Racist Poster

[Ben Kenobi]

But since he wasn't a racist and advocated racial equality in the South after the war, his reputation was destroyed by the "Lost Cause" Southerners who are also responsible for creating the "Lee was the greatest evar!!!" myth

Seems to me Yankee favouritism. Longstreet was good, but you're ranking him over Stonewall Jackson?

The problem with that strategy is the fact that the Union completely relied upon Winfield Scott's anaconda plan. The Union didn't really care what happened on the ground, so long as they were able to defeat the confederate navy, blockade their ports, and hinder the South from breaking through. Everything was designed to choke off avenues of Southern expansion, to prevent the South from bringing in support from abroad, etc. Vicksburg was the centerpiece of that strategy, which is why they fought for control of the Mississippi.

Lee believed that winning the war in the East, would force the Union to negotiate and end the war. Those costly offensives, true they doomed the south long term, but the South had no choice. They were substantially far behind and already badly off after the first two years of war.

What they did do is shatter the union army and prevented them, until Grant was appointed General, from sustaining an offensive.

What options did Lee have? Leave no one in the East and try to hold down the Mississippi? What's going to prevent the Union from just rolling in through Richmond and ending the war in the first 4 months?

[Boris Godunov]

Seems to me Yankee favouritism. Longstreet was good, but you're ranking him over Stonewall Jackson?

The problem with that strategy is the fact that the Union completely relied upon Winfield Scott's anaconda plan. The Union didn't really care what happened on the ground, so long as they were able to defeat the confederate navy, blockade their ports, and hinder the South from breaking through. Everything was designed to choke off avenues of Southern expansion, to prevent the South from bringing in support from abroad, etc. Vicksburg was the centerpiece of that strategy, which is why they fought for control of the Mississippi.

Lee believed that winning the war in the East, would force the Union to negotiate and end the war. Those costly offensives, true they doomed the south long term, but the South had no choice. They were substantially far behind and already badly off after the first two years of war.

What they did do is shatter the union army and prevented them, until Grant was appointed General, from sustaining an offensive.

What options did Lee have? Leave no one in the East and try to hold down the Mississippi? What's going to prevent the Union from just rolling in through Richmond and ending the war in the first 4 months?

Yes, Longstreet was better than Jackson. I don't think that's a controversial statement outside of the Lost Cause apologists. While Jackson had brilliance, he was also erratic and capable of supreme bungling (The Seven Days' campaign).

The South probably couldn't have won the war under any circumstances, but a defensive posture would have given them a better shot, at least. Lee's offensives were hopeless, despite his excuses for them. Consider the fact that if Lincoln had lost the 1864 election, McClellan would have sued for peace and the CSA would have won. Lincoln wouldn't have won that election if he hadn't had the victories under his belt granted by Lee. Even before that, the strategic victory of Antietam allowed Lincoln to forestall British and French recognition of the CSA by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, something he could not have done without it.

Lee didn't have to put all of his forces in Mississippi, but he definitely could have reinforced it enough to make taking Vicksburg a much longer, bloodier affair without damaging his ability to defend Virginia. Defense was never the problem for the CSA until late in the war, when they'd already been exhausted. That would be of great help in what would be a waiting game, as the Northern population had wavered in its support of the war.

Beyond all that, Lee's insistence to continue fighting when it was obvious to everyone that the South had lost was a callous butchering of his own men, far less excusable than Grant's costly tactics. Any decent commander would have surrendered after the fall of Atlanta, and there shouldn't have been any fighting past December 1864.

[SlowwHand]

Only a misinformed person would call Lee a ****up. Once you said that, there was little reason to read further.

Longstreet was better than good. He and Jackson were who Lee counted on the most.
The turning point was Gettysburg. Had the South made one more charge, the whole war would have changed.
You can put that in the file labeled "Fact".

[giblets]

What options did Lee have?

Surrender in order to avoid pointless deaths and suffering. Instead he fought on in defense of slavery.

[Boris Godunov]

Only a misinformed person would call Lee a ****up. Once you said that, there was little reason to read further.

Longstreet was better than good. He and Jackson were who Lee counted on the most.
The turning point was Gettysburg. Had the South made one more charge, the whole war would have changed.
You can put that in the file labeled "Fact".

Gettysburg was lost before a shot was fired, due to Lee's supreme incompetence in picking where he was going to fight. Longstreet warned him repeatedly not to engage there, but he didn't listen.

And you just contradicted yourself. If "one more charge" would have won the war for the South, then the decision to not make one more charge was a colossal, unbelievable **** up. Who made that decision? Lee. So, by your own words, Lee made the biggest **** up of the entire war!

I doubt a Southern victory at Gettysburg would have changed the outcome, anyway. As Shelby Foote noted:

"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back...If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."

