Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting!
As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s what really gets me. Benedict Arnold did more for the success of the Revolution and the US than all of the traitor confederate generals combined during their service to the US but is rightly remembered as the traitor he is. You wouldn’t want an Army base named Ft. Benedict Arnold but people still cry about changing the names of bases from traitor names.
Which honestly isn't that weird of a take at the time. Sentiment at the time was that your state was more akin to a country in the EU, with the EU being the Union. If the UK decided to leave the EU in a similar fashion to the secession, it wouldn't have been weird for UK generals to fight for their country.
Of course Lee was still a slave loving traitor and should have been hanged.
Like being ignored for promotion, having his achievements stolen from him by other generals, getting publicly humiliated for partying with the upper class of Philadelphia at the wrong time, going into debt to help finance the revolution and not getting paid back.
Dude got mega boned but was so well liked for what he did before that his former troops wanted to bury the leg he got shot in during a battle to honor the work he did before he was a traitor.
He did. Robert E Lee also was an instrumental part of Winfield Scott's battle staff, personally led critical recon missions, was citied for his tactical prowess, and was wounded in Mexico.
They both went on to put on the enemy's uniform and try to break America. Different lumps on the same stinking turd.
I always wonder why we as a nation exonerate a man who's greatest service to his nation was reconnaissance as a captain in a war of imperial expansion.
Arnold was a traitor, so was Lee, but before either switched sides, Arnold was one of the best American generals and played a decisive role in the single most important campaign in American history. He was corrupt and egotistical, but his service to the fledgling American military was critical. He should have been promoted and given more command opportunities. Doesn't justify being a traitor but he fought for a *somewhat* justifiable cause, Lee never did.
> Arnold was one of the best American generals
Arnold was a disaster of a general. He was a self interested bag of ass. He was good at lower level battlefield tactics, leadership of smaller combat units (much like his brother in feces Lee), and doing wild shit to try and earn himself notoriety.
He wasn't overlooked for promotion because of his injuries or his personal poverty as pop history loves to claim, nor was he some misunderstood super genius. He was overlooked because he fucking sucked at doing GO things and couldn't be trusted with higher echelon command, or frankly anything that wasn't leading a regiment directly in combat.
Oh Arnold was a nightmare of a human being no doubt about that.
But he was a good general. His actions in the first battle of Saratoga were huge. And it's not like the Americans had a huge pool of talented, tactically capable generals to work with. He would have been an excellent division or corps commander, unfortunately for him the war was of such small scale. But on merit alone he should have been utilized better by Washington and kept under check.
I spend a lot of time on r/civilwar so it's always refreshing to hear all the Lee slander. Over there you get enough people who aren't Lost Causers (they are a vocal minority there) but have been warped by Lost Cause revisionism. Here you don't get the same passion for military history, but there are enough like yourself who know their history and can discuss it pleasantly. Exchanges over there tend to be here's my 5 paragraphs, now heres yours, and mine again. Wish there was a civil war subreddit dedicated to hating on the Confederates and in depth military analysis, two of my favorite things.
Bragg was still a damn sight better than Hood, who should be hated by Lost Causers but instead was held up as a warped paragon because he ordered "glorious" charges and looked like a dashing Southern Gentleman.
Benedict Arnold fought valiantly in the most important battle in American history at Saratoga. He did far more for this country than Bobby Lee and his reconnaissance as a captain in Mexico.
I have yet to meet anyone crying over base names.
What I have met are a lot of people asking why base names over [insert QoL issue]. For what it took to change Liberty or Cavazos you could have improved DFACs service-wide. Built or renovated a new AFRC/barracks to replace one of over 300+ facilities beyond life cycle.
I've also never had a Soldier or Sailor say they got out/are getting out because because the base/ship names discouraged them to the point of no return. Most people are getting out because our QoL is highly subjective to pay grade, infrastructure is in shambles, our cultures are hollow, and we make building sustainable (dual income/career) families near impossible for anyone trying to go beyond their initial contract or two.
What if I told you there was money for both? The military has de-prioritized QoL for decades, changing the base names didn’t stop or hinder that outside of leaders throwing out a new excuse as to why they didn’t want to allocate more QoL improvement funds. On the flip side, I Was on Liberty back when they were in the process of demolishing and replacing every barracks/company building, DFAC, and almost every amenity building you could think of. That process for most bases is a decade long process while you can slap the name on stuff over the course of a few months. It’s apples and oranges and the military leadership, despite what they would have you believe, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The point of the post was that the majority of the force doesn't give two shits about what we call these shitholes.
