Celebrate the 151st Anniversary of Lee's Surrender

[jonny5]

This is the 151st Anniversary of Lee's Surrender at Appomattox and one of the last death rattles of the Confederacy. I encourage every American to celebrate this victory and remember those who fought to save the Republic. This is one day that I really think should be commemorated as a national holiday.

A celebration and national holiday to celebrate forcing people to be part of the union? Thats a bit sadistic.

 

[matchlight]

Are you aware of the technology at the disposal of Grant vs Lee? Lee had troops armed with smooth bore weapons while grants men were consistently rifled and even had lever action and breech loaders.

The rifled musket was the most common personal weapon for both sides. A few units here and there on either side used old smooth bore weapons at some point. Ironically, the "buck and ball" loads fired from these caused even more severe casualties when they were used at fairly short range than did the usual Minie ball fired by rifled muskets. Lever action rifles were mostly used by cavalry later in the war, and they were relatively uncommon.

 

[blackjack50]

The rifled musket was the most common personal weapon for both sides. A few units here and there on either side used old smooth bore weapons at some point.

Correct. But it was more Common in southern units. Reason? They didn't have an arms industry and were in the process of tooling one up.

Ironically, the "buck and ball" loads fired from these caused even more severe casualties when they were used at fairly short range than did the usual Minie ball fired by rifled muskets.

Again very true. But you wouldn't want your troops going out with shotguns against rifles in a battlefield setting. The same principle.

Lever action rifles were mostly used by cavalry later in the war, and they were relatively uncommon.

Yep. But they existed and were not southern weapons really. And the use of Sharps carbines/breach loading was devastating where they were deployed.

 

[Sherman123]

A celebration and national holiday to celebrate forcing people to be part of the union? Thats a bit sadistic.

A glorious day!

 

[jonny5]

A glorious day!

To celebrate american citizens killing 620,000 other american citizens. Thats not a celebration, thats a memorial. There was nothing good about the civil war.

 

[Sherman123]

To celebrate american citizens killing 620,000 other american citizens. Thats not a celebration, thats a memorial. There was nothing good about the civil war.

It saved the Republic, abolished slavery, smashed the southern planter aristocracy, strengthened the national government, and preserved the United States for future generations. It was a glorious achievement worthy of celebration on par with VE and VJ Day.

 

[blackjack50]

It saved the Republic,

true

abolished slavery,

True.

smashed the southern planter aristocracy,

And replaced them with extreme poverty that we still feel today in the south, and brought in the industrialist aristocracy that basically bought American government for a century.


[QUOTE{strengthened the national government, and preserved the United States for future generations. It was a glorious achievement worthy of celebration on par with VE and VJ Day.[/QUOTE]

At the expense of family and lives and extreme economic hardship for American citizens for years to come. It is no wonder that resentment existed for so long. I think a memorial is much better. A remembrance that a "house divided against itself will not stand."

 

[matchlight]

Correct. But it was more Common in southern units. Reason? They didn't have an arms industry and were in the process of tooling one up.




Again very true. But you wouldn't want your troops going out with shotguns against rifles in a battlefield setting. The same principle.



Yep. But they existed and were not southern weapons really. And the use of Sharps carbines/breach loading was devastating where they were deployed.

The Confederacy also bought .58 cal. rifled muskets made in England, at least to the extent its resources and the Union blockade allowed it. All this depends partly on what battle you are talking about. Early in the war in the West, at places like Shiloh and Pea Ridge, standardized uniforms were more the exception than the rule, especially for the Southern men. And the small arms many of the men used in these earlier battles, especially, were whatever they had brought from home or could take from men who had fallen on either side. The wide variety of weapons got to be quite a problem for people in charge of supplying ammunition. Anyone shooting an unusual firearm pretty much had to supply himself, unless that weapon was fairly common in his division, in which case the division's wagons would probably be carrying some ammunition for it.

The sound of Civil War battles must have been impressive, and a great many men wrote about it. Even if no artillery was in action, imagine a large-scale engagement that began with about 3,500 men on each side--just the kind of fight that would often kick up and rage for a while here and there on the fields of major battles like Antietam, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg. If casualties pared the average number firing down to 6,000, with each man firing once every two minutes, on average--some more often, some less--at the end of an hour, 180,000 bullets would have been fired, or about fifty per second. Fifty of those explosions each second would probably sound like a very loud, mostly continuous deep bass tone, with an occasional shot distinguishable.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I will celebrate the end of the war, but not dishonoring General Lee, even if the south was very wrong with the slavery deal. Robert Lee was a very conflicted man of his times. He didn't want secession, and felt that it would only lead to bloodshed. He loved a lot of people from both sides of the war and didn't want to fight them. But, people fought for their individual states during the civil war, and many of them had little or no clue as to what they were really fighting for. Lee of course, had more knowledge of the matter than the average enlistee, or many junior officers, but he was sworn to his state and felt it was his duty to carry on.

