The guerrilla war that wasn't.

[Baggage Handler #2]

Every once in a while someone pops up the possibility of the south prosecuting a guerrilla war starting in May of 1865.

What would have been the objective(s)?

Where would it have been most "hot?"

How long would it have lasted?

What ultimately would have caused it to end (or would it have continued even now)?

Opinions, if you dare, but please, play fair.

 

[ole]

The leaders (skip Davis) knew that there was nothing to be gained by a guerilla war. It might have had some partisans and it did, but the Reb had had about enough. He wanted nothing more than to go home and salvage what he could His wife and children and kinfolk had suffered enough. It was time to rebuild.

There might have been enough hardcases to continue, but I suspect that most of them knew it was over. Time to go home and get some sort of crop in the ground. Time to start over. Time to get on with it.

Whupped is whupped and your basic guy knows when to quit. This is not a fun thing to accept, but most guys know when the fight is over.

ole

 

[Elennsar]

It is said that after the war, General Johnston ran into a man who said that "the South had been conquered, but not subdued". When Johnston asked him where he had served, the man replied that "circumstances had prevented him from serving." "Well sir, you may have be subdued, but I am." replied Johnston.

I think Ole is right. Most Confederate soldiers would have sided with Uncle Joe. There was just nothing left to fight for as of spring 1865.

 

[tory_loyalist]

The leaders (skip Davis) knew that there was nothing to be gained by a guerilla war. It might have had some partisans and it did, but the Reb had had about enough. He wanted nothing more than to go home and salvage what he could His wife and children and kinfolk had suffered enough. It was time to rebuild.

There might have been enough hardcases to continue, but I suspect that most of them knew it was over. Time to go home and get some sort of crop in the ground. Time to start over. Time to get on with it.

Whupped is whupped and your basic guy knows when to quit. This is not a fun thing to accept, but most guys know when the fight is over.

ole

If I had known what use those people planned to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender by me at Appomattox. No sir, not by be. I would have preferred to die with my brave men, my sword in this right hand...

Tory

 

[tory_loyalist]

Every once in a while someone pops up the possibility of the south prosecuting a guerrilla war starting in May of 1865.

What would have been the objective(s)?

Where would it have been most "hot?"

How long would it have lasted?

What ultimately would have caused it to end (or would it have continued even now)?

Opinions, if you dare, but please, play fair.

Who says they didn't start one?

Who says it is not going on, right now?

Tory

 

[ole]

If I had known what use those people planned to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender by me at Appomattox. No sir, not by be. I would have preferred to die with my brave men, my sword in this right hand...

I'm just guessing that you have a credible source for this statement. Nevertheless, I would like to see where and when the quote was made, and to whom.

 

[unionblue]

I'm just guessing that you have a credible source for this statement. Nevertheless, I would like to see where and when the quote was made, and to whom.

ole,

Lee was supposed to have made it to a visitor.

Most Lee biographers dismiss it as coming from Lee as it does not match the man's words or attitude from the period.

It's along the same lines as the oft-repeated quotes of Grant not wanting to draw his sword to abolish slavery. Unsubstansiated by any reliable historian.

Unionbleu

 

[unionblue]

Who says they didn't start one?

Who says it is not going on, right now?

Tory

History.

Unionblue

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear Tory_Loyalist;

I spent approximately 2 hours trying to link the quote you stated to some 'recorded' historical statement--and I found none.

I would appreciate a source, with page number so I can look it up.

Now--if its just a Shakespearian like utterance; please do state such; as to give my eyes a rest.

I've looked at all the Appomattox surrendering 'personal accounts' in the Official Records I have--to include the Southern Historical Society and Confederate Military History; to which I've drawn a blank. So, your assistance in giving references would be appreciated.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[matthew mckeon]

There was a guerilla war after Appomattox. The Ku Klux Klan conducted a terror campaign against the Reconstruction governments, white Republicans and any African American who was politically active. This terror campaign was successful, with the end of black participation in government after the Compromise of 1877.