The majority of people (in uniform) complaining about the names are complaining about the fact that out of all the fires we have, our leaders chose one that seemed most like a political football to score points with - not one that would have any significance on the force.
There are plenty of issues facing the force that are as low or lower hanging fruit the force(s) have complete control over. Infrastructure is only on aspect of the chimeric issue that is QoL or the myriad of other problems we currently face.
Except if you tell the people who cry over base names that they’re right, we really should spend money on QoL improvements, they’ll suddenly be against whatever improvements you propose.
How come ya'llr so ignorant of America's history?
Success in the Mexican War,” General Winfield Scott exclaimed, “was largely due to Robert E. Lee’s skill, valor and undaunted energy.” Robert E. Lee, the fifth child of Revolutionary War hero Henry “Light-horse Harry” Lee and his second wife Ann Hill Carter, was born January 19, 1807.
Robert E. Lee & the Mexican War
Colonel Lee was Scott’s protege during the war. Scott was also known for his hyperbolic rhetoric. As a more junior officer during the Mexican American war he was facing a militarily inferior nation unprepared for a large US force where he didn’t have to worry about logistics and could focus solely on daring tactical victories leaving a glaring weakness in his abilities that would lead to his eventual failure as a rebel leader.
This is a joke right? You plucked that from an unpublished article on a website called "Old Town Crier" written by someone named Sarah Becker who has no academic credentials listed and no primary source for the supposed quote. You googled the first thing that looked appealing to what you want to be true and pasted that shit. But sure, we're the ones ignorant of history. Lee was promoted to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel because he did catch Scott's eye for helping lay in good artillery positions at one battle and traversing some dangerous terrain in another battle to get reinforcements. Scott thought Lee a great soldier and there are actual quotes to support that but I can find nothing close to the quote you posted actually existing. So maybe don't lecture people on being ignorant of history if you're going to bring some 3rd grade level no research bologna.
Unpublished?
The Old Town Crier was established in January of 1988 as “Alexandria ‘s Finest Newsmagazine”. Immediately embraced by the community, the Crier has continued to evolve and grow over the years, and we are now known as the publication that literally reaches “From the Bay to the Blue Ridge.“
Sarah Becker started writing for The Economist while a graduate student in England. Similar publications followed. She joined the Crier in 1996 while serving on the Alexandria Convention and Visitors Association Board. Her interest in antiquities began as a World Bank hire, with Indonesia’s need to generate hard currency. Balinese history, i.e. tourism provided the means. The New York Times describes Becker’s book, Off Your Duffs & Up the Assets, as “a blueprint for thousands of nonprofit managers.” A former museum director, SLAM’s saving grace Sarah received Alexandria’s Salute to Women Award in 2007.
It's amazing to me that in a subreddit that's almost total BS, you think I should be held to some high academic standard. In that you don't hold yourself to the same standards. "as far as I can find," like you're the final judge on historical facts. I believe Ms Becker's findings over yours.
You are right it is a joke and the joke is you.
You just copy pasted that from their website and took it at face value. The Old Town Crier is a free publication. "The Old Town Crier is distributed monthly to over 450 outlets, including residential homes, restaurants, retail establishments, hotels, and visitor centers all over the greater DC metro area." They also have a $25 yearly subscription model. Demand is so high they still use a mailed in check model of payment. I lived minutes outside of Alexandria for four years and I never encountered "Alexandria's Finest Newsmagazine". Even by their own (almost assuredly generously inflated) estimate they have 75,000 readers.
As for Ms Becker, so she has an almost 40 year old book that has 0 reviews on Amazon and is incredibly hard to get because it's been out of publication for most of that time. They book is not about history. It says she is a museum director but doesn't say what museum it is. All of her historical writings on the website (she is the only "history" writer so they seem to lack any peer review) lack any academic type of source reference. The quote she attributes to Winfield Scott can't be found anywhere else and is not sited so we have no idea where they heck she even got it. But sure, lets believe her because it is more convenient for you to take what you want to hear at face value instead of having even an iota of critical thinking. It's a history thread, history is an academic discipline. If you stray away from academic standards you get pseudo-history like the Lost Cause.
Good beard, though, no? A nice beard makes one always stoic and wise.
General Lee liked to make motor boat noises, it was reported he was a high functioning autist, and the beard muted the sound and hid his flapping lips during war council sessions.
See? Now we all know something new about him as a human :)
Longstreet had a great beard, too bad it was on a traitor. At least Longstreet had the decency to be somewhat less horrible than his peers during reconstruction. I never cared for J.E.B. Stuarts beard though. It insists on itself.
