Is it correct to conclude...

[BillO]

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.

I agree, he was an American and he was a bit of a character.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.

With all due respect, I think you need to separate 'American' from 'federal government'. Those who sided with the federal government did so because of their American viewpoint and those who sided with the Confederacy did so because of their American viewpoint. However, they were all Americans.

Lee would no doubt have ended up as the military commander of the union forces had he remained in the US Army. Had Lee remained in the US Army the war would have been a lot shorter because a) he would have out performed McClellan, b) he would have had more resources, and c) he would not have had to contend with his equal in the South.

However, Lee's reasons for remaining with Virginia and, subsequently, the Confederacy, are sound, especially for the time period. And yes, Lee was a man of great character and was recognized as such by both the north and the South before and after the war. To disparage Lee's character shows very poor form, in my humble opinion.

Thank you.

 

[TFSmith121]

Never defeated on the battlefield? Almost from day 1, the Confederacy was losing ground in the West.

R

And in the east, given West Virginia, the Rappahanock-Potomac strip, southeastern Virginia, Roanoke-New Bern, Port Royal, Key West, etc.

The Army Historical Center has a great map that shows the general lines of control from 1861-65; the trend is obvious, and the amount of liberated territory is significant, even as early as 1861.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.

Thomas is an exemplar, but one can include Scott, Farragut, Crittenden, Grimes Davis, Terrill, and a host of others. At least 100,000, according to Current's Lincoln's Loyalists, and the a significant percentage, certainly a majority, of the ~180,000 men who ended up in the USCTs and another ~30,000 in the USN.

Then there are those like Newt Knight, who fought their own "private" wars against the rebellion.

Best,

 

[Burning Billy]

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.

Lee's own family was divided.

His cousin Samuel Philips Lee, an officer serving in the U.S. Navy, famously quipped, "When I find the word Virginia in my commision, I shall join the Confederacy."

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

Lee's own family was divided.

His cousin Samuel Philips Lee, an officer serving in the U.S. Navy, famously quipped, "When I find the word Virginia in my commision, I shall join the Confederacy."

Lincoln's family was as divided, also.

 

[cash]

Lincoln's family was as divided, also.

More accurately, the Todd family was divided.

 

[unionblue]

Nope: count me out on this one.

I could not help thinking for all the angst and explanation set forth in defending Lee - regarding the "he had no choice" but to go with the Confederacy – as opposed to General George Henry Thomas's quiet resolve to defend the Union. A true hero who made his decision, Thomas accepted the consequences of his family shunning him, and historically speaking, he silently slipped into relative oblivion. It is unsurprising that he destroyed his private papers, leaving to others to defend his honour, rather than risk the exposure of his life's intimate details.

When I think of true American character, I think of George Henry Thomas.

Bee,

Agreed.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[thomas aagaard]

Grant's commands destroyed three rebel armies in the field in the space of 36 months, including the single enemy force that had, essentially, maintained and defined the confederacy as a military power for most of its political life. None of the European field or political c-in-cs really compare, with the conspicuous exception of Hohenzollern Germany, and even Wilhelm I, Bismarck, and Moltke et al were unable to destroy (for example) the French as a great power.

They wrecked the main Austrian army in a day in 1866, and destroyed the French field armies in a few weeks in 1870, by capturing them and driving one into neutral Switzerland...
They did destroy the military might of France... for a time.

Noone complained about the Union forcing the south back into the union.

Noone would have accepted it if Prussia had annexed the hole of Denmark in 1864.
That would have gotten Sweden, Russian, France and the UK into the war... something the danish goverment delibertly tried to do.

Russian and France would not have accepted annexation of large parts of Austria in 1866.

And noone would have accepted if The north German confederation had keeps large parts of France in 1871.
And The Prussian was not interested. They where confronted with the risk of a general upraising... when trying to keep it to a small quick cabinet war.
All 3 wars was quick and decisive... unlike the civil war.
Difference was, great power politics did not allow for conquests that make one power dominate Europe completely... the Union had no such limit placed on it in 1865.

 

[thomas aagaard]

None of which belies the point that the US won its war decisively, and none of the Europeans in this same era did.

However, unlike the Europeans, the US had fought and won such a war, and within living memory; the Americans had an understanding of what such a conflict would require, in terms of mass mobilization, centralized control of the economy, etc - total war.

The Europeans did not.

Best,

????????????
Read my post above. The civil war took four yeas and 700.000+ killed... that is a drawn out and long conflict.

The Prussians and Austrians beat Denmark in about 6 month,
The Prussians beat Austria in a few weeks,
and then France took a few weeks to destroy their field armies and then a few month to end it.
Short and decisive wars fought by much larger field armies than what the Union had in the field.

This was decisive wars by the very definition of the word. But since they where not about total subjugation this was not tried and would not have been accepted by the other great powers anyway.

If you want to go by if it resolved the issue or not then the civil war failed miserably. The question of the role of the decedents of slaves was not solved and the 1960tis only did some more... and the issue is still not solved in the US.

At least France and Germany are done fighting wars against each others... for now.


