doc mcb | 15 Oct 2021 1:00 p.m. PST |
Bravo, Parcival! As God said to Job, is it necessary that I be wrong in order for you to be right? |
Marcus Brutus | 15 Oct 2021 1:48 p.m. PST |
I am always suspicious of reductionist tendencies that try to oversimplify human motivation. One of the underlying issues that led to ACW was slavery but it wasn't the only driving force. The Constitution of 1787 was a compromise of two differing visions of the country and the ACW was the final determination of which vision would prevail. This goes beyond slavery. |
doc mcb | 15 Oct 2021 2:12 p.m. PST |
|
doc mcb | 15 Oct 2021 2:15 p.m. PST |
Broadly speaking, it was Virginia versus New England, as to what sort of country we would be. Each had good and bad characteristics. But as the country grew the west would become more like one or like the other. The west was the future, so they could not just live and let live. That is over-simplified, of course, but I believe the most accurate framework for making sense of a jillion details. |
Tortorella  | 16 Oct 2021 12:22 p.m. PST |
This thread is still going – yikes! There were so many immigrant populations streaming over here here and heading west, along with people from all over the Northeast, looking for land, for a better life, that I think this was a diverse expansion and no broad generalizations will hold. These people had no roots going back to 1787 and no history of slavery. |
Cleburne1863 | 17 Oct 2021 8:28 a.m. PST |
Parzival, I literally wrote, "This isn't directed at you personally, but it is a great examination of "why" Robert E. Lee fought," so I could segue into the broader why vs. what explanation. There was no need to defend yourself, I knew your position and wasn't attacking or talking about you. "Why is it so important to y'all to shout down voices with different opinions? Why is it so important to y'all that the South be "wrong?" I think its important to, not shout down voices with different opinions, but to expose them for what they truly are. I want to know who thinks the South was right. I want to know who thinks the Confederacy fought for a just cause. I have never once insulted or belittled a Lost Causer or Confederate apologist here or on any other social media platform. Have I gotten them to admit who they are or what they believe? Yes. What is wrong with that? It not destroying history. Its not insulting people. Shouldn't they be proud they support the Confederacy and its ideals? |
doc mcb | 17 Oct 2021 1:57 p.m. PST |
There was a time, however, when the Lost Cause narrative was useful in reuniting the nation. "History is what the Present finds USEFUL to remember about the past." Other narratives may (or may not) be more useful today, but we are in a new Present. |
Cleburne1863 | 17 Oct 2021 2:08 p.m. PST |
It didn't re-unite the nation for everyone. Only those with white skin. |
John the OFM  | 17 Oct 2021 2:17 p.m. PST |
I have never once insulted or belittled a Lost Causer or Confederate apologist here. Well, I have.  |
John the OFM  | 17 Oct 2021 2:21 p.m. PST |
There was a time, however, when the Lost Cause narrative was useful in reuniting the nation. Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. President Wilson fervently believed in keeping the Darkies in their place. He certainly believed that the Lost Cause was useful. Yeah. Somehow they aren't considered "useful in reuniting the nation." |
Parzival  | 17 Oct 2021 2:40 p.m. PST |
Cleburne, my apologies for misunderstanding you. I personally don't know any "Lost Causers" or Confederate apologists— never met one, never had a conversation with one. I'm convinced they still exist as a tiny minority, but as a common view across today's South— nope. |
Cleburne1863 | 17 Oct 2021 3:22 p.m. PST |
Parzival, No worries! They are out there. I personally know somebody that refers to themselves as a Confederate American, and I have as little to do with them as possible. I've heard people make off-hand racist jokes at Sons of Confederate Veterans meetings and local bookstores when I've been there doing book signings. They were at the end, and I'll never do a signing in those locations again. So I know they are out there. |
doc mcb | 17 Oct 2021 6:05 p.m. PST |
Politicians from both parties showed little concern for the freedmen, a bit more by Republicans and then a lot less by Democrats as the Solid South became a key part of their coalition right through FDR. Wilson was indeed probably our most racist president but hardly unique. And Cleburne is correct, the LC was for the whites. It was seen to be far more important to bring some sectional reconciliation between the defeated South and the rest of the nation, than to raise the status of the freedmen. That sectional healing was evident in 1898 when former Confederates commanded US Army forces in war. We today may object to their priorities then, but that takes for granted the sea change in racial attitudes after WWII and the Holocaust. |
doc mcb | 17 Oct 2021 6:21 p.m. PST |