 

[jonny5]

It saved the Republic, abolished slavery, smashed the southern planter aristocracy, strengthened the national government, and preserved the United States for future generations. It was a glorious achievement worthy of celebration on par with VE and VJ Day.

Progress abolished slavery, the Republic is worse than it was before, and the rest are not good things. The national govt is a tyranny and the civil war started it, reinforcing this idea that you do not have the right to consent to be goverend. And that to enforce this, a strong national govt can kill you and burn your property. It was a tragedy that made the Revolution to become free irrelevant.

 

[blackjack50]

I will celebrate the end of the war, but not dishonoring General Lee, even if the south was very wrong with the slavery deal. Robert Lee was a very conflicted man of his times. He didn't want secession, and felt that it would only lead to bloodshed. He loved a lot of people from both sides of the war and didn't want to fight them. But, people fought for their individual states during the civil war, and many of them had little or no clue as to what they were really fighting for. Lee of course, had more knowledge of the matter than the average enlistee, or many junior officers, but he was sworn to his state and felt it was his duty to carry on.

That very last bit is something I feel many people do not fully appreciate. He fought for his home. Your state was far more important then than now. It wasn't like cheering for your favorite football team. It actually impacted your life a lot. And it was your home. That manner of thinking died (sort of) with the civil war. It resembled the mentality of the revolutionaries.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ah. This book. I haven't read it, but I read some reviews on it and even the authors admit that the evidence is circumstantial. Not to mention the sponsoring of an intelligence network in a time of war is not the same as being directly involved in an assassination plot. For all intensive purposes, even if Booth was an agent, he was not operating under the direction of Lee. Davis? I don't know. Not Lee.

The operation was under the personal supervision of Davis and Lee. It's why Lee never wrote memoirs.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm not asking that they ACTUALLY swap sides. I was asking you to perform a mental exercise and if you believe Grant would have been able to lead an army under the same conditions as Lee. The fact that you are leery to answer makes me suspicious that you don't believe Grant could have done as well from such a distinct disadvantage. Supply troubles and so on.

Grant was superior to Lee in all respects and under all conditions.

 

[blackjack50]

The operation was under the personal supervision of Davis and Lee. It's why Lee never wrote memoirs.

So you have evidence then linking him? The authors admit it was merely circumstantial. They also admit that Booth acted of his own accord when he went to kill Lincoln. A rogue agent of a spy network is HARDLY a conviction of someone in an assassination Plot. I would give you, even though I believe it could be contested, that Davis MIGHT have been involved. But there is not a chance Lee was involved. Especially given that he was stumbling around the Virginia countryside with a starving army and no place to turn fighting the last days of the war, and arriving to His family the day Lincoln died.

Ps

If you love espionage books I recommend "Spy Handler." It is written by the KGB agent who flipped the 2 biggest traitors in FBI history. It is really good.

 

[blackjack50]

The operation was under the personal supervision of Davis and Lee. It's why Lee never wrote memoirs.

So you have evidence then linking him? The authors admit it was merely circumstantial. They also admit that Booth acted of his own accord when he went to kill Lincoln. A rogue agent of a spy network is HARDLY a conviction of someone in an assassination Plot. I would give you, even though I believe it could be contested, that Davis MIGHT have been involved. But there is not a chance Lee was involved. Especially given that he was stumbling around the Virginia countryside with a starving army and no place to turn fighting the last days of the war, and arriving to His family the day Lincoln died.

Ps

If you love espionage books I recommend "Spy Handler." It is written by the KGB agent who flipped the 2 biggest traitors in FBI history. It is really good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

So you have evidence then linking him? The authors admit it was merely circumstantial. They also admit that Booth acted of his own accord when he went to kill Lincoln. A rogue agent of a spy network is HARDLY a conviction of someone in an assassination Plot. I would give you, even though I believe it could be contested, that Davis MIGHT have been involved. But there is not a chance Lee was involved. Especially given that he was stumbling around the Virginia countryside with a starving army and no place to turn fighting the last days of the war, and arriving to His family the day Lincoln died.

Ps

If you love espionage books I recommend "Spy Handler." It is written by the KGB agent who flipped the 2 biggest traitors in FBI history. It is really good.

Read it and get back to me. The Lee-Davis plan was to kidnap Lincoln and bring him to Lee's headquarters. The Confederacy would then negotiate for its independence with Lincoln as a hostage. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, Grant compelled Lee's surrender before Booth could act. With nowhere to take Lincoln, Booth changed from kidnapper to assassin.

