What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

[American]

Lee had a nifty little myth about him, which Grant found amusing. Grant was the genuine article.

It is interesting how much Republucans admire Lee and ignore Grant, one of their own. It just shows how much the two sides have switched.

As usual, making up shit again, then debating it. It's called a strawman. You haven't the slightest idea who admires whom.

 

[American]

A little historical accuracy.

Also, he was a shitty general, for two reasons.

1. His battle plans were mostly frontal assaults. Frontal assaults are a pathology.
2. He lost.

Actually you're dead wrong, keep your day job. Are you in charge of fries or the condiments?

 

[armycowboy]

Actually you're dead wrong, keep your day job. Are you in charge of fries or the condiments?

Straight to the ad homs. How utterly predictable.

 

[Juin]

It’s true that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves (don’t care at all for your rhetorical style btw).

My apologies for a rhetorical style that does not meet your approval.

However, certainly from my perspective, that has to weighed against the positive things they contributed to the country. Winning the Revolutionary War, writing the Declaration of Independence, etc.

Is that from the black perspective? Was winning the Revolutionary War a good thing from the black perspective?

Whereas Lee’s only really significant act was to take up arms against the country to preserve slavery. If there had been no civil war, almost no-one would have heard of him.

If there was no Revolutionary War no one would know about Massa Tom Jeff'son as well

A little historical accuracy.

Also, he was a shitty general, for two reasons.

1. His battle plans were mostly frontal assaults. Frontal assaults are a pathology.
2. He lost.

Mostly frontal assaults? Was Chancelorsville a frontal assault?

 

[Luce]

Actually you're dead wrong, keep your day job. Are you in charge of fries or the condiments?

How many campaigns did he win after Macclellan was replaced?

For that matter, how well did he do after Stonewall Jackson was killed?

 

[Luce]

Straight to the ad homs. How utterly predictable.

I have adjusted my expectations to account for angry, crying neoconfederates.

 

[j brown's body]

As usual, making up shit again, then debating it. It's called a strawman. You haven't the slightest idea who admires whom.

Hmmmm

Opinion | Why Is the G.O.P. Fighting to Preserve Monuments to Traitors in the Capitol? (Published 2020)

Portraits and statues venerating Confederate leaders are an insult to freedom and democracy.

www.nytimes.com

Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause | Washington Independent Review of Books

The Independent is an important voice in the community of readers and writers dedicated to book reviews and writing about the world of books.

www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com

 

[Jredbaron96]

That is the point. Making the war a one-grievance issue is historical revision.

Ignoring the centrality of slavery is a much more grievous attempt at revisionism, since there was actual palpable human suffering attached to it.

 

[multivita-man]

Is that from the black perspective? Was winning the Revolutionary War a good thing from the black perspective?

No, but it should be noted that in Washington's case, he did free his slaves upon his death. Jefferson freed some of his slaves including two while he was alive. He was a regular critic of the international slave trade.

One can certainly say that Washington, Jefferson, and the FF's actions fell short in terms allowing a space for slavery; however, they were trying to be pragmatic and knew that there wouldn't be a single, unified American continental power without pro-slavery states. Moreover, once you get beyond the deal cutting, the ideological contributions of Washington and Jefferson at least gave us ideology to aspire to.

Probably the great flaw that the FF's made was in their assumption that the slave trade would end in 1809 and that slavery itself would become less and less feasible. But the fact that FF's owned slaves doesn't necessarily put them in the same category as Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis, neither of whom are inherently evil but both of whom defended an evil institution and are, in the end, traitors to their country.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lee had a nifty little myth about him, which Grant found amusing. Grant was the genuine article.

It is interesting how much Republucans admire Lee and ignore Grant, one of their own. It just shows how much the two sides have switched.

I think Grant was a great man whose reputation was unfairly tarnished by some of his associates. Grant had a huge advantage militarily, that some who want to castigate Lee ignore. His advantage in fresh soldiers, far better rations and far better armaments was huge

 

[multivita-man]

Ignoring the centrality of slavery is a much more grievous attempt at revisionism, since there was actual palpable human suffering attached to it.

