Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
"Did you ever think maybe some of these people really believed in their "New Nation" maybe they had lost their homes, crops, and villages at the hand of an invader?"
Sean -- <u>Absolutely!!</u> Determination bolstered by a deep and unshakable belief in the possibility of achieving their own nation carried the south for four years.
I am saying that as a matter of practicality hope was gone in late 1864, but as a matter of blind faith, hope still burned brightly in the hearts of southerners. They denied the obvious while embracing the dream.
I still say Washington's situation was different Strategically Washington had chosen a very different path and was forunate that the teeth of his opposition was chomping at politics in London instead of 40 miles away. Nonetheless doesn't matter, the human spirit does not need reality to have faith.
AGREED!
This is faith in my opinion did not make Lee, Davis or any other Southern man or woman a butcher or murderer as Mr. Duell seems to contend, or at least what I think he contends.
Butchery and murder is Lee at Gettysburg, Burnside at Fredericksburg, Grant at Cold Harbor, and Hood at Franklin, just to name a few.
Fighting against the odds is a testimony to the human spirit and will. Many Nations and Civilizations have risen and fallen fighting against the sometimes impossible odds yet, the human spirit compelled them to continue, and sometimes be successful. I just can't call those people murderer's.
In my eyes that's a Hitler who flooded subway tunnels killing his own people in in Berlin. Extermination Camps, Race Genocide, ect.
I have not heard to many stories about this happening to the slaves or other minorities. I don't recall an order from Jeff or Robert to wipe out the slaves if they loose the war.
Prison Camps were horrible, however, given the situation what can you say. I due recall several reports stating more Southern men died in Northern prisons which considering the Northern advantages is totally inexcusable. But, thats a different thread.
Connie and Sean, Ok, on April 9th 1865 Lee was STILL ordering offensive actions!Any comments?
Is it fair only to build monuments to Lee and Davis and off limits to question their actions?
Do I detect a bit of "Political Correctness" when it comes to making negative value judgments towards the white "southerners" icons?Grant and Lincoln sure seem to be fair play to them.
Regards
Greg
Are you speaking of Gordon and Fitzhugh Lee attempting to clear the Stage Road southwest of Appomattox? That is the only action I know of on the 9th. The line was weakly defended by Calvary and a few artillery pieces at the time. Lee believed that the horseman were without support and would give under pressure. Once the road was opened, the rest of the Army would pass thru the gap and CONTINUE TO RETREAT!
Lee also added the proviso, that if heavy Union infantry was present they would have no choice but to "accede to the only alternative left us." Surrender!
As for your spirited monument building and off limit comments, What are you talking about? (In my limited time on this site)Connie or anyone else has never made any question or comment off limits (Take a Look at "Lee unfaithfull").
Additionally, though I do not always agree with everyone on this site or they me, I still respect the opinion of the individual because people here are a wealth of information. I think most can agree to disagree as adults (Considering this whole thread was historical/speculative anyway).
Additionally, your "Political Correctness" statement is just a ridiculous comment.
I myself stated Lee and other Southern/Northern Generals and Politicians made horrible and tragic mistakes that cost men lives! So no one is disagreeing with you. Just disagreeing with the reasoning as you are mine.
So besides you "Stirring the Pot" i'm not sure what you really want. And if you read, I even made the statement, Lincoln would have been the Savior (Of our Nation) had he not been assassinated. Our Nation would have been a better place with his running of the Reconstruction Period.
I really think the only thing you want is for myself and others who don't see the world in your way to agree with you and your opinions. I am so sorry it will never happen. It's called life and diversity of opinion. It one thing that makes our Nation special.
I due this because I enjoy posting and reading others ideas, opinions, and information not to help the "South Rise Again" or cause the next "War of Northern Aggression!"
Spare me Suh, please let me go home and enjoy my Lee, Davis shrine. (It's time to light the candles and pay proper respect!!! LOL!!!) I'll let you polish your General Grant and President Lincoln busts in peace and finish your Iron Brigade Cozy!! (NO DISRESPECT MEANT TO VETS OF THE IRON BRIGADE)You see the glass as half empty every time you look I would bet.
Good point Greg. Never ceases to amaze me that Grant is regularly called a butcher (not true) and a drunkard (not true) without anyone providing evidential support, but say one word about St. Bobby Lee and tails spin, hackles fly and tears flow.
Having said that, I still question your extreme opinion. You think that Lee was guilty of butchery because he hung on to the last hurrah. I suppose taken literally it could apply, but combat conditions, emotions, heck even PTSD are all elements that have to be considered and which change the reality.
The men of the AnV were the survivors and in a wild spin hurling in desperation; they were also depressed, exhausted, hungry, proud, and bitter. It's hard to give up after all the sacrifice and carnage and declare it was all for nothing.
I don't think it was butchery, but rather it was like trying to get off a merry-go-round spinning out of control. Lee had to stop hat merry-go-round and he didn't have a brake, just will power.
