Off Topic Posts Split From Deification Of Robert E Lee

[Scott Bowden]

start a thread, i have been talking about lee and he was wrong.

To win its independence, the CSA just had to avoid losing. At some point the Union would give up. In theory anyway.

A theory totally unsupported by any war of the modern era, which was from the end of the Thirty Years War including the war in question. I covered this in detail in Last Chance for Victory as well as in the current "Robert E Lee at War" multi-volume series.

 

[diane]

A theory totally unsupported by any war of the modern era, which was from the end of the Thirty Years War to the war in question. I covered this in detail in Last Chance for Victory as well as in the current Robert E Lee at War series.

It may have been possible for the CSA at that time. The United States had a unique form of government - most everybody else had some sort of monarch. Joe Johnston felt that if the Confederates could tread water until Lincoln lost the election, there might be a better shot at independence. He was too careful to be a gambling man like Lee, who was betting the plantation on a victory at arms, but his view might have had the same outcome as Lee's gamble.

 

[Scott Bowden]

Again, a theory totally at odds with historical facts.

 

[C. Kelp]

Last Chance for Victory

Edward H. Bonekemper III does not agree.

 

[jgoodguy]

A theory totally unsupported by any war of the modern era, which was from the end of the Thirty Years War to the war in question. I covered this in detail in Last Chance for Victory as well as in the current Robert E Lee at War series.

What theory are you asserting exactly is unsupported?

 

[jgoodguy]

Again, a theory totally at odds with historical facts.

Totally? Evidence please along with exactly what are you asserting.

 

[hanna260]

Again, a theory totally at odds with historical facts.

Sorry, I'm wading in after an absence. I always thought of this as quite a credible theory myself: what exact historical odds is this at fault with?

 

[Scott Bowden]

Totally? Evidence please along with exactly what are you asserting.

That the stalemate theory in the modern era is viable for the winning of wars is unsupported by the facts.

 

[John Winn]

Again, a theory totally at odds with historical facts.

I've heard James McPherson and Gary Gallagher both say at one point all the Confederacy had to do was just keep the Union from invading - i.e. did not have to "win." Why, exactly, do you think they are wrong ? I'm not attacking you; I just don't see why you say such a notion is totally without merit. If you can convince me I'm all ears but you're butting heads with some serious CW historians.

 

[Scott Bowden]

Edward H. Bonekemper III does not agree.

Oh, wow. Now there is an authority.

 

[jgoodguy]

That the stalemate theory in the modern era is viable for the winning of wars is unsupported by the facts.

We are speaking of 19th century, not modern era.

 

[Scott Bowden]

We are speaking of 19th century, not modern era.

Sir, the "modern era" of warfare is considered from the end of the Thirty Years War to the present. Please read the post again.

 

[hanna260]

Okay, so why in modern wars, can't a standstill work? I can certainly from my logic see it working during the ACW.

 

[Northern Light]

Sir, the "modern era" of warfare is considered from the end of the Thirty Years War to the preent. Please read the post again.

I just did, and you have just contradicted yourself.

 

[jgoodguy]

Sir, the "modern era" of warfare is considered from the end of the Thirty Years War to the preent. Please read the post again.

Only the 19th century is on topic for this forum. Please provide your references.

 

[Scott Bowden]

I've heard James McPherson and Gary Gallagher both say at one point all the Confederacy had to do was just keep the Union from invading - i.e. did not have to "win." Why, exactly, do you think they are wrong ? I'm not attacking you; I just don't see why you say such a notion is totally without merit. If you can convince me I'm all ears but you're butting heads with some serious CW historians.

Mr Winn, I hope that you will be able to do some reading on this subject. The theory put forth by those mentioned cannot support their theory by a single example in the modern era. Since we are discussing the ACW, that means that not a single war (not campaign or battle---but a war) was won by this method. Since I have written extensively on this subject, it is impractical to reconstruct it here. However, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do some reading. You can send me a PM if you are interested in some titles that might assist you.

Regards,

 

[jgoodguy]

Mr Winn, I hope that you will be able to do some reading on this subject. The theory put forth by those mentioned cannot support their theory by a single example in the modern era. Since we are discussing the ACW, that means that not a single war (not campaign or battle---but a war) was won by this method. Since I have written extensively on this subject, it is impractical to reconstruct it here. However, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do some reading. You can send me a PM if you are interested in some titles that might assist you.

Regards,

That is not the issue, the issue is if the CSA believed it was so.

 

[jgoodguy]

Mr Winn, I hope that you will be able to do some reading on this subject. The theory put forth by those mentioned cannot support their theory by a single example in the modern era. Since we are discussing the ACW, that means that not a single war (not campaign or battle---but a war) was won by this method. Since I have written extensively on this subject, it is impractical to reconstruct it here. However, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do some reading. You can send me a PM if you are interested in some titles that might assist you.

Regards,

We expect folks to provide evidence not tell members to read up.

 

[diane]

Mr Winn, I hope that you will be able to do some reading on this subject. The theory put forth by those mentioned cannot support their theory by a single example in the modern era. Since we are discussing the ACW, that means that not a single war (not campaign or battle---but a war) was won by this method. Since I have written extensively on this subject, it is impractical to reconstruct it here. However, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do some reading. You can send me a PM if you are interested in some titles that might assist you.

Regards,

PM me - I wouldn't mind seeing that list!

Since we're talking about the ACW, that's the only war in question and therefore, by default, you're right. It wasn't won by that method. CSA political leadership clearly didn't think Johnston's approach was correct but Lee's was proven to be incorrect because he lost. The public saw Retreatin' Joe and looked upon it very poorly but it may have resulted in the establishment of the Confederacy. If Sherman had not won Atlanta - Johnston being replaced in almost mid-campaign with Hood - would Lincoln have won the election? Lincoln didn't think so. Hanging on, keeping the armies in the field and viable didn't need a win, or even a battle - Johnston fought as little as possible. McClellan, with his moderate peace platform, would have been a very different kettle of fish to deal with.

 

[C. Kelp]

Mr Winn, I hope that you will be able to do some reading on this subject. The theory put forth by those mentioned cannot support their theory by a single example in the modern era. Since we are discussing the ACW, that means that not a single war (not campaign or battle---but a war) was won by this method. Since I have written extensively on this subject, it is impractical to reconstruct it here. However, I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do some reading. You can send me a PM if you are interested in some titles that might assist you.

Regards,

but they have since and it was time for innovation . even a slightly more conservative general might have been able to wait it out using conventional means. i will send your regards to Ed.