Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
I came to respect the level of thoughtfulness found on civilwartalk.com while researching this article. This website has proven invaluable as a research tool.

Hence, I would like some feedback on a radical new theory regarding General Robert E. Lee and the Battle of Gettysburg. I do not expect anyone to agree with my conclusions, but I would appreciate help with factual errors. I am not done writing it. There are a few paragraphs I need to finish tomorrow. And this is only a first draft.

No matter what you say, no matter how harshly you criticize me, no matter how many insults you hurl my way, or how virulently you dismiss my main conclusions, I will not take offense. I just kinda want to see what happens if I put this in front of the last people on earth I probably should.

I will make good use of any factual corrections, however. Of that, I can assure you.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
I came to respect the level of thoughtfulness found on civilwartalk.com while researching this article. This website has proven invaluable as a research tool.

Hence, I would like some feedback on a radical new theory regarding General Robert E. Lee and the Battle of Gettysburg. I do not expect anyone to agree with my conclusions, but I would appreciate help with factual errors. I am not done writing it. There are a few paragraphs I need to finish tomorrow. And this is only a first draft.

No matter what you say, no matter how harshly you criticize me, no matter how many insults you hurl my way, or how virulently you dismiss my main conclusions, I will not take offense. I just kinda want to see what happens if I put this in front of the last people on earth I probably should.

I will make good use of any factual corrections, however. Of that, I can assure you.
*Edited* Lee did not deliberately sacrifice his troops, and he did not deliberately lose the war. He came very close to winning the battle of Gettysburg. If he was deliberately sacrificing his troops he wouldn't have come so close, and he wouldn't have left the attack details up to James Longstreet. If he wanted to lose the war he could have let McClellan take Richmond.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
*Edited* Lee did not deliberately sacrifice his troops, and he did not deliberately lose the war. He came very close to winning the battle of Gettysburg. If he was deliberately sacrificing his troops he wouldn't have come so close, and he wouldn't have left the attack details up to James Longstreet. If he wanted to lose the war he could have let McClellan take Richmond.
Actually, I intend to expand that thesis to the second day's battle decision, July 2. This is where there is going to be a hopeless divide. No one is in a hurry to end this war. Loss of life is one of its goals.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,241
Welcome! Thanks for sharing this article. I look forward to your perspective in our many discussions.
I have just begun to read the article. My first impressions are that it is based on a false premise, one that is easily disproved. Its only value is the collection of great photographs.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,509
Location
Pennsylvania
If we want to make factual corrections, we could start by dispelling the popular myth that the Civil War was decided at Gettysburg. Gettysburg did not change anything, any more than Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, or the other clashes of AofP and ANV. A few days after each of those battles, the armies were back about where they had been before, the overall situation unchanged.

I gave up on the article when I started seeing references to Freemasons and the Illuminati, but does it cite any other examples of Lee sabotaging the Confederate cause? He had three years of opportunities. He wouldn't even to do anything as blatant as Pickett's Charge, just let opportunities slip by.....
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,770
Location
Denmark
If we want to make factual corrections, we could start by dispelling the popular myth that the Civil War was decided at Gettysburg. Gettysburg did not change anything, any more than Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, or the other clashes of AofP and ANV. A few days after each of those battles, the armies were back about where they had been before, the overall situation unchanged.

I gave up on the article when I started seeing references to Freemasons and the Illuminati, but does it cite any other examples of Lee sabotaging the Confederate cause? He had three years of opportunities. He wouldn't even to do anything as blatant as Pickett's Charge, just let opportunities slip by.....
Fail in the summer of 1862 was an obvious way to loose.
Or at Antietam.
Or at Chancellorsville.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,335
Location
New York City
Lee purposefully sacrificing his army to lose the war? Where is the hard evidence? Lee was keenly aware and troubled by the knowledge that the south had diminishing manpower, in contrast to the north's more unlimited resources. Which is why Lee sought to fight an "offensive- defense" in the hopes that harsh blows to the federal forces would cause the northern population to lose heart and conclude that the north was better off letting the confederacy go its own way. Of course, this didn't happen for many reasons, but Lee did come closer to achieving this goal than perhaps any other southern commander.
 

Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
If we want to make factual corrections, we could start by dispelling the popular myth that the Civil War was decided at Gettysburg. Gettysburg did not change anything, any more than Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, or the other clashes of AofP and ANV. A few days after each of those battles, the armies were back about where they had been before, the overall situation unchanged.

I gave up on the article when I started seeing references to Freemasons and the Illuminati, but does it cite any other examples of Lee sabotaging the Confederate cause? He had three years of opportunities. He wouldn't even to do anything as blatant as Pickett's Charge, just let opportunities slip by.....
I came at this to analyze the Battle of Atlanta. I am studying the Georgia Guidestones. They have been grossly misunderstood. While studying them I realized I needed detailed knowledge of the history of central banks.That in turn required this study of the Civil War. All of it is intimately related. You err to dismiss the Freemasons. Today they are nothing. But at this time in history, everything that happens happens because of them. Everything. And on that we must agree to profoundly disagree. I believe Lee was there only as a guarantee that nothing could go wrong. The real battle was lost when the Illuminati infiltrated the Northern Jurisdiction of the Freemasons and used one of their own, James Buchanan to instigate this war. Any military man will tell you that. War is logistics, and the South never really stood a chance. We lose touch with reality when we lose site of the fact that Lee was way too smart to have attacked the high ground. All of this nonsense that he felt he was under pressure for want of time to forage is subterfuge, Lee's subterfuge.
 

Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
Lee purposefully sacrificing his army to lose the war? Where is the hard evidence? Lee was keenly aware and troubled by the knowledge that the south had diminishing manpower, in contrast to the north's more unlimited resources. Which is why Lee sought to fight an "offensive- defense" in the hopes that harsh blows to the federal forces would cause the northern population to lose heart and conclude that the north was better off letting the confederacy go its own way. Of course, this didn't happen for many reasons, but Lee did come closer to achieving this goal than perhaps any other southern commander.
Ask yourself why at the very moment he could have brought the offensive-defense strategy to a successful conclusion did he do everything wrong and act so unlike himself that he alienated even the men closest to him such as Longstreet. If what I am suggesting is true, you need to look beyond the obvious. Some part of me is still standing on the battlefield as a 13 year old. What he did makes no sense no matter how many words you use, unless of course he meant to fail. Are we to believe one of the most composed military men in the history of warfare all of a sudden lost his mind? Or was that the day he was called to do his duty?
 

ARW

Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 12, 2018
Messages
632
Location
Lebanon Pa
So let me get this right. Lee was sent by the Freemasons to lose the war that the Freemasons started. To what end? If they had all this power just force upon the country their will without the war. As they say on Shark Tank "I'm out".
 

Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
Why would Lee give up his long military career, and turn down command of Union forces he was offered? This would have been his best shot if he wanted a Union victory, and save his career at the same time.
I can only answer this in terms of why this country was founded in the first place. And that goes way beyond the scope of this forum. I will say this much, however, so that you have some idea how I would respond to these questions. The men we are talking about here, who I call the "progeny of Jove" (borrowed from the Latin poet Virgil, who was one of them), are consummate, brilliant planners. They simply do not make mistakes. Lee was their assurance that nothing could go wrong. And nothing did. I really think Lee is one of the most studied and least understood men in history.
 

Jane Doe

Cadet
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18
So let me get this right. Lee was sent by the Freemasons to lose the war that the Freemasons started. To what end? If they had all this power just force upon the country their will without the war. As they say on Shark Tank "I'm out".
It is a difficult subject for this generation. There is a kind of Civil War happening, but it is not a War Between the States. It is a war between the Illuminati and Freemasons. And not really even that. It is more of a changing of the guard. The men such as George Washington who founded this country were a special breed. It is now time to retire them, the Freemasons of the South. The task at hand now is the enslavement of an entire people through central banks.

If you really want to honor them, take a look at the Georgia Guidestones because that is the creation of the same lineage of men who were defeated in the Civil War, though retired would perhaps be a better word. The Georgia Guidestones are no more understood than the Civil War.