You wrote,"Having said that, I still question your extreme opinion. You think that Lee was guilty of butchery because he hung on to the last hurrah. I suppose taken literally it could apply, but combat conditions, emotions, heck even PTSD are all elements that have to be considered and which change the reality."
I do not think it is an "extreme opinion" at all.I think the real issue is why are not these types of points examined more often on sites like this?
On April 7th,1865 General Wise, the ex-governor of Virginia said to Lee when asked what he thought of the situtation."There is no situtation.Nothing remains,General Lee,but to put your poor men on your poor mules and send them home in time for spring ploughing. This army is hopelessly whipped.They have already endured more than I thought flesh and blood could stand.The blood of every man who is killed from this time is on your head, General Lee."
Lee replied, as reported by John Wise, the Governors son,"Oh, General, don't talk so wildly.My burdens are heavy enough. What would the country think of me,if I did as you suggest?"
By 9:30 that night General Lee received a dispatch from a General Grant who also shared my extreme opinion."General: The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessnes of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood, by asking of you the surrender of that portion of the C.S. Army known as the Army of Northern Virgina."
That same night a convention of 6 of Lees Generals met and decided to take the extraordinary step of asking Lee to surrender. They elected General Pendleton as their spokesman.On the 8th of April Pendleton talked to other commanders and found that E.P. Alexander and Gordon were in agreement.Later,when Pendleton found Lee and made his case, Lee replied,"I trust it has not come to that. We certainly have too many brave men to think of laying down our arms. They still fight with great spirit, whereas the enemy do not.And besides, if I were to intimate to General Grant that I would listen to terms, he would regard it such an evidence of weakness that he would demand unconditional surrender, and sooner than that I am resolved to die. We must all determine to die at our posts"
Additionally, the vast majority of Lees men also shared my extreme opinion.They voted with their feet that it was over.On April 9th Lee had only 7892 effective infantry and about 2100 cavalry.
Further, if Lee is to be excused for carrying the fight out to the ridiculous extremes that he did than what can be said of other Generals who did not? What can be said of General Pembertons surrender of Vicksburg? Or others for that matter.
Greg: I agree that these kinds of topics need to be discussed and explored on all the various venues. Maybe "extreme opinion" should have read, "extreme verbiage." Butchery to me is extreme.
Lee was guilty IMO of denial, that quirky inner valve that allows intelligent human beings to suspend reality in order to continue moving forward in the middle of a storm.
In the end on April 9th, just two days after his conversation with Wise, Lee was able to swim through the fog of denial to realize that surrender was the only reasonable option. Remember, he could have gone to the hills or encouraged his men to continue a guerilla fight.
Instead from the moment he entered Wilbur McClean's parlor, he counseled anyone he met to return to their homes in peace and to help rebuild the country. Lee had both the influence and power to cause a bloodbath, but chose instead to work for peace. He kept his comments from that moment forward circumspect and mild refusing to become involved in any of the schemes a few were cooking up in Mexico and Canada.
I personally believe his finest moment was the surrender even if in our opinion it was a few weeks late. Hell I think he should have cashed it in after July 4, 1863, when hope was gone. But hindsight sees clearly while foresight is often clouded by counterfeit hope.
I am not sure that I agree with the last part of your statement that they "voted with their feet". Are you implying that they deserted because they lost the will to fight? or did they leave for other reasons, perhaps? (No food, lack of ammunition, lack of forage for horses, etc.) I don't believe that the southern army ever lost the will to fight; they were practical men, however, and without the support to "keep up the skeer" (ya gotta love that phrase!), perhaps felt that they were needed more at home.
Didn't Pemberton hold on for so long because he had been promised repeatedly that reinforcements were forthcoming? I've heard that they were reduced to eating rats before they surrendered.
Yankeewoman, I think you are honing too fine a point. IMO the reason you lose the will to fight isn't the same as losing it. Whatever the reason in the last year of the war many indeed thousands of soldiers on both sides lost the will to continue fighting. Desertion was a plague in both armies.
Pemberton's peRformance at Vicksburg is still hotly contested with many Southerners continuing to believe he failed because he was a Northerner. The townfolk and soldiers indeed suffered. How many ate rats is speculative, but most were definitely eating mule meat and the defenders were reduced to slaughtering their horses for food. If you read the many diaries from those who lived through the siege, the search for food was the ongoing occupation for most. However, none suffered anywhere near the starvation levels of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in WWII.
In the end it was a hopeless cause and Pemberton recognized that holding out would serve no purpose except more deaths.
Now, about that discussion on Grant. Can we? I am not looking to take sides (except that I am definitely a "Grant fan"). Any way to set up something for a forum (of sorts, anyway) on Grant? And what about those newsmen who were with him, huh? I have "Three Years with Grant" by Sylvanus Cadwallader, although have not had a chance to read it as yet.
Somehow, I always get a smile on my face when I hear the one about Lee being asked who was the greatest general he ever came up against during the war..... and he answered "McClellan"!? Now, that always seemed more like a slap in the face to Grant. IMO, anyway.
Now, how about that Grant talk/discussion/forum thingy?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