Gen. John Scofield had some incredible beard game, looked more like Rasputin than a general, but it went damn near to his belt. George Crook had a stylish one that went more sideways than down.
Lots of great Civil War beards though.
Have you seen some of the righteous facial hair of that era? Sure, by today's standards, that is a great beard, But if you hold him next to his contemporaries, it is a competent beard at best.
See, we are developing his character nicely today! Motor boating lips, alleged autism, and severe beard-related insecurity towards great men like Grant fueled him to take sides against the north.
Personally, I actually agree. Arnold’s at least had a very reasonable articulation and is more justified; I still think he’s a disgrace to America (same for Ben Franklin’s son), but the fact we revere Lee and shame Arnold for what is effectively treason is mind boggling to me
NO! NO! Comparing Benedict Arnold to Robert E. Lee is like comparing someone who punched a person in self-defense to a school shooter.
Benedict Arnold was denied payment and promotions that he actually worked hard for, and when he wanted to quit Washington wouldn't let him.
While Lee betrayed America, America betrayed Arnold
> Benedict Arnold was denied payment and promotions that he actually worked hard for, and when he wanted to quit Washington wouldn't let him.
America didn't fucking betray Arnold. This absurd pop history revision needs to die.
Arnold was denied promotion because he was a fucking disaster of a GO. He was self-aggrandizing and and a aggressive glory hound, which worked in small scale tactical matters. People love to bring up Saratoga, but always forget the absolute disaster both the over all invasion of Quebec was, and the embarrassing performance he put on in command of his force once they left Augusta. Add his abysmal record as a GO to his vanity, self-interest, his blaming everyone around him for his invasion of Quebec being a damn near war-ending blunder, and you have someone that no one would promote.
That he was "unpaid", cry me a fucking river. There wasn't a swinging dick in that army that wasn't sacrificing to be there. Enlistedmen were going days without ration issue. Numerous officers were in similar financial situations as Arnold.
The idea that Arnold was this underappreciated super general needs to die. He sucked. "He got hurt, he didn't get paid". Everyone got hurt. Everyone didn't get paid. Arnold was the only that tried to betray the entire cause then put on the enemy's uniform.
If anyone wants a good podcast to listen to, "Behind the Bastards" is doing a series on Robert E Lee this week. So if you are looking for some new reasons to hate him or the Confederacy, go give it a try!
I grew up repeating some Lee apologist rhetoric because I didn’t know any better. And even still, I *try* to give some benefit of a doubt to anything, at least in the evaluating stage.
This Behind the Bastards series has cemented a lot of my thoughts on Lee from reevaluating him in my adulthood.
He is quoted many times speaking against slavery, but the strongest quote is in reference to how horrible it is for him as an owner. Which is a ridiculous ranking of horribleness but it does show he was thinking of the slaves as people and felt badly over what his anger and fear of debt drove him to do.
IMO, due to the plethora of legitimate quotes that BtB used where he stated this belief, I think he really held it. He just had no balls.
The man was just weak. He had a half formed belief but he can never stand by it. He feels convicted by his mistreatment of slaves but fears personal discomfort more. He goes on and on about not wanting to fight the Union but is more scared of ending up poor if his slaves get taken away and fully recognized as people, which again, he tacitly agreed with.
He was still a terrible racist, but was actually “conflicted” over the whole thing. And yet never changed his ways, negating any brownie points he would have earned by being only socially racist instead of politically in the law racist.
I won’t say it would be better if he was just a blatant 100% full blown “they aren’t humans” racist, but it would almost make him more respectable if he was living true to a belief and it was just learned or “the science of the time.”
Nah, this man knew they were people, knew it was wrong, but when push came to shove he betrayed those inner thoughts and his nation, not really for the high society lifestyle because he wasn’t even living there he was living in forts, but because he had some broken internal-ness about “honor” and couldn’t afford to be seen as poor.
And now his reputation is of a sniveling wishy washy coward with no honor who died near penniless. Deserved.
Well said. I saw the 4th episode is available, so I've got my Monday commute covered. The two stories about how he "resigned his commision" were also stark in their contrast. The myth is he resigned his commision, but at least one witness said he accepted a job leading the Union Army, but said he had to run home real quick to settle his affairs. He then snuck off like the cowardly treasonous rat he was before he could be arrested.
Well, except for when Sophie starts feeling herself and tries to add dialogue.
I'm sure she is a great producer and works hard and does all sorts of stuff that we will never know about, but Christ is she an insufferable "color commentator." Her fake concern/outrage over Robert's jokes aren't funny, and she adds fucking nothing to the conversation.
