitler poisoned German public opinion against the German Jews, who were for the most part solid, prosperous, German citizens, integrally part of the German community. He picked out every socially reprehensible act by any Jew, and presented that as a case against a whole group. Thus while most Jews were property owners, who believed people should be free to benefit by their honest labor, he pointed out those Jews who had become Communists. Thus, while a great many Jews were playing the classical music, that Hitler loved, in German symphony orchestras, he picked out a few eccentrics, who were experimenting with unusual music forms, and charged the whole group with corrupting German music; etc., etc..
The Communists, in America, picked up every incident, where someone did something cruel or mean spirited towards any identifiable group, and did much the same sort of smear number, on the American mainstream. All forms of Socialists have collected horror stories of the "sweat shops," as well as any actually corrupt deeds committed by Capitalists, for almost two centuries. They did not admit that they were compiling lists of exceptions, rather than painting an accurate picture.
The selected listing or collection of incidents that serve a preconceived purpose, again, is the technique of the propagandist not the Historian.
It's a weak, wrong, and morally reprehensible argument for any FREE person who believes in liberty to try to make.
What is morally reprehensible is to distort history to fit one's contemporary beliefs. The Leftist propaganda that pictures those at the bottom of society, in every age, steaming with hatred against the upper classes, is a very distorted history. In point of fact, those at the bottom almost never revolt, unless and until, they are manipulated by intellectuals from the leisure classes. Thus it was essential to get Lenin back in Russia to organize the uprising of the "Proletariat." Thus intellectuals from the upper classes, in costume, led the mob in Paris against the Bastille. Many of the mob they raised for what followed, had been lining the streets to cheer the royal coach, but shortly before the Revolution.
The myth of Negro hatred of the White Southerner did not really get started until the NAACP was founded in 1909 by White Fabian Socialists, bent upon destroying Booker T. Washington's efforts to build bridges of cooperation between two races that had shared a common history and culture. No one has benefitted from creating hostility out of historic misrepresentation but the agitators.
An interesting fictionalized, but still psychologically astute, picture of the total irrationality of the hate driven mob, pursuing imaginary grievances, is provided in the second half of Dickens' Barnaby Rudge, where the anti-Catholic mob, looting and destroying the property of wealthy London Catholics, is composed in a large part of poor London Catholics. Hate is contageous, once started--as they proved in France in 1789-1795; as they proved in Russia, after 1917; as they proved in Germany after 1933. The American South does not deserve similar treatment.
William Flax
"Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991)."
Walt
When Early torched Chambersburg, I don't believe anything like that had been done before. The burining of military stores and facilities in Atlanta came after the burning of Chambersburg, and was of a different nature, as those were legitimate targets of war.
Walt
You need to qualify that slightly. The south won more frequently in the east while Jackson was around. The war in the west was marked by defeat after defeat for the confederate forces. But you are correct that once Jackson was killed, Lee never won again.
I would disagree with that. Other than Jackson, Lee's corp commanders were decidedly mediocre. Ewell and Hill were both miserble corps commanders at Gettysburg, and even Longstreet was terrible when he was not being directed by Lee. His actions when assigned to the west was disasterous. On the other hand, the Union had Hancock, Sedgwick, Sykes, and Reynolds.
He just left Atlanta on his way to Savannah. Would you like me to forward a message to him?
Was caesar a scumbag?
One of the less adroit techniques of the neo-rebs is to present historical people in modern day light, and hope that people today will be ignorant enough to condemn them.
Walt
Erwin Rommel never set foot in the United States, either prior to World War I or after it. Besides, Rommel was an infantry officer. His book was on infantry tactics, he taught infantry tactics, he had nothing to do with armor prior to his posting to command a tank division in 1940. Why would he make a trip to study the tactics of a cavalry officer?
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.