To whatever extent the United States has a "warrior class" the southern whites have certainly been an important part of it. It is far from an exact analogy, but the British treatment of the highlanders -- remember that there was a point after the 45 at which tartans and bagpipes were outlawed -- that recruited their fierce history into the service of the empire is somewhat similar. Moore's Creek Bridge, baby! There are a lot of reasons the big US Army bases are in the south -- the seniority rule and the senate and the Solid South lead the list -- but the southern culture is one. Yes, the southern blacks got the shaft. And it should have been possible to give due acknowledgement to Confederate courage without endorsing the wicked system of segregation. But the segregated south was a huge asset to one of the two main parties, and the other party either would not or could not effectively challenge that. A tragic era indeed, but not a reason to badmouth Robert E. Lee. |
Tortorella  | 17 Oct 2021 6:45 p.m. PST |
There is no warrior class based on geography. Nothing like the Scottish regiments of the British army. We do not locate bases for cultural reasons. The South does not need all this boosting. It is much respected and is part of the USA. Imagine Massachusetts folks, with the beating we take from the right, running around yelling about the Minutemen? Have you read the new Guelzo book on Lee yet? That is something I would be interested in hearing about from your point of view. |
doc mcb | 17 Oct 2021 7:29 p.m. PST |
If there is a warrior class, it is more socio-cultural than geographic, agreed, but the individuals who share those characteristics do approximate working class southern whites. There is, for example, a disproportionate number of evangelicals in both the military and the south. Chattanooga still celebrates Armed Forces Day with a parade. |
John the OFM  | 17 Oct 2021 9:35 p.m. PST |
The Highlanders at Moore's Creek Bridge were technically "Loyalist" for one reason only. That was because the "Patriots" were aligned with the coastal plantation government class, The same people who oppressed the Regulators and smashed them at Alamance. This is a classic "the enemy of my enemy" situation. To assume that the Highlanders had any loyalty to the Crown is to ignore the ‘45. Fun game, by the way. I used actual ‘45 Jacobite Highlanders, knowing that it was inaccurate, Troiani notwithstanding. But when you have nice painted Highlanders, you gotta use them. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 5:03 a.m. PST |
Forrest MacDonald said that the former Regulators were loyal to a king "who, for all they knew, might only have been a rumor." But the exiled highlanders were a bit more knowledgeable than thta! |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 5:05 a.m. PST |
Tort, no, though I did read the blurb Kevin posted. The next ACW book I read will be the last vol of Rhea's Overland Campaign series. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Oct 2021 8:35 a.m. PST |
…not a reason to badmouth Robert E. Lee. What if the historical assessment demonstrates that Lee deserves to be 'badmouthed?' |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 9:57 a.m. PST |
Kevin, the motives of the "get-Lee" school are as suspect as the motives of the Lost Cause narrative. Of course Lee was not the "marble man" and has been portrayed as a flawed human like the rest of us for a good many years and a good many books now. Nothing wrong with that, if truth is the aim. But I suspect truth is NOT uppermost in some case, though a CLAIM of truth is always a useful weapon. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 9:57 a.m. PST |
My opinion of Lee was that he did a very good job of killing Americans, on both sides. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 10:03 a.m. PST |
As for the Highlanders at Moore's Creek Bridge, I've always wondered what would make Flora MacDonald and the other Jacobite exiles and their children fight enthusiastically for Hanoverian King George. Enthusiasm for fighting for the British? Hardly. More sophisticated political beliefs than the Regulators? It could only have been resentment against the coastal government that treated them unfairly. |
Marcus Brutus | 18 Oct 2021 10:04 a.m. PST |
Lee fought for what he considered to be his home. How can one be hostile to such a basic human instinct? |
Brechtel198 | 18 Oct 2021 10:41 a.m. PST |
He broke his oath of service and fought against his country. Other southerners in the US Army, such as Thomas and Gibbon, remained loyal even though their families, especially Gibbon's, turned against him. The actions of Thomas and Gibbon in this instance require admiration; those of Lee do not. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Oct 2021 10:44 a.m. PST |
…the motives of the "get-Lee" school are as suspect as the motives of the Lost Cause narrative. I wasn't aware that there was a 'get Lee' school. That idea is patently ridiculous. And it has nothing to do with the Lost Causers. The lost cause is a made-up narrative to excuse treason and rebellion, nothing more, nothing less. Have you read Guelzo's book? I'm reading it now and it is a balanced narrative and based on considerable research. |
Tortorella  | 18 Oct 2021 11:15 a.m. PST |
