Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:32 AM   #91

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,096
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
I'm going to use capital letters so be prepared.

PHILIP SHERIDAN DESTROYED THE HISTORY AND THE BEAUTY OF THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY OF VIRGINIA BY HIS HATEFUL MARCH THROUGH THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

There is nothing that can condone this stupidity. The damage that he did in 1864 has still not been resolved almost 150 years since his hateful march through my homeland.

The people of western Virginia were peaceful people with few or no slaves yet the evil Sheridan marched through Shenandoah and Rockingham Counties burning everything in his path and (The following is a quote from a long deceased witness) killing civilians as if they were paper dolls on a string.
I'm still waiting for those sources showing Sheridan's men were killing civilians.
Viperlord is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:32 AM   #92

Yankee's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 567

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
This is what Lee's army was up to during the Gettysburg Campaign. Not a pretty read.

Virginia's Civil War - Google Books
I think I love you
Yankee is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:34 AM   #93

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,072

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I'm still waiting for those sources showing Sheridan's men were killing civilians.
I gave you the only resource you need.
Wenge is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:35 AM   #94

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,096
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
I gave you the only resource you need.
Your word is not the equivalent of a source. Show, don't tell. If I argued in a paper that Sheridan's men murdered civilians, I'd have to cite sources, especially primary ones, to prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
I think I love you
Now now, let's not further offend Wenge's delicate sensibilities.
Viperlord is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:43 AM   #95

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,072

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
Your word is not the equivalent of a source. Show, don't tell. If I argued in a paper that Sheridan's men murdered civilians, I'd have to cite sources, especially primary ones, to prove it.

I talked to actual people who witnessed it. I think I trump your textual inadequacies.
Wenge is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:46 AM   #96
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 1,986
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post

Lee was not a butcher when you compare him to Grant or Sherman or Sheridan. I do not understand how Americans can sleep at night knowing that in our history we had these three horrendous individuals as citizens.

^^ I agree that Lee cared about his men much more than the aforementioned generals. I think this is the main trait that distinguished the South from the North.
Indeed Grant and especially Sherman just attacked without taking into an account the casualties they suffered while the South was way more careful with their men.

About the topic, Lee was opposed to slavery and didn't believe in it.
He even went as far as to liberate his slaves at some point, can't remember when though.
He fought for the South because we was an extremely loyal man and it was his homeland.
Stefany is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #97

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,096
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
I talked to actual people who witnessed it. I think I trump your textual inadequacies.

I really don't think that's possible, nor is it a source. Perhaps I have a mistaken impression of your age; but even if you were 80, you would have been just born at the time that anyone old enough to have witnessed and remembered the Shenandoah Valley Campaign was dying off. Assuming that someone around the age of 10 during 1864 witnessed this, and remembered it, they would have been 78 when you were born, if you were 80. Regardless, even if you did, your anecdote of knowing of a primary does not in fact take precedence over cited primary and scholarly sources. If civilians were murdered, you should be able to cite some sources showing this, such as newspaper accounts that mention their deaths.
Viperlord is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 06:52 AM   #98

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,096
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany View Post
^^ I agree that Lee cared about his men much more than the aforementioned generals. I think this is the main trait that distinguished the South from the North.
Indeed Grant and especially Sherman just attacked without taking into an account the casualties they suffered while the South was way more careful with their men.

About the topic, Lee was opposed to slavery and didn't believe in it.
He even went as far as to liberate his slaves at some point, can't remember when though.
He fought for the South because we was an extremely loyal man and it was his homeland.
That's factually incorrect on every point. Lee lost far more men, about 210,000, than Grant, who lost 140-155,000. He lost a average of 26% of his army, to somewhat under 14% for Grant throughout the war. Sherman in fact avoided frontal assaults as a deliberate policy. Lee ordered one of the bloodiest and most suicidal frontal assaults of the war, far surpassing anything that Grant ever ordered. There's no basis for assuming Lee cared more for his men than Grant or Sherman, both of whom suffered notably lower casualty rates.

Lee opposed slavery in the abstract, but believed that God had willed it to exist. He owned slaves himself at points during his lives, and freed the slaves from his estate them only because he inherited them from the Custis family; the will mandated they be freed in a certain amount of time. Other "extremely loyal" men from Virginia chose not to betray the oath they swore to defend the United States, and fought for the Union, so Lee's loyalty is a subjective matter.

Grant's casualty math: http://www.historum.com/war-military...8?postcount=99

I can do the same for Lee if you wish, though later, as I'll be departing shortly.

Last edited by Viperlord; November 12th, 2012 at 07:01 AM.
Viperlord is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:07 AM   #99

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,072

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
I really don't think that's possible, nor is it a source. Perhaps I have a mistaken impression of your age; but even if you were 80, you would have been just born at the time that anyone old enough to have witnessed and remembered the Shenandoah Valley Campaign was dying off. Assuming that someone around the age of 10 during 1864 witnessed this, and remembered it, they would have been 78 when you were born, if you were 80. Regardless, even if you did, your anecdote of knowing of a primary does not in fact take precedence over cited primary and scholarly sources. If civilians were murdered, you should be able to cite some sources showing this, such as newspaper accounts that mention their deaths.
I know this will not satisfy you but how about a 103 year old man in 1957? His name was Wilfred Smalls. If you choose to challenge my statements then it is up to you to determine if my statements are true or false. It is the American way.
Wenge is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:12 AM   #100

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 6,096
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
I know this will not satisfy you but how about a 103 year old man in 1957? His name was Wilfred Smalls. If you choose to challenge my statements then it is up to you to determine if my statements are true or false. It is the American way.
I find it... Coincidental... That you cite the example of a 10-year old in 1864 only after I mentioned it. Even if true, the memory of a 103-year old man of events that took place when he was 10 is unfortunately less than completely reliable, particularly when the existence of this man is entirely based on your word, which after those utterly hilarious messages you sent me, I have my doubts about.

Quote:
If you choose to challenge my statements then it is up to you to determine if my statements are true or false. It is the American way
That's not how it works at all. The burden of proof for a claim or argument is on the one who makes it. So far, I've offered sources on atrocities committed by Lee's army; you've offered nothing on Sheridan's army. Newspaper accounts, diaries, these things should have recorded the alleged depredations of Sheridan; but you haven't offered any.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...urden-of-proof
Viperlord is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
lee, robert


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Robert E. Lee WHAT IF mister Speculative History 8 May 10th, 2009 05:17 AM
Robert E. Lee kahn American History 33 March 20th, 2009 07:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.