I think that's a perfectly good question for this thread. Our original OP said Lee should have been a regimental commander and that's it. Since Johnston was shot, who then should Davis have selected to fill the vacancy if not Lee?
The cause Lee fought for was slavery. If the issue was "white supremacy", there wouldn't have been secession or war, as both sides believed in that.The cause that Lee fought for is white supremacy.
That 'faultless Marble Man' is really what Lee's problem is and he would have been the last man on earth to buy it, too. There was no such idealization of Grant, and he won that war and the Indian wars, was president, oversaw a good deal of the expansion and modernization of the US - a life full of accomplishment. Yet the guy is frequently all but forgotten except for his corrupt administration. Lee conducted his life in a way that was well done, promoted peace and reconciliation, and died soon enough after the war to become the flawless martyr needed by some.The cause Lee fought for was slavery. If the issue was "white supremacy", there wouldn't have been secession or war, as both sides believed in that.
Regardless of his cause, the question remains: is Lee overrated? As a military leader, I agree with Gary Gallagher: Lee was among our greatest. As a husband, father and friend, I believe he was an honorable, compassionate gentleman. He is only "overrated" by those who ignore his humanity and set him on a pedestal as the faultless 'Marble Man' .
Well that is not the statement in the title. Lee is overrated whether he was in command or not. The question that the op keeps asking is what did lee do to acheive greatness ?I think that's a perfectly good question for this thread.
Fair enough, Gene! There's a lot of new people here, so there's less stagnant conversation. But history is history and automatically makes one chew one's cud a lot!@diane Anyway I only commented to jamieva to ask to ease up on a new member and be a little more respectful. Give him a bit to acclimate to the personalities here.
When I joined I made almost the exact same statement and the resulting attacks were uncalled for and the forum seemed like an unfriendly place with a few great exceptions. I am tired of talking to the same people about the same things to the point that I already know how most folks will reply to most questions or statements. If everybody is in agreement and is always on the same subject, we will have nothing to talk about. So I am glad to have new blood but tired of this subject.
Well, that leads to the question of who else would be in line or available.I think that's a perfectly good question for this thread. Our original OP said Lee should have been a regimental commander and that's it. Since Johnston was shot, who then should Davis have selected to fill the vacancy if not Lee?
another what if.....and yes, we might still be burdenend with "that peculiar institution"....what a contradiction in terms, it would have justified Adolf Hitler's beliefs in "lebensraum" in which millions were not only displaced, but put into forced labor then genocide....glad that "what if" didn't happen and glad you pointed that out to me!!I would say, Yes the Confederacy without Robert E Lee loses the war much quicker leading to less loss of life.
And yes the Civil War ended slavery but in your 'what if' it might not of; consider this, a quick mostly bloodless Union victory means there is no need for an Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore a quick Union may have persevered the Union while keeping slavery legal.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Do you think slavery was exaggerated? (Not overrated)||Additional Discussion on Slavery||202|
|Ulysses S. Grant: Overrated or Underrated?||Ulysses S. Grant||406|
|Most Overrated General?||Civil War History Discussion||467|