I have never heard of the "get Lee" narrative either. Because of the extent to which Lee was deified after the war and came to stand for something pure and heroic, he has been overdue for some new assessments, which has been happening. Its not about "getting' him, its about getting to the real story, whichever way the truth takes us. I find that Lee makes me uncomfortable in terms of his place in history. He is a hard man to read under all the worship he has gotten. Jackson also, and not because of all the weirdness. Grant seems to have become much more accessible after two recent biographies, with his faults and strengths in some sort of more accurate perspective, IMO. We can always use more books! |
Cleburne1863 | 18 Oct 2021 12:46 p.m. PST |
" Lee fought for what he considered to be his home. How can one be hostile to such a basic human instinct?" Protecting his home is his motivation. It is the "why." "What" did he fight for? To preserve a Confederacy, of which his home state of Virginia was a part, that relied on human slavery for its economy to function. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 12:56 p.m. PST |
Yes, a dying Grant, with nothing to lose and his family's welfare to secure, wrote the best autobiography ever, near about. Jackson of course was dead, and Lee busy at Washington U. and in bad health -- as he had been for at least the second half of the war. Societies CREATE the heroes they need, hence the marble man. But, pardon me, it is not difficult to detect the animosity towards Lee coming from some posters on these boards. Of course that too, tearing down an image, is an old American tradition. |
Cleburne1863 | 18 Oct 2021 1:10 p.m. PST |
What is "tearing down?" Pointing out Lee's faults? I think he was one of the greatest generals in US history. Personally brave. Knew how to inspire soldiers to acts of supreme bravery and sacrifice. Outstanding tactician and knew how to read his opponent. So is pointing out he fought for a cause unworthy of his talents "tearing him down?" |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 1:30 p.m. PST |
No, except that you are presuming to know why he fought better than he knew. He SAID it was in defense of his state. One defends his own, right or wrong. We most of us have hierarchies of who we would defend. That Lee put Virginia over the USA is not a moral fault. "Me against my brother. My brother and me against the world." |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 1:39 p.m. PST |
If anyone could bother to do the math, I wonder what the total Confederate and Yankee deaths are that could be attributed to Lee throughout the war. It doesn't really matter which side lost more. I'm just interested in counting dead Americans. He was good at that. Both sides. Ask Pickett. |
Cleburne1863 | 18 Oct 2021 1:46 p.m. PST |
No doc, I'm not making any comment on why he fought. So I'm not presuming anything. His motivation is immaterial. I'm making a statement on what he fought for. What the ultimate fruits of his labor were. What all his efforts went toward. "What" he fought for was the creation and survival of a Confederacy that required human slavery for its economy to function. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Oct 2021 2:02 p.m. PST |
If anyone could bother to do the math, I wonder what the total Confederate and Yankee deaths are that could be attributed to Lee throughout the war. Of all the major army commanders of both sides, Lee had the highest percentage of losses than any of them. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 4:06 p.m. PST |
Knew how to inspire soldiers to acts of supreme bravery and sacrifice. Outstanding tactician and knew how to read his opponent. And these are two major problems I have with Lee. He inspired his soldiers to bloodshed that was in the end pointless. As for reading his opponent, as soon as he ran into an opponent that he couldn't humbug, he was lost. Grant actually "lost" battles on his March to Richmond. But he didn't act like he lost. He advanced like he won those battles. Lee used his tactical brilliance like a wounded rattlesnake or rat, striking out. Then, Grant used his long handled shovel. All Lee's tactical brilliance accomplished was to kill more Americans, Union and Confederate. If he were as humane as his hagiographers proclaim, he should have forced Davis to see that the war was lost. Not for one minute do I swallow the propaganda that he was not willing to disappear into the woods at Appomattox and engage in guerrilla warfare. Sheridan had cut off his retreat to surround the army. How few Lee had left! And all because the Noble Lee would rather lose Southern lives than admit the end. |
Au pas de Charge | 18 Oct 2021 4:09 p.m. PST |
There was a time, however, when the Lost Cause narrative was useful in reuniting the nation. "History is what the Present finds USEFUL to remember about the past." Other narratives may (or may not) be more useful today, but we are in a new Present. So, the Lost Cause narrative is wrong because you shouldnt judge the past by contemporary morality or is it alright to judge the past according to contemporary morals? I think General Lee might've been appalled by the Lost Cause narrative. A narrative that has little to do with education and is a sort of urban legend travelling certain community circuits.