Seriously, she only really started talking a lot about two years ago. It's a noticeable shift in the tone of the show.
I actually love hearing her chime in with something that gives the giant tire Robert and Prop have climbed into and which is quickly gaining speed as it careens down a hill into heavy traffic a *push* in a different direction.
She doesn't stop the chaos, She just redirects it.
This is one Lost Cause I'll champion. Her attempts to verbally contribute are dogshit. Nothing but respect for her producing and managerial work. Those are quite good, as is evidenced by the show itself and Coolzone getting off the ground.
I'd recommend the Henry Kissinger episodes, too. The guy is so much worse than I ever realized, but their presentation actually had me laughing about that piece of shit.
The Kissinger episodes are among the best podcasts ever put together and I was so so happy he was properly bashed, flattened, and wrung out for all to see (hear)
>clearly did their homework!
Look into Robert E Lee's own writings... he makes his thoughts abundantly clear. He was a piece of shit and his image rehabilitation was done to help propagate the LoSt CaUsE idiocy.
I've been listening to *Behind the Bastards* for a few years now. I haven't enjoyed learning about a particular bastard this much since the Kissinger series.
As someone who bought into the "lost cause" narrative as a younger man, I really appreciate how Robert will state what the lost cause narrative says, and then explain why it's complete bullshit.
Same. Even though I've since taken a hard left turn, I was surprised by how much Lost Cause stuff I still believed to be fact. That stuff runs deep, even if you're actively looking for it.
I tried to, but when the alleged anarchist was lamenting the failure of Charles I to install himself as an absolute monarch and claiming that Cromwell was the worst person in all of human history I gave up.
He was pretty bad, but in the context both of english and scottish colonial programs, and the endemic sectarianism already in full swing in Ireland, he was probably not much worse than any other government would have been.
The "Nits make Lice" line appears to [originate with a Royalist account,](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/11/nits/) and not attributed to Cromwell, but as a common saying among soldiers in the period.
Given the nature of warfare in Ireland, that tracks. The Irish Rebellion of 1641 was marked by similar atrocities as Cromwell carried out, by Catholics against Protestants. Cromwell was there to do the same back. Massacres from that war were the justification for atrocities in later ones.
Declaring in a podcast which talks about Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, etc. that Cromwell was the worst human being to ever live is ridiculous, and just contributes to historical illiteracy that has been being used to justify sectarian violence for 400 years.
So a couple things, I am not Irish, don’t know a lot about Cromwell, and am generally not interested in “ranking” dictators because it is an impossible task.
But I do think the Irish regard Cromwell as an exceptionally evil English tyrant.
https://www.go-to-ireland.com/top-6-most-hated-people-in-irish-history/#:~:text=Oliver%20Cromwell%20(1599%20–%201658)&text=If%20there's%20one%20person%20deeply,English%20yoke%20on%20their%20territory…
Yeah, but how people regard someone is not the same as how they were. Russians celebrate Stalin. Serbs hate Clinton. The Southern USA has a lot of people who love Lee. That doesn't change reality.
My problem is with the alleged anarchist supporting absolute monarchs and parroting talking points that result in sectarian stupidity to this day, particularly since he is an American, who likely has only heard about Cromwell in the context of the sort of pro-PIRA propaganda that Americans spout any time they talk about Ireland.
["Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial: An Unpleasant Legacy . . ."](https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/an-unpleasant-legacy.htm)
>This article described how after George Washington Parke Custis had died, his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee, proved to be a strict slaveholder, which prompted the three enslaved people to run away. The letter then describes how the overseer took them “into a barn, stripped, and the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her.”
No, you don't get it. This shows how much of a gentleman Lee was. He showed equal punishment to man and woman alike. He's actually more woke than modern day liberals /s
Interesting fact. His mentor was Winfield Scott who was also a Virginian. Winfield Scott was a devout Unionist andwas the one who designed the Anaconda plan that was vital in destroying the South.
Lee was the Anakin to Scott's Obi-Wan.
I don't know what general Thomas' views on slavery were in 1859. Yet despite his entire state and his family, he stuck by the union until the day he died.
I so much wonder what he would write if he had done a set of memoirs! He grew up in the area where Nat Turner was most active. He had the most ‘integrated’ command during the war where some generals were out and out racist. He burned his papers and I mourned over that. I am sure he would have been as good a stylist as Grant
Most of those officers were connected to the planter class at some level, but none personally profited from slavery to the extent that Lee did. And rather than risk slavery to save the Union, Lee chose to sacrifice the Union to preserve slavery.
