What was Lee's record at West Point? Who were his classmates? Was it true that Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was shot by his troops?
re: Robert E. Lee http://www.civilwarhome.com/leebio.htm At West Point, Lee never received a single demerit and was nicknamed by his classmates "The Marble Model." Its difficult to find stories about him which make him seem human. He was always very careful to keep his real thoughts and actions to himself. All I've been able to find are little things like his children remembering the time that he tickled their bare feet and a woman who remembered him spurring his horse dramatically to show off as he passed her on the street... re: Stonewall Jackson Jackson was shot by his own troops at Chancellorsville, when he went out to observe the lines while attempting a risky night attack, which was almost unheard of in the Civil War. It was raining and he was wearing a rubber raincoat that disguised his uniform, but he was shot several times when he and his staff attempted to return to their own lines. He was taken to the rear where his arm was cut off and he died several days later of pnuemonia. History has recorded this incident as an accident, although Jackson was unquestionably hated by his own troops... ..........JO'Co
This topic lead me to this little tidbit! That's it, Robt. E. Lee is a Texas Hero!! Also one of JO'Co's links gave me this. A very interesting read, which can only be fairly judged in the light of that day, much like Paul's writings to the Corinthians about women must be read with a knowledge of the society that he was writing to and the times that he lived in. Terry
all great reports <t>For me, the problem with Lee (as it is with JOCO) was that he betrayed his country. I have never bought into Lee as a great symbol for the confederate cause because he was, first and foremost, a Virginian. He didn't choose the Confederacy. He chose Virginia. Had Virginia remained out of the war, so would have Lee. He agonized over the decision there is no denying that, but it is still one he made. He is a traitor. He was a great American military leader at one time, but a traitor in the end.<br/> <br/> One thing you can never touch is his military legacy. That is the part of the man that is truly a legend. IMHO</t>
Corey, I have no strong feelings either way. However, I must ask: Do you consider those that rose up against the mother country, England, during the revolution traitors? They rose up against the governing body just like the confederacy. The only difference that I see is that they won the war.
Geez Lee chose to play for the local state U instead of playing for a team out of state. He was the top recruit of his time. To this day, I question whether or not he really thought he could win at Gettysburg or decided to buck steep odds with the gambit knowing that either way, the war would be in it's final chapters.
:idea: For those who're interested in reading stories of people who lived and participated in these events, I highly recommend the magazine Civil War Times. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/civil_war_times Even a jaded old Civil War horse like me learns something new with every issue. I recently read the story of two best friends, who were brother-in-laws. One was a fellow named Jones, who was a Confederate Brig. Gen. and the other was a young (26) West Point standout named Kingsbury, who became a Lt. Col. in the Union Army. They met by coincidence at opposite ends of Burnside's Bridge at Antietem. Jones had his men blast the invaders to pieces as they ran onto the bridge and Kingsbury was the kind of man who led the charge at the front. He was shot four times...even shot again as his men tried to carry him away to die. When Jones learned of this from captured Union prisoners after the battle, he was devastated. Robert E. Lee went to congratulate him that day and was shocked to find him silent, with a blank look on his face, unable to speak. He never mentally recovered and was relieved of command. Three years later, he died of a heart attack at age 39. It was said by soldiers on both sides that he literally died of a broken heart... Civil War Times...
A Texas Civil War legend... http://www.terrystexasrangers.org/ Check out the familiar names of some of the people who fought in this unit: Street, Lubbock etc.
I am not related to the guy who founded Terry's Rangers!! A true Texas Hero! BTW: Phantom in another thread on this topic a poster said Agreement?
