Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Blogs > The American Civil War
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read


  1. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Robert E. Lee's loyalty

    Quote:
    Don't forget that he was from an old Virginian aristocratic family, and thus owned much of his achievements to Virginia again
    Ah, no. Lee explicitly considered his father to have been an absolutely terrible life example. He owed his rather successful career to his country and the army, not to mention his own considerable talents, but he betrayed the country and the oath he swore as an army officer.

    Quote:
    Well, that's because most of Lee's family chose to fight fight for the Union, didn't compel him to betray his own state.
    Except that you were just arguing that it did compel him to betray his country. So you are a hypocrite and a liar, not that that's new. And how could he betray something he didn't belong to? He was a citizen of the U.S. and a officer of the U.S. Army, not Virginia's.

    Quote:
    And one of these qualities was loyalty and during that era, loyalty to your state always came first,
    Obviously not. At least 40% of army officers from the South remained loyal to the U.S. Tens of thousands of Southerners fought to preserve the Union, hundreds of thousands when you factor in the blacks, which suspiciously, you never do. I'm guessing you can't find any legal records where these officers owed loyalty to state above country. The truly loyal men were those who held to their oaths and to their country no matter what their personal qualms.

    Quote:
    so he made the right moral decision.
    It was a debated and tough decision at the time, but declaring oathbreakers who committed treason so they could fight for an insurrection with the goal of preserving and expanding racial slavery to be unequivocally right is really just so far-out there it isn't even in this universe, and is suggestive of all sorts of unpleasant things about the person making it.
    Posted April 11th, 2013 at 02:50 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
    Updated April 11th, 2013 at 02:53 PM by Viperlord
  2. Old Comment

    Robert E. Lee's loyalty

    Well, that's because most of Lee's family chose to fight for the Union, didn't compel him to betray his own state.
    Don't forget that he was from an old Virginian aristocratic family, and thus owned much of his achievements to Virginia again. And while Scott was his friend indeed, it was mostly Lee's personal qualities that had risen him so high in the military.
    And one of these qualities was loyalty and during that era, loyalty to your state always came first, so he made the right moral decision.
    Posted April 11th, 2013 at 02:22 PM by Stefany Stefany is offline
    Updated April 11th, 2013 at 02:42 PM by Stefany
  3. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Robert E. Lee's loyalty

    Actually, a large part of his family were anti-secession, particularly his wife. He fought against some of his own family when he fought for the Confederacy; a relative served in John Pope's army, and Lee's cousin Samuel Philips Lee remained in the navy. When asked about his loyalties, the redoubtable Samuel Lee sardonically remarked "The moment I find the word "Virginia" in my commission, I'll join the Confederacy." And he owed no loyalty to his state, and hadn't even spent much of his life in it. By contrast, he owed most of what he was to his U.S. army career, and the patronage of Scott, and he had sworn an oath as an officer.
    Posted April 11th, 2013 at 01:30 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  4. Old Comment

    Robert E. Lee's loyalty

    ^^ What was he supposed to do? Fight against his own family and native state?
    Posted April 11th, 2013 at 01:26 PM by Stefany Stefany is offline
  5. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Robert E. Lee's loyalty

    No, he just betrayed his country and the oath he took as an officer instead.
    Posted April 11th, 2013 at 01:16 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  6. Old Comment

    Halleck and the glorious capture of Corinth

    ^^ Haha, I agree, and later on he wondered why Lincoln called him a "little more than a first rate clerk"...
    Posted March 15th, 2013 at 08:50 AM by Stefany Stefany is offline
  7. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Sherman and the journalists

    Quote:
    Jackson's Valley campaign was perfect
    No. He effed up big-time at Kernstown, and would have been destroyed against a competent opponent. Tactically, he mismanaged McDowell and Port Republic as well. It was very good, but it wasn't perfect.

    Quote:
    and managed to brilliantly outflanked Hooker at Chancellorsville.
    That was Lee's plan, and Jackson mismanaged the attack by deploying his divisions in exactly the same way Beauregard did at Shiloh, except in even worse terrain for that formation.

    Quote:
    He even contrived the idea of a second attack during the night, something very rarely done in the Civil War. And I am sure he would have succeed, if, you know, he hadn't sadly died...
    Horse manure. His troops had already been halted by entrenched Union XII Corps troops, and they were completely disorganized, with the units hopelessly intermingled. No attack was going to get anywhere that night.

    Quote:
    @Viperlord, the mishaps you counted are not notable or crushing defeats. Every great general has its bad days, what's important is he not to turn them into disasters.
    Jackson had numerous incidents of tactical incompetence, including in the Seven Days, where his ineptitude may have been the reason Lee didn't bag Franklin's entire corps at White Oak Swamp. That counts against him. At Cedar Mountain, the only reason there was no disaster was because Hill bailed Jackson out; at Kernstown, his subordinate Garnett helped save Jackson, and Jackson rewarded him by scapegoating him for Jackson's own failure.
    Posted March 14th, 2013 at 08:27 AM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  8. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Halleck and the glorious capture of Corinth

    I would presume that Halleck didn't misunderstand; he was probably just lying through his teeth, like usual...
    Posted March 14th, 2013 at 08:22 AM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  9. Old Comment

    Sherman and the journalists

    @Viperlord, the mishaps you counted are not notable or crushing defeats. Every great general has its bad days, what's important is he not to turn them into disasters.

    Jackson's Valley campaign was perfect, he saved the day at the First Manassas and managed to brilliantly outflanked Hooker at Chancellorsville.