There you have it, from a Southerner.

[SlowwHand]

I didn't contradict myself at all. Gettysburg was the turning point of the war. The way it went, went the war.
As for Shelby Foote, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it, but the vast majority of scholars agree with me. I wasn't there, so I'm relying on the collective assessment of people who specialize in the subject. You go ahead and agree with Foote, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is.

[Boris Godunov]

I didn't contradict myself at all. Gettysburg was the turning point of the war. The way it went, went the war.

Nope. Antietam was more of a turning point, thanks to it ensuring non-intervention from Europe on behalf of the South. Hell, Grant's victories in the West were more important turning points. By Gettysburg, the South's chances of winning had already been vanquished. Gettysburg just accelerated the CSA's eventual downfall, so it was a "turning point" in a sense of turning to more of a downward trajectory.

As for Shelby Foote, that's his opinion and he's welcome to it, but the vast majority of scholars agree with me. I wasn't there, so I'm relying on the collective assessment of people who specialize in the subject. You go ahead and agree with Foote, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is.

No. Most historians agree that there was little if any chance for the South to win the war. You're just inventing "facts" again. Prove this collective assessment. Shrugging off the view of Foote, one of the most respected of all Civil War historians, just shows you're believing what you want, not what was reality. The only major historian I can find who even gives the South a shot (and a remote one) is James McPherson. While I respect his advocacy to stop the romanticizing of the Confederacy and instead acknowledging that it stood for racism and oppression, I'd say the tide of historical opinion is definitely against his view on the South's chances.

[Ben Kenobi]

The South probably couldn't have won the war under any circumstances, but a defensive posture would have given them a better shot, at least.

They would have lost, just more slowly. They had to win in the east and force the Yankees to negotiate, probably in the first 6 months of the war. Bottling up and sitting back might have extended the war, but they would still have been defeated. Lee had to fend off the attacks before they got to Richmond, not that much room to maneuver. This is why his sharp offensives were effective at keeping union pressure off of Richmond for as long as it did.

Had Lee just sat back McLellen could have knocked him out altogether. By charging at McLellen, McLellen withdrew back to the north.

Lee's offensives were hopeless, despite his excuses for them.

He never had strategic initiative at any point of the war. His only chance at winning was a successful offense. When you are small stack you have to go all in if you want to win. You sit back, you are just going to get devoured. Fault him for the hands he made his stands on, but I can understand why he went on the offensive.

Consider the fact that if Lincoln had lost the 1864 election, McClellan would have sued for peace and the CSA would have won.

True, but he already had Vicksburg and the Emancipation Proclamation. Lee's offensives were irrelevant to the election campaign.

Even before that, the strategic victory of Antietam allowed Lincoln to forestall British and French recognition of the CSA by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, something he could not have done without it.

Vicksburg was far more influential. It cut the South in two. Lee had no choice but to fend off the armies in VA, and had to hope what was shored up in the West was sufficient. It was not.

Lee didn't have to put all of his forces in Mississippi, but he definitely could have reinforced it enough to make taking Vicksburg a much longer, bloodier affair without damaging his ability to defend Virginia.

Not without significantly weakening his forces in VA. He had forces in MS and in AL that weren't where they should have been because they did not anticipate them coming at Vicksburg from the South.

[Fake Boris]

BTW KH if you're still reading this thread, my claim about political influence being a commodity wasn't a godwinizing reductio ad absurdum. It was meant a bit in the same vein as when you argued that organ trading should be allowed, a while back.

I sincerely believe that market theory fails when it refuses to consider certain commodities on moral grounds. Black market theory applies...

[SlowwHand]

You can repeat it as frequently as you would like, Boris, but you're still wrong. I'm only going to put one reference, because I know facts won't matter to you on this, no many how many sources I cite.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857371.html

Encyclopedia—Civil War, in U.S. history
Turning Point

The Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg in July, 1863, marked a definite turning point in the war. Both sides now had seasoned, equally valiant soldiers, and in Lee and Ulysses S. Grant each had a superior general. But the North, with its larger population and comparatively enormous industry, enjoyed a tremendous material advantage. Both sides also resorted to conscription, even though it met some resistance (see draft riots).
.

[Tupac Shakur]

It's little wonder that a stupid Southern racist like Sloww would think Lee is the greatest general ever.

[SlowwHand]

Boris has a different opinion than I. You just suck. Big difference.

[Tupac Shakur]

You just suck.

I guess I'm just like Lee, then. Shouldn't you be kissing my ass?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's little wonder that a stupid Southern racist like Sloww would think Lee is the greatest general ever

What was that, halfpac?

[giblets]

What was that, halfpac?

Why are you asking? Are you not capable of reading it or something?