I did this respectfully. I do not want to upset you guys. Nevertheless, if you want to understand the Civil War you need to look past the battles to NYC and the formation of what would eventually become the Federal Reserve System. I think it is worth the trouble because that is the system that enslaves all of us to this very day. But as a Southerner with a decidedly Yankee accent, I am deeply impressed with the civility of this forum. I sensed it would be okay to drop this bomb here.

I just need to know if I have any basic facts wrong. Thank you for commenting. I don't hear anyone saying I got basic facts wrong, so I am going to get back to work now. I will check back in a few days to see if someone is faulting me on facts. Thank y'all.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,335
Location
New York City
Ask yourself why at the very moment he could have brought the offensive-defense strategy to a successful conclusion did he do everything wrong and act so unlike himself that he alienated even the men closest to him such as Longstreet. If what I am suggesting is true, you need to look beyond the obvious. Some part of me is still standing on the battlefield as a 13 year old. What he did makes no sense no matter how many words you use, unless of course he meant to fail. Are we to believe one of the most composed military men in the history of warfare all of a sudden lost his mind? Or was that the day he was called to do his duty?
Would like to know where Lee "could have brought the offensive-defense strategy to a successful conclusion did he do everything wrong." Strategically, he generally preferred large turning movements to get in rear of the enemy's communications, a sensible device which unfortunately did not always succeed on the tactical level because of shortcomings in logistics and staff work.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,899
Location
Chicagoland
Ask yourself why at the very moment he could have brought the offensive-defense strategy to a successful conclusion did he do everything wrong and act so unlike himself that he alienated even the men closest to him such as Longstreet.
This question has two simple and quite factual answers.

1. Lee was not healthy - suffering from the heart disease that would eventually kill him. All his complaining about the absence of Stuart; his stubbornness in his dealings with Longstreet; his listlessness and detachment from the details that normally commanded his attention; all these little things that are evidence of a sick man beginning to falter mentally.

2. He suffered from what the Japanese in WWII called "victory disease" - the overconfidence that comes from a string of early, fairly easy victories and an underestimation of the abilities of the enemy. This overconfidence led him to believe that his army could accomplish anything he set it to doing, especially against the Army of the Potomac. This is not opinion - it is objective, verifiable fact.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,241
I came at this to analyze the Battle of Atlanta. I am studying the Georgia Guidestones. They have been grossly misunderstood. While studying them I realized I needed detailed knowledge of the history of central banks.That in turn required this study of the Civil War. All of it is intimately related. You err to dismiss the Freemasons. Today they are nothing. But at this time in history, everything that happens happens because of them. Everything. And on that we must agree to profoundly disagree. I believe Lee was there only as a guarantee that nothing could go wrong. The real battle was lost when the Illuminati infiltrated the Northern Jurisdiction of the Freemasons and used one of their own, James Buchanan to instigate this war. Any military man will tell you that. War is logistics, and the South never really stood a chance. We lose touch with reality when we lose site of the fact that Lee was way too smart to have attacked the high ground. All of this nonsense that he felt he was under pressure for want of time to forage is subterfuge, Lee's subterfuge.
Sadly, you have been misled about all of these points.
Further, I have now read the entire article you referenced. If anything has changed from my initial reaction it is that I can now state with certainty that it is absolute rubbish.
 

Hussar Yeomanry

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
930
Location
UK
We lose touch with reality when we lose site of the fact that Lee was way too smart to have attacked the high ground. All of this nonsense that he felt he was under pressure for want of time to forage is subterfuge, Lee's subterfuge.
So, Napoleon should not have attacked the Pratzen Heights at Austerlitz? General Wolfe at Montreal? To name but two of many, many examples.

Yes attacking high ground is risky but if properly planned it can work... and Lee's plans for Days 2 and 3 both have a reasonable chance of success if implemented as originally planned. They aren't. Not even close and while he certainly should have taken closer charge of them and left less to his subordinates that was not his way... and it had done him in good stead before. He had no reason to realise that it wouldnt here.

Therefore respectfully I would suggest that your argument is fatally flawed.
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top