Indeed.

"States' rights"...to do what? Southerners viewed slavery as a freedom, similar to how many conservatives today see owning an AR-15 as a freedom. The way Southerners of the time viewed it, their liberty was inextricably tied to the institution of slavery. Those who owned slaves depended on the low price of labor and the profits that came with it. Those who didn't own slaves dreamt of one day having a modest plantation, and slaves, of their own. It was the 19th Century of the American Dream, only it was the Confederate Dream or the Dixie Dream

 

[Decypher]

My apologies for a rhetorical style that does not meet your approval.


Is that from the black perspective? Was winning the Revolutionary War a good thing from the black perspective?



If there was no Revolutionary War no one would know about Massa Tom Jeff'son as well

Just letting you know that employing such a hackneyed style risks alienating the reader and the point may be lost.

No, I’m not writing from a black perspective. The various achievements of Washington and Jefferson were in spite of and separate from their slave owning status. Lee’s only significant achievement was a treacherous attack on his own country in order to preserve slavery. Can you see the difference?

 

[j brown's body]

I think Grant was a great man whose reputation was unfairly tarnished by some of his associates. Grant had a huge advantage militarily, that some who want to castigate Lee ignore. His advantage in fresh soldiers, far better rations and far better armaments was huge

Lee was defending home turf which mitigated some of the disadvantage. And Grant was genius at marshaling thus huge force into a coherent overall strategy. Something like that had never been done before.

And again, Grant opposed slavery. He effected any kind of brokered peace that would not eliminate it.

Grant also had a brilliant general in Sherman, who gets even less credit for his achievements. In fact, he's mostly vilified. But still was a brilliant general.

Longstreet was a brilliant Confederates general who was never honored by neo-Confederates. He supported Reconstruction.

It isn't neccesarily the generalling that makes these guys renowned or forgotten. It's the role they play in the Myth of the Lost Cause.

 

[bomberfox]

General lee was amazing. God bless America and i will pray for anyone who thinks different.

Why? Why does southern heritage need to be intertwined with such an ugly history? The confederacy rewrote their history whole cloth.

 

[j brown's body]

Indeed.

"States' rights"...to do what? Southerners viewed slavery as a freedom, similar to how many conservatives today see owning an AR-15 as a freedom. The way Southerners of the time viewed it, their liberty was inextricably tied to the institution of slavery. Those who owned slaves depended on the low price of labor and the profits that came with it. Those who didn't own slaves dreamt of one day having a modest plantation, and slaves, of their own. It was the 19th Century of the American Dream, only it was the Confederate Dream or the Dixie Dream

I got a pretty good idea about what "states rights" is about in the 1960s and those who opposed Brown v Board and the Civil Rights Act cited it all the time. "I'm not racist but..."

 

[multivita-man]

I got a pretty good idea about what "states rights" is about in the 1960s and those who opposed Brown v Board and the Civil Rights Act cited it all the time. "I'm not racist but..."

Shit, where I grew up, they wouldn't say "I'm not racist, but...", more like "I'm racist, so?"

 

[Juin]

Ignoring the centrality of slavery is a much more grievous attempt at revisionism, since there was actual palpable human suffering attached to it.

Imposing one issue on all Confederate soldiers is the revisionism. It is the: no, no, no, you took up arms only to defend slavery. I am sure the Confederate soldier took up arms to repel invaders, slavery or no slavery.

A thought question. Let's Imagine in say 1855. A foreign military power challenges the US to end slavery or face an invasion, would Grant, Sherman, Lincoln have rallied to the Republic, or would they have bailed out and joined the forces of the anti slavery power?

 

[multivita-man]

Imposing one issue on all Confederate soldiers is the revisionism. It is the: no, no, no, you took up arms only to defend slavery. I am sure the Confederate soldier took up arms to repel invaders, slavery or no slavery.