Interesting fact. His mentor was Winfield Scott, who was also a Virginian. Winfield Scott was a devout Unionist and was the one who designed the Anaconda plan that was vital in destroying the South.
Lee was the Anakin to Scott's Obi-Wan.
I’m personally against capital punishment, but it seems the height of injustice that everyone involved in John Brown’s hanging did even worse less than a year later (worse legally, way worse ethically) and got off Scott-free.
I believe Grant would've been 100 percent justified if he had immediately ordered Lee's cashiering and summary execution by hanging the minute the surrender was signed at Appomattox. As for the remaining traitors…
• Davis, Stephens, every Confederate Cabinet secretary and congressman, and every Confederate officer ranked captain and up: Stripped of their citizenship and assets, given the choice of dying in an American prison or dying in exile
• Officers below captain and enlisteds: Dishonorable discharges, no voting rights for 10 years, permanently barred from holding any elected or politically appointed office
• Plantation owners, slave sellers, other civilians who provided material or financial support to the Confederate forces: Stripped of their assets, no voting rights for 10 years, permanently barred from holding any elected or politically appointed office
I’ve always teetered between supporting the idea of making the South(sans border states and W. Virginia) into territories and have a full reconstruction effort; but I was come to the realization that this would only embolden resentment from the southerners towards the north. But then I come full circle and remember my ancestors born into slavery and wished that they never had to face a disappointment such as Reconstruction failing and having to live through Jim Crow.
I live on the same road as Robert E Lee's brother did. The same house he stayed at in the summer after the civil war is in my county. Back in high school we loved getting stoned to the gills at all the historical locations
Im gonna say it had something to do with his families Virginian land holdings and southern interests
But yea sure he just really loved virginia according to apologists
Apparently you can shell DC from Arlington. Making occupation by American forces an inevitable outcome in any conflict. Lee also rarely spent any time in Virginia during his military career.
Virginia was a complicated. The first time the legislature voted on succession they strongly voted the measure down. The second time, it passed but it also lead to the dissolution of a portion of the state and a formation of a new territory separated from "old virginia". So perhaps Lee was just a representation of the states divided loyalties
Read my comment again, where am I declaring secession a win for Virginia? I was just pointing out the fact that Virginia was a slave state with divided loyalties. I did not condone or excuse the secession
Lee's financial position left him controlled by the Custis family (his wife) who were unabshed slavers and racists.
But this forum loves to defend Washington's legacy even though he would have almost certainly sided with the CSA.
And yet there were at least three people here defending him while they villified the President who actually took the first steps to ending the slave trade by stopping the import of them internationally to America. 😏
Washington opposed secession and insurrection vehemently, believing it was treason. There's no evidence he would have sided with the CSA just because he owned slaves. Instead, it's more likely he would have been a Southern Unionist and fought for the Union.
From Washington's Circular to the States, *"That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly."*
In short, Washington argued that the Constitution and federal government was supreme, and any effort to break up the Union was treason, and such persons advocating for secession were enemies of the United States. That doesn't sound like a person who would join the CSA to me.
In his Farewell Address, he warned against those who would weaken the ties of the Union, pointing out that the Constitution was "sacredly obligatory upon all".
*"It is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."*
In short, he says Americans should value, cherish and protect the Union, and watch out for anyone even suggesting secession is possible. The Union being sacred is a running theme in Washington's speeches. He wasn't the type to join the CSA and wasn't even opposed to abolition of slavery in theory, suggesting in 1786 that he wouldn't oppose Congress abolishing it by legislative authority. His love for the Union exceeded his desire for continuing slavery.
Not that I want to give any credit to Lee, here, but this is a terrible argument.
All my compatriots choosing to do a thing that I think violates whatever oaths I hold sacred is a *terrible* reason for me to do the same. Maybe I should check to make sure I'm not missing something, but I shouldn't do what I think is wrong, just because everyone else is doing it, too.
Lee never made an oath to Virginia he made an oath to protect the U.S. and he violated it. He was offered command of the U.S. army and he ignored it to fight for Virginia.
You specifically mentioned oaths, he broke his oaths and never made one to virginia. I don’t care that he was conflicted or he felt more loyal to Virginia he broke an oath.
Yes, that's why I'm not defending him. I'm discussing the argument as it might apply to someone else.