    He even contrived the idea of a second attack during the night, something very rarely done in the Civil War. And I am sure he would have succeed, if, you know, he hadn't sadly died...
    Posted March 5th, 2013 at 10:11 AM by Stefany Stefany is offline
  10. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Sherman and the journalists

    Jackson was an awful tactician, as even his admirers, such as historians Robert K. Krick and Bud Robertson, concede. He threw in his troops piecemeal, a few at a time, in battles such as Kernstown, Port Republic, and Brawner's Farm, and often got stalemated for it. At Brawner's Farm, with 6,000 veteran troops at his disposal, and the element of surprise, he got stalemated by 2,100 rookie Union troops. And he wasn't a strategist; he never waged an independent campaign except under orders like in the Valley. Even his famous flank attack was tactically mishandled; the massive formations he used for his divisions made it impossible for keep their coherence or momentum, and his assault faltered after sweeping aside the badly outgunned and unprepared XI Corps.
    Posted March 1st, 2013 at 06:17 AM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
    Updated March 1st, 2013 at 06:28 AM by Viperlord
  11. Old Comment

    Sherman and the journalists

    @Viperlord, Jackson was both an awesome strategist and tactician while Sherman was only a strategist. Besides, I don't think there is another general in the Civil War that could match Stonewall Jackson's bravery.
    After the Confederate general passed away, Sherman got second place as a military talent in the Civil War, above him was only Robert E. Lee.

    @Gorge, we are historians, if we don't constantly argue, it will get pretty tedious...
    Posted February 28th, 2013 at 01:37 PM by Stefany Stefany is offline
  12. Old Comment

    Sherman's speech

    The notion that one should not fight unless one can win is tragically inexperienced. Sherman evidenced throughout an honorable career an ability to see things in their essence. War is hell so lets get it done. He was clearly a born leader. Too bad the South could not hear his clarity. Is this where we have returned. Clarity is abhorred by fire-eaters who cannot be deterred by evidence...even if it means oceans of other people's blood
    Posted February 22nd, 2013 at 03:42 PM by Mike Kenney Mike Kenney is offline
  13. Old Comment

    Sherman and the journalists

    Come on do we seriously still have to argue on Jackson Lee an Grant?
    Posted February 15th, 2013 at 09:56 AM by Gorge123 Gorge123 is offline
  14. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Sherman and the journalists

    As we're already addressing the question of Grant and Lee in another thread, how in the world is Jackson better than Sherman?
    Posted February 13th, 2013 at 04:24 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  15. Old Comment

    Sherman and the journalists

    ^^ Thank you!
    Sherman was the best Union general, only Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson out rivaled him as a military talent in the Civil War.
    Posted February 12th, 2013 at 01:41 AM by Stefany Stefany is offline
  16. Old Comment

    Sherman and the journalists

    Nice essay.. But I still dont agree that Sherman is the best.
    Posted February 11th, 2013 at 01:26 PM by Gorge123 Gorge123 is offline
  17. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Sherman's speech

    Quote:
    Also, it was Lincoln who declared a war on the South, not the other way around.
    Wrong, VERY wrong. Lincoln explicitly said he would do nothing so long as the South did not fire the first shot, and he never issued any declaration of war.

    Quote:
    Lincoln sent supplies to Fort Sumter even tho the Confederacy warned the Union that furnishing the fort with provisions would be considered a provocation.
    The Confederates could have turned the supply ships away without attacking the fort, just like the Star of the West. Davis deliberately initiated the war at Sumter to try to draw in the Upper South.

    Quote:

    About the conquering of Missouri and Kentucky, well, these states were neutral when the secession occurred so Davis wanting to conquer them was not a military act against the Union.
    Missouri was not neutral, and never was in the Civil War. I don't know where you got that from. It's governor was pro-Confederate, but the secessionists were the minority. Even if Missouri and Kentucky were neutral, how in the world would the Confederacy be justified in militarily conquering them? Kentucky was still in the Union as a matter of fact; it just declared itself neutral in the conflict.

    Quote:
    According to William T. Sherman's memoirs, the Southerners wanted a peaceful secession without a war afterwards...
    I'd like to see the source for Sherman saying that, given that's a direct contradiction of the speech this entire blog is about.
    Posted January 30th, 2013 at 01:55 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  18. Old Comment

    Sherman's speech

    Lincoln sent supplies to Fort Sumter even tho the Confederacy warned the Union that furnishing the fort with provisions would be considered a provocation.
    Also, it was Lincoln who declared a war on the South, not the other way around.

    About the conquering of Missouri and Kentucky, well, these states were neutral when the secession occurred so Davis wanting to conquer them was not a military act against the Union.

    According to William T. Sherman's memoirs, the Southerners wanted a peaceful secession without a war afterwards...
    Posted January 29th, 2013 at 07:09 AM by Stefany Stefany is offline
    Updated January 29th, 2013 at 10:25 AM by Stefany
  19. Old Comment
    Viperlord's Avatar

    Sherman's speech

    Utter absurdity. Lincoln did nothing to provoke an attack on Fort Sumter; in fact, Anderson had just informed the Confederates he would have to give up soon anyway. Davis called up an army before Lincoln did, and made clear his intent of CONQUERING Missouri and Kentucky by force, along with "liberating" Maryland. It's ridiculous to claim the North was the aggressor; as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, it was up to the Confederates to escalate the conflict, because he would not. Read Russell McClintock; the Deep South had decided on war the moment Lincoln was elected, irregardless of what Lincoln did.
    Posted January 25th, 2013 at 02:24 PM by Viperlord Viperlord is offline
  20. Old Comment

    Sherman's speech

    ^^ The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter only because it was provoked by the Union. After Lincoln heard the news that the fort has surrendered, he said "The fort did its purpose"
    Besides, you can't stay neutral during such a mass - scale conflict, so it is Kentucky's fault...
    Posted January 22nd, 2013 at 07:27 AM by Stefany Stefany is offline
    Updated January 22nd, 2013 at 10:45 AM by Stefany
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.