I've never heard anyone say that 25% of Southerners owned slaves and the amount of influence that liberal college profs have had on me is zero. The cause of the Civil War is not in dispute, although lots of folks attempt to hijack the debate to satisfy their own agenda. Slavery was the one and only cause of the Civil War. There are few "Yankee" historians who see the war as a crusade to end slavery; rather it was the Southerners who were on a crusade to protect it at all costs. They had threatened to destroy the nation from the very beginning over the issue of the slaves and they finally acted on their threats. The Southerners had painted themselves into a corner. They had rejected Henry Clay's dream of internal improvements called the "American System" of roads, canals, railroads and trade in favor of an insular economy based on involuntary servitude. The South didn't want to manufacture anything, because they had slaves to do all the work. They didn't like tariffs, because they imported everything the slaves couldn't make and they had no industry of their own to protect. Their entire economy depended on slavery. - At the Constitutional Convention, the South wanted slaves counted toward the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, even though they couldn't vote. If they didn't get their way, they threatened to walk out. - John C. Calhoun promoted the Doctrine of Nullification, which stated that southern states could ignore or nullify any federal law that they didn't agree with and attempted to have South Carolina secede from the Union in 1832. This too was about slavery. - The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prevented civil war by keeping the number of slave states equal with the number of free states. - The Compromise of 1850 admitted California to the Union as a free state, but instituted the harsh Fugitive Slave Act, which stated that northerners HAD to help catch runaway slaves. This made a criminal out of nearly every citizen of the free states. - The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed slavery into the north for the first time by calling for elections in those territories, even as the southerners poured weapons and soldiers into those areas to hijack the vote by force. I could go on and on, but its silly to even debate this. Slavery was the southerners cause from the very beginning of the republic. They had literally bet the farm on this economic system and it was falling further and further behind the industrialized north by the time of the Civil War. Few Southerners owned slaves, but all had a stake in the system. It was what they wanted and it failed. Reading southern versions of the Civil War is like listening to Japanese versions of the "Great Pacific War." The Yankees attacked them for no reason and they simply defended their "way of life." The atomic bombs were dropped just to murder innocent civilians and Japan was the victim of imperialist aggression. Blah...blah...blah... I worked for 20 years with a guy named Mike Chan who was a little boy in Malaysia when the Japanese went through there. He hid in a cellar while the Japanese officers sliced up his little playmates with their Samarai swords just for fun. I guess some victims just have more fun than others... It isn't just the winners who write the history books anymore. Being a victim has become an industry... ...........JO'Co
Tom <t>I haven't had time to go on and read what all has been posted since I last replied, so I apologize if this is a rehash.<br/> <br/> However, to an extent, yes they were traitors to the throne of England. Its all a matter of perspective I suppose. While the arguement can be made that the colonists were trying to break free of the tyranny of taxation without represenation, another could be made that it was good old fashioned American greed. As an Irish-American, I say it was both.<br/> <br/> Those colonists did have to betray the throne that made it possible for their very existance here. They had to make the choice to give up their ancestry and start anew. That is what they did... But I would contend that depending on your point of view, they were most certainly traitors.<br/> <br/> And while the saying 'to the victors go the spoils (and the pen)", I don't see the comparison between the Confederacy and the Revolutionary Colonists to be valid.</t>
:idea: BTW... In six weeks we'll recognize the 150th anniversary of the most contemptable and infamous decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States: the Dred Scott Case. This was where the southerners finally showed their fangs and their real beliefs surfaced for all the world to see in 1857... Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his master to Illinois. While he was there he contacted a lawyer who sued on his behalf to set him free, arguing that no person could be held as a slave in a state that outlawed slavery. The shear, petty, viciousness and racism of the Supreme Court's ruling was shocking to read, then and now. The Court, with its slave holding majorty and led by its slaveholder Chief Justice Roger B. Taney proclaimed that NO African Americans were really citizens of the United States and therefore had no legal right to sue in American courts! It ruled that even free blacks in the north had no rights; not even veterans of the armed forces who served under General Washington or people who's families traced their ancestry to Jamestown 100 years before 1776! The exact wording of Justice Taney's opinion was that "Black people have no rights which a white man is bound to respect." The Supreme Court's Southern majority had clearly defined the problem as the existence of African people in America, with solutions to that problem all to clear for those of us who live in the future where ethnic cleansings have become routine around the world...but the Court went even further than that. In the same decision, the Court also struck down the Missouri Compromise, ruling that the Congress had no Constitutional authority to outlaw slavery in the north! It opened the door to rounding up and enslaving black Americans in every state of the Union, while upholding the Fugitive Slave Law which demanded that all Americans participate in the slave holding process or face fines and prison... Can you say "Pearl Harbor" you all?