To your point, Southerners philosophically believed that they could exit the Union. They believed that their ancestors had helped create the United States, had fought to liberate the United States from Great Britain, and that their membership in the Union was non-binding. The Union obviously saw it differently. Still, even if we acknowledge that slavery isn't the South's only justification for waging war, slavery is absolutely central to it all, as there wouldn't have been a conflict to begin with. The Union wasn't going to invade the Confederacy and fight a four-year war over much else.

 

[j brown's body]

Imposing one issue on all Confederate soldiers is the revisionism. It is the: no, no, no, you took up arms only to defend slavery. I am sure the Confederate soldier took up arms to repel invaders, slavery or no slavery.

A thought question. Let's Imagine in say 1855. A foreign military power challenges the US to end slavery or face an invasion, would Grant, Sherman, Lincoln have rallied to the Republic, or would they have bailed out and joined the forces of the anti slavery power?

Slavery and white supremacy were much more than an "issue." They were a way of life.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Imposing one issue on all Confederate soldiers is the revisionism.

The average grunt's opinion is not the matter any more than the personal opinion of individual German or Soviet conscripts on their respective ideologies mattered to the nature of the crimes of their state. Their actions and the system they perpetuated are what matters, and the South's actions and systems were based on slavery.

A thought question. Let's Imagine in say 1855. A foreign military power challenges the US to end slavery or face an invasion, would Grant, Sherman, Lincoln have rallied to the Republic, or would they have bailed out and joined the forces of the anti slavery power?

An interesting question and completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[Felis Leo]

It seems to me that people of good faith and good conscience and good morals would be greatly concerned over the documented repeated mistreatment of blacks at the hands of the police.

But none of the conservatives ever seem to think that's worth considering.

Why do you suppose that is? (We know, don't we).

Speaking as a conservative who does take that into consideration, I take exception to your comment, jpn.

 

[Juin]

not defending him-I am merely being accurate. He was a slave owner. He was a rebel. his loyalty was to his state rather than his country. He was widely admired by his men and the officers on the Union Side. Tell me, what value do you lefties get by trying to bash a man who has been dead well over a century? Do you pretend that gives you some sort of moral superiority to posters who correctly note that the man was a respected general? Do you believe you gain some sort of exalted status if you scream for his execution now?

His loyalty was to his state first. It is not even like he embraced disloyalty to his country fundamentally. It appears to be more of a situation where his state being in conflict with his country, a choice had to be made for one or the other. He opted for loyalty to state. And when the conflict was over he restored his loyalty to country.

 

[j brown's body]

His loyalty was to his state first. It is not even like he embraced disloyalty to his country fundamentally. It appears to be more of a situation where his state being in conflict with his country, a choice had to be made for one or the other. He opted for loyalty to state. And when the conflict was over he restored his loyalty to country.

The only Virginian general who did. And there were a number of them. He was the only one who owned slaves. So spare us the phony righteousness.

 

[Juin]

The average grunt's opinion is not the matter any more than the personal opinion of individual German or Soviet conscripts on their respective ideologies mattered to the nature of the crimes of their state. Their actions and the system they perpetuated are what matters, and the South's actions and systems were based on slavery.

The average grunt's opinion matters to me. I will not pillory him for a crime that belongs to others.

An interesting question and completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

It is most relevant to me. I submit that if a foreign power- say Britain- had attacked the United States because it was a slave Republic, Grant, Lee, Jackson, would have all fought to repel the invader, even if that was by implication protecting slavery. Soldiers fight for their countries, right or wrong.

 

[Questerr]

His loyalty was to his state first. It is not even like he embraced disloyalty to his country fundamentally. It appears to be more of a situation where his state being in conflict with his country, a choice had to be made for one or the other. He opted for loyalty to state. And when the conflict was over he restored his loyalty to country.

And compare him to George Henry Thomas, another Virginian, who stayed loyal to the United States, wasn’t a slave owner, never order his troops to enslave free blacks, and also never lost any battle he was in command of, while simultaneously helping save the Union armies in battles other Union generals lost.