 

[blackjack50]

Grant was superior to Lee in all respects and under all conditions.

I doubt that. Especially in conditions where his massive man power, supplies, and overall quality/health of his army would not be a factor. Lee inflicted massive casualties on Grant, but due to illness and an exhausted army? It was done for. Put Grant in the East against Lee early? I doubt he would have proven to be "superior" as the West was the key to defeating the south. And I doubt there were many generals who had the ability to win in the west. Or had Grant been in Lee's shoes? Not a chance would he have overcome the overwhelming odds.

Lee and Grant were 2 very different generals who proved themselves, and the east and west were 2 very different campaigns.

 

[Jack Hays]

I doubt that. Especially in conditions where his massive man power, supplies, and overall quality/health of his army would not be a factor. Lee inflicted massive casualties on Grant, but due to illness and an exhausted army? It was done for. Put Grant in the East against Lee early? I doubt he would have proven to be "superior" as the West was the key to defeating the south. And I doubt there were many generals who had the ability to win in the west. Or had Grant been in Lee's shoes? Not a chance would he have overcome the overwhelming odds.

Lee and Grant were 2 very different generals who proved themselves, and the east and west were 2 very different campaigns.

I have already posted that IMHO Grant's Vicksburg campaign was the masterpiece of the war. Let's just leave it alone. We're not going to agree and you seem like a reasonable fellow otherwise.

 

[Sherman123]

That very last bit is something I feel many people do not fully appreciate. He fought for his home. Your state was far more important then than now. It wasn't like cheering for your favorite football team. It actually impacted your life a lot. And it was your home. That manner of thinking died (sort of) with the civil war. It resembled the mentality of the revolutionaries.

Plenty of Virginians made the right choice and chose to serve their country as opposed to their state. I don't deny that Lee felt the way that he felt, but it was a treasonous misplacement of loyalties of which strong feeling is no excuse.

 

[Sherman123]

true



True.



And replaced them with extreme poverty that we still feel today in the south, and brought in the industrialist aristocracy that basically bought American government for a century.


[QUOTE{strengthened the national government, and preserved the United States for future generations. It was a glorious achievement worthy of celebration on par with VE and VJ Day.

At the expense of family and lives and extreme economic hardship for American citizens for years to come. It is no wonder that resentment existed for so long. I think a memorial is much better. A remembrance that a "house divided against itself will not stand."[/QUOTE]

The real problem with the reformation and reconstruction of the South was that it didn't go far enough. We needed to completely reconstruct southern society and the way forward was Radical Reconstruction. We failed and the whole country suffers for that today.

 

[blackjack50]

Plenty of Virginians made the right choice and chose to serve their country as opposed to their state. I don't deny that Lee felt the way that he felt, but it was a treasonous misplacement of loyalties of which strong feeling is no excuse.

How sad that you would place your personal views so easily on someone who made that decision 155 years ago. It is an easy choice for you. You don't see your state the way people did 155 years ago. Treasonous is HARDLY the correct term...given that that people still believed that the states were able to make their own decisions without federal interference

 

[Frank Apisa]

How sad that you would place your personal views so easily on someone who made that decision 155 years ago. It is an easy choice for you. You don't see your state the way people did 155 years ago. Treasonous is HARDLY the correct term...given that that people still believed that the states were able to make their own decisions without federal interference

I see your point, BJ.

If a state wants to allow slavery...it certainly should be able to do so.

Right?

 

[blackjack50]

The real problem with the reformation and reconstruction of the South was that it didn't go far enough. We needed to completely reconstruct southern society and the way forward was Radical Reconstruction. We failed and the whole country suffers for that today.

Didnt go far enough? How should they have reconstructed it?

 

[blackjack50]

I see your point, BJ.

If a state wants to allow slavery...it certainly should be able to do so.

Right?

YES! According to those who lived in the South 155 years ago. Others did not want to fight for a federal government that was far away and removed from their daily lives. Where the state they fought for was not.

Btw

I would GREATLY appreciate it if you wouldn't try to degrade an honest discussion by trying to infer that I support slavery. That is incredibly dishonest and insulting.

 

[Sherman123]

How sad that you would place your personal views so easily on someone who made that decision 155 years ago. It is an easy choice for you. You don't see your state the way people did 155 years ago. Treasonous is HARDLY the correct term...given that that people still believed that the states were able to make their own decisions without federal interference

Treason is a legal fact. His emotional conviction is an irrelevancy. More noble individuals like General Thomas made the correct decision and joined with their country as opposed to their state. That Lee chose the path of treason is regrettable, fortunately he was shown mercy.