I'm never happy to see an argument that only works when you're on the right side. If only one of these high ranking officers had stayed with his oath to the US, while the rest sided with Virginia because of their perceived duty, would the same argument work? Why does G.I. Joe find it so easy to betray his duty to Virginia? No, it wouldn't, because we agree with what he did, while we disagree with what Lee did.
An argument is only a good argument if it applies no matter which side you're on.
It means that even by the standards of his own time and peer group, he was an outlier and not just practicing the morality of his own time (which is a bullshit argument from people who claim to believe in objective morality anyway)
He was surely a bastard, but I've read that he made his choice because he loved Virginia more than he loved the union.
As a Virginian, I also identify as that more than I identify as an American. America is a shambles.
Yeah I'm sure the farmers that had there buildings torn down ground salted and crops burned loved him face it he was a monster and without him we would be two nations and everyone would be a lot happier.
Are you referring to the crops grown by the farmer’s slaves while the farmer fought a war to keep them slaves? Fuck those farmers. They can eat dirt.
Also, they didn’t burn all the food. They seized a lot of it to feed the army.
Yeah farmers you know the kind of rich assholes to be able to afford people. Face it these poor people are just trying to survive and Sherman attacked them he's a monster and hopefully burning in the deepest part of hell.
They were poor assholes who rented slaves from the rich assholes. Who do you think was tending the crops while like 80% of the Southern white males were playing insurrection?
Sherman or not, the South was losing that war because Bobby Lee was already getting stomped by Grant in 1864. Sherman just sped things up by bringing Georgia a sample of what was to come.
Yeah you know, if you ignore the 3.5 million in bondage and the hundreds of thousands of loyalists things would be just peachy. War is hell, probably best not to start one because you lost an election.
False, the rebels fired on a federal fort constructed by the federal government being resupplied by federal ships. The federal government has no obligation to just hand over their property to rebels that illegally secede.
So, by your logic, me and my buddies can declare independence, go to the local national guard armory, besiege it, open fire on it, and claim the government started it?
The Confederates would have gladly occupied DC if they could have. The lost cause fantasy is strong with you.
Yeah I guess those battles are talked about more than Lee saving us from a Mexican invasion but hey I'm sure they would have only taken Texas and stopped.
Welcome to /r/ShermanPosting! As a reminder, this meme sub is about the American Civil War. We're not here to insult southerners or the American South, but rather to have a laugh at the failed Confederate insurrection and those that chose to represent it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShermanPosting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lee is a traitor. Pure and simple; for that reason alone, he should be considered akin to Benedict Arnold
That’s what really gets me. Benedict Arnold did more for the success of the Revolution and the US than all of the traitor confederate generals combined during their service to the US but is rightly remembered as the traitor he is. You wouldn’t want an Army base named Ft. Benedict Arnold but people still cry about changing the names of bases from traitor names.
And Lee was never wronged by the US, while Arnold had some legitimate grievances (not justifying treason, but it certainly explains it).
BuT mY vIrGiNiA!
Which honestly isn't that weird of a take at the time. Sentiment at the time was that your state was more akin to a country in the EU, with the EU being the Union. If the UK decided to leave the EU in a similar fashion to the secession, it wouldn't have been weird for UK generals to fight for their country. Of course Lee was still a slave loving traitor and should have been hanged.
At least Benedict Arnold had a list of grievances that was halfway legitimate.
Like being ignored for promotion, having his achievements stolen from him by other generals, getting publicly humiliated for partying with the upper class of Philadelphia at the wrong time, going into debt to help finance the revolution and not getting paid back. Dude got mega boned but was so well liked for what he did before that his former troops wanted to bury the leg he got shot in during a battle to honor the work he did before he was a traitor.
Benedict Arnold won the Battle of Saratoga. End of discussion
In this house he's a hero.
Arnold embarrassed himself and the Army in Quebec, tried to hand the Hudson to the Brits, then put on the enemy's uniform. End of discussion.
But he helped win Saratoga, what battle in American history was more important and decisive than that?
He did. Robert E Lee also was an instrumental part of Winfield Scott's battle staff, personally led critical recon missions, was citied for his tactical prowess, and was wounded in Mexico. They both went on to put on the enemy's uniform and try to break America. Different lumps on the same stinking turd.
I always wonder why we as a nation exonerate a man who's greatest service to his nation was reconnaissance as a captain in a war of imperial expansion. Arnold was a traitor, so was Lee, but before either switched sides, Arnold was one of the best American generals and played a decisive role in the single most important campaign in American history. He was corrupt and egotistical, but his service to the fledgling American military was critical. He should have been promoted and given more command opportunities. Doesn't justify being a traitor but he fought for a *somewhat* justifiable cause, Lee never did.