I think that as a result of fascinating revelations here, instead of teaching HS kids that the war was fought by the North to end slavery, we need to teach that it was fought by the South to preserve slavery. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 4:38 p.m. PST |
Charge, all morality is one. PERCEPTIONS and sensibilities change over time. If something is wrong, it IS wrong, even if you and I think it is right. This is why we honor reformers like MLK, who persuaded their society to refine its views of right and wrong. But morality didn't change, just people's ideas about it. Our modern enlightened views on race (and our views have become LESS enlightened on some other topics) are a direct result of the Holocaust. If racism produces THAT, there must be something very wrong with it. It is unhistorical and unfair to demand of earlier generations that they accept our moral revelations, retroactively. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 4:43 p.m. PST |
Charge, you might well be right about Lee not liking the LC narrative. But he was clearly committed to repairing the breach from the war. He might have assumed a role (the marble man) to aid in that, as GW deliberately adopted the "father of his country" role. |
Murvihill | 18 Oct 2021 5:16 p.m. PST |
If Lee really wanted to protect his home he'd have stayed with the Union. Then it wouldn't have been seized and turned into a cemetary. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 5:29 p.m. PST |
I think Lee would have LOVED the Lost Cause narrative. It started out trying to absolve him of all blame for the loss, and shift it to incompetents and traitors. Pickett and Longstreet did not cooperate. That he didn't live long enough to see it in full bloom is irrelevant. I see a lot of 1919 fault finding in the Lost Cause narrative. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 5:34 p.m. PST |
|
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 5:50 p.m. PST |
Yes. 1919 in Germany, with all the diehards screaming they had been stabbed in the back. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 6:06 p.m. PST |
I don't think that is correct. I think many southerners had come to believe, as I do and as Lincoln did, that God chose for the Union to win. After a bloodbath. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 6:45 p.m. PST |
…God chose for the Union to win. After a bloodbath. Wow. Just like Hera, and Athene ganged up on the Trojans at Troy. While Aphrodite, Ares and Apollo ganged up against the Achaeans. I must say that Odysseus and Diomedes took advantage of that. Both sets of gods and goddesses certainly wanted a bloodbath. You're certainly making "your" God seem like a bloodthirsty Heathen deity. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 7:00 p.m. PST |
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." |
Tortorella  | 18 Oct 2021 7:11 p.m. PST |
Yikes! All this blood… We have no idea whether most southerners had come to believe God chose for the Union. And the follow up is Greek to me. I think. Pas, you have raised an interesting point. Why don't we talk about the South starting the war in order to preserve slavery? Maybe its too hard to hear that way. Again, I think about the various articles of secession. I get that some in the south may have believed that they were fighting for something else. But time and time again, no matter how hard anyone tries, we come back to the fact that slavery was the foundation of the war. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 7:17 p.m. PST |
I'll simply ask you if Lincoln truly wanted a bloodbath. You seem to say that you think that he did 
As Johnnie Cash sang to Nixon, "Each week we lose a hundred fine young men." God willing. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 7:26 p.m. PST |
I'll simply ask you if Lincoln truly wanted a bloodbath. Tort, the follow-up is from Lincoln's second inaugural. John, you can judge that for yourself. But you are not impressing me with your reading and reasoning skills. If you mean to provoke, nope, sorry, you missed. And if Lincoln's FIRST inaugural is a pretty good guide to what he thought caused the war, his SECOND is a pretty good guide to what he thought the war was ABOUT. |
doc mcb | 18 Oct 2021 7:30 p.m. PST |
Tort, anyone who has walked the ground at Missionary Ridge, and looked at it from Orchard Knob , HAS to believe the outcome was God's will. |
John the OFM  | 18 Oct 2021 7:31 p.m. PST |
Doc, YOU said that Lincoln wanted a bloodbath. Unless we aren't using the same English language and grammar, that's what YOU said. |