The civil war was in no way a total war.
The economy was not controlled by the military/politicians, there was no total mobilization of manpower and production, there was no total war waged against the civilian population...

 

[thomas aagaard]

The South was never defeated on the battlefield, they were outnumbered and starved and gave out to attrition.

I sure hope you are being sarcastic...

G

Yes they certainly sent many many rounds into Vicksburg killing women, children. I have read about it. Do you dispute it? "War is hell." At Atlanta, Sherman inflicted casualties on civilians and had a correspondence with Hood about it.

Vickburg was a military target. Shelling a town full of soldiers was not in anyway special... and completely within the norms of warfare... then as it is today.
(it is the duty of the defender to evacuate civilians or declare it an open city and don't defend it)

And as you can see that down through history, although the war itself was lost to the powerful and populated North, Lee and Jackson and Stuart and their comrades have, in a large respect, been the true winners, for their spirit and true American character, in the hearts and minds of many, if not most, Americans.

So it is "true american character" to start a rebellion when you loose a democratic election?
A war started in defense of slavery? (as the politicians of the CSA clealry wrote so again, and again and again)

Thank God that no one else agree with you, or you would have a rebellion at hand every four years...

 

[unionblue]

I sure hope you are being sarcastic...

Vickburg was a military target. Shelling a town full of soldiers was not in anyway special... and completely within the norms of warfare... then as it is today.
(it is the duty of the defender to evacuate civilians or declare it an open city and don't defend it)


So it is "true american character" to start a rebellion when you loose a democratic election?
A war started in defense of slavery? (as the politicians of the CSA clealry wrote so again, and again and again)

Thank God that no one else agree with you, or you would have a rebellion at hand every four years...

Thomas aagaard,

Indeed.

Enjoyed your above post, very much.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[TFSmith121]

They wrecked the main Austrian army in a day in 1866, and destroyed the French field armies in a few weeks in 1870, by capturing them and driving one into neutral Switzerland...
They did destroy the military might of France... for a time.

Noone complained about the Union forcing the south back into the union.

Noone would have accepted it if Prussia had annexed the hole of Denmark in 1864.
That would have gotten Sweden, Russian, France and the UK into the war... something the danish goverment delibertly tried to do.

Russian and France would not have accepted annexation of large parts of Austria in 1866.

And noone would have accepted if The north German confederation had keeps large parts of France in 1871.
And The Prussian was not interested. They where confronted with the risk of a general upraising... when trying to keep it to a small quick cabinet war.
All 3 wars was quick and decisive... unlike the civil war.
Difference was, great power politics did not allow for conquests that make one power dominate Europe completely... the Union had no such limit placed on it in 1865.

Understood and agree - they were different geopolitical and strategic situations, yet the reality remains, the US utterly destroyed the rebellion 1861-65, which is pretty much the definition of total war, certainly in terms of aims.

The Europeans were fighting limited wars with limited aims that amounted (essentially) to border wars writ large in the same period; it took until the Twentieth Century for the (modern) Europeans to start aiming for unconditional surrenders, and even then, they didn't get one in 1918.

So (arguably) the same nations fought Round 2 beginning in 1939.

My point is the US fought to utterly destroy its enemy in 1861-65; the Europeans did not in the same period - that's the difference. It was a different kind of war.

However, that experience of 1861-65 shaped US policy in 1917-18 and again in 1941-45.

Best,

 

[thomas aagaard]

Understood and agree - they were different geopolitical and strategic situations, yet the reality remains, the US utterly destroyed the rebellion 1861-65, which is pretty much the definition of total war, certainly in terms of aims.

The Europeans were fighting limited wars with limited aims that amounted (essentially) to border wars writ large in the same period; it took until the Twentieth Century for the (modern) Europeans to start aiming for unconditional surrenders, and even then, they didn't get one in 1918.

If you only look at war goals then most rebellions are total wars, and they are not.

Ever read about the Napoleonic Wars? by 1814 and in 1815 they only had one goal, the surrender of Napoleon.

You got to compare rebellions with rebellions and wars between sovereign states with war between sovereigns states.

Also if the rebellion was utterly destroyed, why did the black population still get killed during reconstruction and until at least to the 1960ties... The Union managed to destroy the conventional military forced of the CSA... nothing more.

The unconditional surrender and Germany and Japan in 1945 allowed the US to extensively change society of the two countries... Sure the destruction of slavery was a huge change... but it didn't remove racism or the idea of ****... and the black population still had another round to fight in the 1960ties... and they are still on average poor than whites and... well better stay clear of the obvious modern politics issued that are still not solved...

This was a rebellion, sure it was bigger, but in effect no difference than the rebellions in Europe in 1830, 1849 or for that matter in 1871... Government forced against rebels... and they usually end in the rebels getting destroyed.

And the CSA never surrendered to the Union... and the Union would never have accepted one, since that would in effect have been an reorganization of the CSA.

Also until 1863 there where really only one condition - rejoin the union and the war end.
After 1863 the end of slavery was added at a war goal.

This was not a demand for unconditional surrender... just two conditions that the south was not willing to accept.