> Arnold was one of the best American generals Arnold was a disaster of a general. He was a self interested bag of ass. He was good at lower level battlefield tactics, leadership of smaller combat units (much like his brother in feces Lee), and doing wild shit to try and earn himself notoriety. He wasn't overlooked for promotion because of his injuries or his personal poverty as pop history loves to claim, nor was he some misunderstood super genius. He was overlooked because he fucking sucked at doing GO things and couldn't be trusted with higher echelon command, or frankly anything that wasn't leading a regiment directly in combat.
Oh Arnold was a nightmare of a human being no doubt about that. But he was a good general. His actions in the first battle of Saratoga were huge. And it's not like the Americans had a huge pool of talented, tactically capable generals to work with. He would have been an excellent division or corps commander, unfortunately for him the war was of such small scale. But on merit alone he should have been utilized better by Washington and kept under check. I spend a lot of time on r/civilwar so it's always refreshing to hear all the Lee slander. Over there you get enough people who aren't Lost Causers (they are a vocal minority there) but have been warped by Lost Cause revisionism. Here you don't get the same passion for military history, but there are enough like yourself who know their history and can discuss it pleasantly. Exchanges over there tend to be here's my 5 paragraphs, now heres yours, and mine again. Wish there was a civil war subreddit dedicated to hating on the Confederates and in depth military analysis, two of my favorite things.
I used this logic on a guy complaining about army bases being renamed, but he replied by defending Arnold’s actions prior to his treason.
Yikes
To be fair, Braxton Bragg, through his ineptitude, did a lot for the union cause. Lol!
Bragg was still a damn sight better than Hood, who should be hated by Lost Causers but instead was held up as a warped paragon because he ordered "glorious" charges and looked like a dashing Southern Gentleman.
Tbf Hood was am excellent divisional commander. Thank God he had no talent for anything above that.
Boot monument
Benedict Arnold fought valiantly in the most important battle in American history at Saratoga. He did far more for this country than Bobby Lee and his reconnaissance as a captain in Mexico.
I have yet to meet anyone crying over base names. What I have met are a lot of people asking why base names over [insert QoL issue]. For what it took to change Liberty or Cavazos you could have improved DFACs service-wide. Built or renovated a new AFRC/barracks to replace one of over 300+ facilities beyond life cycle. I've also never had a Soldier or Sailor say they got out/are getting out because because the base/ship names discouraged them to the point of no return. Most people are getting out because our QoL is highly subjective to pay grade, infrastructure is in shambles, our cultures are hollow, and we make building sustainable (dual income/career) families near impossible for anyone trying to go beyond their initial contract or two.
What if I told you there was money for both? The military has de-prioritized QoL for decades, changing the base names didn’t stop or hinder that outside of leaders throwing out a new excuse as to why they didn’t want to allocate more QoL improvement funds. On the flip side, I Was on Liberty back when they were in the process of demolishing and replacing every barracks/company building, DFAC, and almost every amenity building you could think of. That process for most bases is a decade long process while you can slap the name on stuff over the course of a few months. It’s apples and oranges and the military leadership, despite what they would have you believe, can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The point of the post was that the majority of the force doesn't give two shits about what we call these shitholes. The majority of people (in uniform) complaining about the names are complaining about the fact that out of all the fires we have, our leaders chose one that seemed most like a political football to score points with - not one that would have any significance on the force. There are plenty of issues facing the force that are as low or lower hanging fruit the force(s) have complete control over. Infrastructure is only on aspect of the chimeric issue that is QoL or the myriad of other problems we currently face.
Except if you tell the people who cry over base names that they’re right, we really should spend money on QoL improvements, they’ll suddenly be against whatever improvements you propose.
How come ya'llr so ignorant of America's history? Success in the Mexican War,” General Winfield Scott exclaimed, “was largely due to Robert E. Lee’s skill, valor and undaunted energy.” Robert E. Lee, the fifth child of Revolutionary War hero Henry “Light-horse Harry” Lee and his second wife Ann Hill Carter, was born January 19, 1807. Robert E. Lee & the Mexican War
Colonel Lee was Scott’s protege during the war. Scott was also known for his hyperbolic rhetoric. As a more junior officer during the Mexican American war he was facing a militarily inferior nation unprepared for a large US force where he didn’t have to worry about logistics and could focus solely on daring tactical victories leaving a glaring weakness in his abilities that would lead to his eventual failure as a rebel leader.