The Romans were astute and wise enough to admire Hannibal's genius even though he nearly destroyed Rome. When one scans though American history, I can think of very few people who are Lee's equal. Impeccable integrity, acutely intelligent, honorable, stoic in the face of horrible hardship, iron willed, a brilliant general whose marble facade masked a gambler of the highest stakes, whose daring, courage and willingness to risk all to repeatedly defeat enemy armies of superior size and armaments when the cost of failure would mean the death of his Army and Nation. Had he chosen to remain in the Union, the Civil War probably would have ended in 1 to 2 years and he probably would have been elected president and would now-days be placed alongside Washington and Lincoln as our nation's greatest leaders. But, he made the wrong choice and eventually lost everything. But, in defeat, he retained nobility. He took the loyalty oath and his quiet submission to lawful authority and speeches commending defeated Southerners to return to a peaceful, normal life under the stars and stripes, given his iconic state in the Confederacy, helped greatly to persuade other Confederates to rejoin and rebuild the county rather their fight on ad infinitum in guerrilla warfare. He lived quietly until his death. He avoided engagement in any business that sought to use his name for profit and, instead, spent his last years running a small college whose creative curriculum and able staff ended up attracting students from both North and South. While others cashed in on their military fame, Lee used his to be an educator. If one looks at the Southern contribution to American life since the civil war, one is astounded by the number of prominent Southern military men who were indispensable for our ultimate success in WW I and WW II. This has to be due, in no small part, not only to the power of Lee's legacy that encouraged Southern men to military careers, but also at his post-war efforts to assist in returning the South back to the Union.
you bring up a good point Bobda <t>But I would contend that the South was a major producer of great 'American' military leaders before the Civil War, and post-Civil War that trend simply continued. Whether it be financial reasons that contribute to this, I know not, but I would agree that Lee did much to bring the South back into the fold.</t>
What does history say about William Tecumseh Sherman? Great military strategist, or brutal murding war criminal?
A three-pitch repertoire.......fastball, curve, slider. Decent control. Strong arm. Good strike out to walk ratio. Nice move to first base.
re: Uncle Billy Sherman Sherman is one of my personal heroes. Nobody understood southerners better than he did and nobody knew how to deal with them as effectively. When you read Sherman's memoirs, you can see his love for and understanding of those people and his concern that fighting against them would be difficult. Sherman was living in Louisiana when the war began. He was the father of what would later be called LSU. Sherman knew that the white boys down south were mostly spoiled brats. They never had to do any work and played at being soldiers all day. He said they were the greatest horsemen in the world and nothing in the Civil War disputes this. They were that good. He also knew of their arrogance, which was shared by the Army's commander Gen. Winfield Scott, a Virginian, who had been promoting only fellow southerners for decades as men like Grant and McClellan were returned to civilian life. He tried to warn the north that beating those people would take years to accomplish, with a loss of thousands of lives and millions in treasure. But he was branded as "crazy" for these assertions. In the end; he was right. The original sin of slavery could only be removed with fire. Sherman's goal was to make war so painful for the southerners, that they would be afaid to try it again for a thousand years and so far, so good. He said, "War is cruelty. You can't refine it. I'm for having as little of it as possible and the sooner its over, the sooner we can return home." If they had listened to him in the beginning, it would have been a shorter war with fewer casualties. As it was, northern politicians were still stabbing him in the back to the last day of the war. When he attempted to accept the surrender of all southern armies to stop the killing, the political generals in Washington tried to arrest him as they raced to North Carolina to attack the Confederate army of Joseph Johnston which had already surrendered. They wanted the "glory" for themselves. My opinion of Uncle Billy, is that I wish he were here now. He hated politicians, reporters and civilians generally. Like Patton, he was a pure soldier who understood how horrible warfare was and he realized that the worst strategy is to prolong a war, while the best strategy is always to go for victory as quickly as possible to end the general suffering...
Can we conjure Sherman back from the dead to spearhead the war on terror? He seems to be exactly what we need at the present. Also, to the board moderators.... can we put Jim on the "payroll" here at SkyBox. Let's commission him to write a daily historical column. I'm beginning to wake each day here in New Jersey in antcipation of another Jo'Co treatise on times of historical significance. Perhaps we can take turns sending him something from our respective areas as comp. I would send , for example, authentic cannolis, perhaps some seafood. We can also send Wild Turkey and other local delights. My favorite teacher all through my education was an American history teacher in high school in Dayton. I don't think we ever opened a textbook. He would come in every day and act out the dialogue of a particular historical event then analyze it with the class.