 

[timewalker]

There was a guerilla war after Appomattox. The Ku Klux Klan conducted a terror campaign against the Reconstruction governments, white Republicans and any African American who was politically active. This terror campaign was successful, with the end of black participation in government after the Compromise of 1877.

The terror campaign ended, but I don't know if you could exactly say it was successful. Reconstruction ended as a result of a political compromise over a deadlocked presidential election. The campaign of the KKK was but a minor component of that and not the driving force behind the end of reconstruction.

 

[Freddy]

Here it is and look where and who it comes from.

SUNDAY Q&A
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]'The Real Lincoln'[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Thomas DiLorenzo deconstructs 16th president's abolitionist image with Metcalf[/SIZE][/FONT]


Q: Is it true that Robert E. Lee once said that if he had any idea how the Republican Party would treat the South, he wouldn't have surrendered at Appomattox?

A: Yes, he did. He said that to the former governor of Texas. Right before Gen. Lee died, he said if he knew the Republican Party would treat the people of the South the way they did, he would have preferred to die in one last battle with his sword drawn and with his own men. The exact quote is, "Governor, if I had foreseen the use that those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox courthouse. No sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my men … my sword in my right hand." That was Robert E. Lee in 1870.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=13521

 

[timewalker]

Well, if Di Lorenzo said it, it must be true.

 

[tory_loyalist]

Dear Tory_Loyalist;

I spent approximately 2 hours trying to link the quote you stated to some 'recorded' historical statement--and I found none.

I would appreciate a source, with page number so I can look it up.

Now--if its just a Shakespearian like utterance; please do state such; as to give my eyes a rest.

I've looked at all the Appomattox surrendering 'personal accounts' in the Official Records I have--to include the Southern Historical Society and Confederate Military History; to which I've drawn a blank. So, your assistance in giving references would be appreciated.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

I believe it was told to Governor Stockdale at the White Hotel just before Lee's death. I have a photograph of the gathering, and an elderly looking Lee is in the group.
I have no way to upload it, unfortunately, but it is an authentic photo of Lee at the gathering...

I don't expect much pro-Southern 'stuff' makes it into the OFFICIAL anything, or else gets DOUBTED into oblivion...

I don't have much faith in the official accounts because they are all governed by those who either downplay
events which make the South look palatable, or else they ignore them as 'unimportant'.

My main problem is not with how the South is denied any and all credibility... my main problem is the making of heroes out of men like Sherman and Grant, and Lincoln... and the vilifying of the victims for having
supported the Confederacy at all, not because of TREASON... but because of MODERN IDEAS of RACISM!

This is ludicrous to the extreme!


(But it is fun to watch John Hope Franklin refuse to back down to an event which is supposed to honor Lincoln - even Lincoln would get a kick out of that!)

Tory

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

I believe it was told to Governor Stockdale at the White Hotel just before Lee's death. I have a photograph of the gathering, and an elderly looking Lee is in the group.
I have no way to upload it, unfortunately, but it is an authentic photo of Lee at the gathering...

I don't expect much pro-Southern 'stuff' makes it into the OFFICIAL anything, or else gets DOUBTED into oblivion...

I don't have much faith in the official accounts because they are all governed by those who either downplay
events which make the South look palatable, or else they ignore them as 'unimportant'.

My main problem is not with how the South is denied any and all credibility... my main problem is the making of heroes out of men like Sherman and Grant, and Lincoln... and the vilifying of the victims for having
supported the Confederacy at all, not because of TREASON... but because of MODERN IDEAS of RACISM!

This is ludicrous to the extreme!


(But it is fun to watch John Hope Franklin refuse to back down to an event which is supposed to honor Lincoln - even Lincoln would get a kick out of that!)

Tory

That was lucid.
Thanks. I mean it.

