Robert E Lee

[clintonhater]

also: Robert E. Lee and Slavery- at History Net- Elizeabeth Brown Pryor.

also.........

Quite a few historians agree that Lee was solidly pro slavery and his personal and professional actions were reprehensible- now and even then.

Lincoln asked a man whose personal and professional actions were reprehensible to lead the Union Army? Do you believe Lincoln could be such a fool? Lee's character, not his military accomplishments (he had none in 1861) was the factor that motivated both the USA & CSA to seek his leadership. Why would you take the word of a left-wing pseudo-historian who hated the South over almost every other historian. You can find "proof" on the internet that the CIA was behind the Twin Towers attack; do you believe that also?

- - - Updated - - -

The statues were controversial when erected.

Who says so? Those who still hated the South?

[Roadkingtrax]

Who says so? Those who still hated the South?

Not my opinion, and no one else from today either.

The soldiers and peers of those that served with and under those men, that were put up in the late 1800s. I've combed through newspapers and publications, contemporary to the statue placements. You would think the celebration of these people would be a controversial topic only in this century, but it's always been a bit peculiar .

[togor]

States rights? How about the free states' rights to their own laws, removed from Federal interference on behalf of the slave states? The war was precipitated by slavery. And the abolitionists were on the right side of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

It has been written, persuasively, that Lee was overly-aggressive on the attack, and wasted good men. Maybe he should have taken that US commission.

[dryheat]

I can't follow all this history but I liked Reds post. No,seriously. Forthright, before all the scholars pile on.

[Vern Humphrey]

Lincoln asked a man whose personal and professional actions were reprehensible to lead the Union Army? Do you believe Lincoln could be such a fool? Lee's character, not his military accomplishments (he had none in 1861) was the factor that motivated both the USA & CSA to seek his leadership. Why would you take the word of a left-wing pseudo-historian who hated the South over almost every other historian. You can find "proof" on the internet that the CIA was behind the Twin Towers attack; do you believe that also?

- - - Updated - - -



Who says so? Those who still hated the South?

Pardon me? Lee was the man who led the US Army across the Pedregal (the lava beds) during the war with Mexico. Grant was the man who broke down the gates of Mexico City by hauling an M1841 Mountain Howitzer up into a church belfry and bringing them under fire.

They both had stellar war records -- in Lee's case, Winfield Scott the Commanding General of the US Army, recommended him for command of the Army of the Potomac.

[Gun Smoke]

Pardon me? Lee was the man who led the US Army across the Pedregal (the lava beds) during the war with Mexico. Grant was the man who broke down the gates of Mexico City by hauling an M1841 Mountain Howitzer up into a church belfry and bringing them under fire.

They both had stellar war records -- in Lee's case, Winfield Scott the Commanding General of the US Army, recommended him for command of the Army of the Potomac.

They sure don't make them like that anymore.

[Vern Humphrey]

They sure don't make them like that anymore.

Nor do they.

For his two Invasions of the North (Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns) Lee took elaborate precautions to prevent looting and atrocities against civilians. Contrast that with Sherman's March Through Georgia.

[togor]

Nor do they.

For his two Invasions of the North (Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns) Lee took elaborate precautions to prevent looting and atrocities against civilians. Contrast that with Sherman's March Through Georgia.

C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons. A politician does though. Which are you???

[lyman]

C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons. A politician does though. Which are you???

he actually has be both, correct?

[togor]

he actually has be both, correct?

Let's see if he owns up to the misleading element of that claim.

[clintonhater]

C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons.

Like all the self-righteous pols cherry picking the facts about Floyd they want to talk about?

[togor]

Like all the self-righteous pols cherry picking the facts about Floyd they want to talk about?

If you want to equate Vernon with a self-righteous politician, you'll get no argument here!

[togor]

Lee's northern incursions were done to bring the war to the North, in a way that raised the perceived cost to the North, but without actions by his army that would inspire a desire for retribution. Remember the South wanted a military stalemate that led to a political recognition of secession.

By November 1864 the North was moving to end the rebellion in the field. The drive on Savannah was meant to break the economic capacity of the South to field armies. Sherman was 80 years ahead of his time.

[Vern Humphrey]

For those who have questions, I recommend Edwin Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign," which remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. Coddington devotes considerable space to describing Lee's measures to prevent looting and atrocities. Confederate officers were appointed to negotiate with civic leaders to commandeer things the Army needed (which is in accord with the Laws of Land Warfare) but looting by individual soldiers was prohibited. No Confederate soldier could enter a private home without the owner's permission. If they took anything from stores, they had to pay -- albeit with Confederate money or city "shinplasters." On entering a town, the Provost Marshall posted guards, seized all alcohol and poured it out, and took other measures for the protection of civilians.

[togor]

For those who have questions, I recommend Edwin Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign," which remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. Coddington devotes considerable space to describing Lee's measures to prevent looting and atrocities. Confederate officers were appointed to negotiate with civic leaders to commandeer things the Army needed (which is in accord with the Laws of Land Warfare) but looting by individual soldiers was prohibited. No Confederate soldier could enter a private home without the owner's permission. If they took anything from stores, they had to pay -- albeit with Confederate money or city "shinplasters." On entering a town, the Provost Marshall posted guards, seized all alcohol and poured it out, and took other measures for the protection of civilians.

Was the army as polite with their slaves as with northern civilians? Also you still needed me to put this in context for you.