 

[unionblue]

I believe it was told to Governor Stockdale at the White Hotel just before Lee's death. I have a photograph of the gathering, and an elderly looking Lee is in the group.
I have no way to upload it, unfortunately, but it is an authentic photo of Lee at the gathering...

I don't expect much pro-Southern 'stuff' makes it into the OFFICIAL anything, or else gets DOUBTED into oblivion...

I don't have much faith in the official accounts because they are all governed by those who either downplay
events which make the South look palatable, or else they ignore them as 'unimportant'.

My main problem is not with how the South is denied any and all credibility... my main problem is the making of heroes out of men like Sherman and Grant, and Lincoln... and the vilifying of the victims for having
supported the Confederacy at all, not because of TREASON... but because of MODERN IDEAS of RACISM!

This is ludicrous to the extreme!


(But it is fun to watch John Hope Franklin refuse to back down to an event which is supposed to honor Lincoln - even Lincoln would get a kick out of that!)

Tory

In other words,

Actual, recorded historical events rarely provide any serious evidence to support your own personal views.

"History deals with what is, and tis folly to discuss what might have been."

William T. Sherman.

Unionblue

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear Tory_Loyalist;

You may want to thank Freddy for finding the exact source.

Although not in the "official records" of the Southern History Society or Confederate Military History records -- that doesn't mean there are other sources; e.g. newspapers, etc.

That is why I appreciate it, personally -- if there is a reference source when given a statement. Sometimes the whole article is a good read, not just the snip.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear Freddy,

Thank you for all the hard work it took to locate the article and to share the link with the members.

Much appreciated!

Respectfully submitted,

M. E. Wolf

 

[PvtClewell]

This comes from a web site by Jim Epperson, which pretty much refutes most of what DiLorenzo asserts:

"Shortly before his death in 1870, General Robert E. Lee told former Texas Governor Fletcher Stockdale that, in light of how the Republican Party was treating the people of the South, he never would have surrendered at Appomattox, but would have died there with his men in one final battle. 'Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.'" (The second edition uses the same language.) This story is weak on several levels. Douglas Southall Freeman, the premier biographer of General Lee, does not accept it. DiLorenzo cites a book by Thomas Nelson Page as his source, but Freeman notes that the evidence for the incident is second-hand (to DiLorenzo's source it might be third-hand) and says, "There is nothing in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand witness that accords with such an expression on his part." (R.E. Lee, vol. IV, p. 374)

Here is the URL for Epperson's entire web site refuting much of DiLorenzo's 'The Real Lincon'. Interesting stuff:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/dilorenz.htm

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

This comes from a web site by Jim Epperson, which pretty much refutes most of what DiLorenzo asserts:

"Shortly before his death in 1870, General Robert E. Lee told former Texas Governor Fletcher Stockdale that, in light of how the Republican Party was treating the people of the South, he never would have surrendered at Appomattox, but would have died there with his men in one final battle. 'Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.'" (The second edition uses the same language.) This story is weak on several levels. Douglas Southall Freeman, the premier biographer of General Lee, does not accept it. DiLorenzo cites a book by Thomas Nelson Page as his source, but Freeman notes that the evidence for the incident is second-hand (to DiLorenzo's source it might be third-hand) and says, "There is nothing in Lee's own writings and nothing in direct quotation by first-hand witness that accords with such an expression on his part." (R.E. Lee, vol. IV, p. 374)

Here is the URL for Epperson's entire web site refuting much of DiLorenzo's 'The Real Lincon'. Interesting stuff:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/dilorenz.htm

If Freeman, the pre-eminant lost-causer, doubts it that's pretty significant.

I was thinking that it didn't quite sound like Lee. The language is wrong, but it could be a paraphrase by someone with readier access to bad novels than a useful education.

Neither does it seem in keeping with his character.

I suppose it's possible he said it, but I'd sure hate to stake anything important on it.