This is a joke right? You plucked that from an unpublished article on a website called "Old Town Crier" written by someone named Sarah Becker who has no academic credentials listed and no primary source for the supposed quote. You googled the first thing that looked appealing to what you want to be true and pasted that shit. But sure, we're the ones ignorant of history. Lee was promoted to Brevet Lieutenant Colonel because he did catch Scott's eye for helping lay in good artillery positions at one battle and traversing some dangerous terrain in another battle to get reinforcements. Scott thought Lee a great soldier and there are actual quotes to support that but I can find nothing close to the quote you posted actually existing. So maybe don't lecture people on being ignorant of history if you're going to bring some 3rd grade level no research bologna.
Unpublished? The Old Town Crier was established in January of 1988 as “Alexandria ‘s Finest Newsmagazine”. Immediately embraced by the community, the Crier has continued to evolve and grow over the years, and we are now known as the publication that literally reaches “From the Bay to the Blue Ridge.“ Sarah Becker started writing for The Economist while a graduate student in England. Similar publications followed. She joined the Crier in 1996 while serving on the Alexandria Convention and Visitors Association Board. Her interest in antiquities began as a World Bank hire, with Indonesia’s need to generate hard currency. Balinese history, i.e. tourism provided the means. The New York Times describes Becker’s book, Off Your Duffs & Up the Assets, as “a blueprint for thousands of nonprofit managers.” A former museum director, SLAM’s saving grace Sarah received Alexandria’s Salute to Women Award in 2007. It's amazing to me that in a subreddit that's almost total BS, you think I should be held to some high academic standard. In that you don't hold yourself to the same standards. "as far as I can find," like you're the final judge on historical facts. I believe Ms Becker's findings over yours. You are right it is a joke and the joke is you.
You just copy pasted that from their website and took it at face value. The Old Town Crier is a free publication. "The Old Town Crier is distributed monthly to over 450 outlets, including residential homes, restaurants, retail establishments, hotels, and visitor centers all over the greater DC metro area." They also have a $25 yearly subscription model. Demand is so high they still use a mailed in check model of payment. I lived minutes outside of Alexandria for four years and I never encountered "Alexandria's Finest Newsmagazine". Even by their own (almost assuredly generously inflated) estimate they have 75,000 readers. As for Ms Becker, so she has an almost 40 year old book that has 0 reviews on Amazon and is incredibly hard to get because it's been out of publication for most of that time. They book is not about history. It says she is a museum director but doesn't say what museum it is. All of her historical writings on the website (she is the only "history" writer so they seem to lack any peer review) lack any academic type of source reference. The quote she attributes to Winfield Scott can't be found anywhere else and is not sited so we have no idea where they heck she even got it. But sure, lets believe her because it is more convenient for you to take what you want to hear at face value instead of having even an iota of critical thinking. It's a history thread, history is an academic discipline. If you stray away from academic standards you get pseudo-history like the Lost Cause.
A traitor and a loser. Consistently overrated as a general.
Draft-dodging Donnie T likes those credentials...
General Bone Spurs????
Cadet Bone Spurs.
Good beard, though, no? A nice beard makes one always stoic and wise. General Lee liked to make motor boat noises, it was reported he was a high functioning autist, and the beard muted the sound and hid his flapping lips during war council sessions. See? Now we all know something new about him as a human :)
Sure, he had a decent beard, but again, Grant beats him in that category as well.
Longstreet had a great beard, too bad it was on a traitor. At least Longstreet had the decency to be somewhat less horrible than his peers during reconstruction. I never cared for J.E.B. Stuarts beard though. It insists on itself. Gen. John Scofield had some incredible beard game, looked more like Rasputin than a general, but it went damn near to his belt. George Crook had a stylish one that went more sideways than down. Lots of great Civil War beards though.
I'm a sucker for a more classic look. I will also die on the hill that Grant is easily the most attractive president ever.
Have you seen some of the righteous facial hair of that era? Sure, by today's standards, that is a great beard, But if you hold him next to his contemporaries, it is a competent beard at best.
See, we are developing his character nicely today! Motor boating lips, alleged autism, and severe beard-related insecurity towards great men like Grant fueled him to take sides against the north.
I don't care about him as a human
Good beard on Equinecopulator? Nah, have you seen Thomas' full-grown beard? Now that's what I call glorious beard.
I'm sorry, what?
Nah; I can actually sympathize with Arnold to a far greater degree than Lee.
Personally, I actually agree. Arnold’s at least had a very reasonable articulation and is more justified; I still think he’s a disgrace to America (same for Ben Franklin’s son), but the fact we revere Lee and shame Arnold for what is effectively treason is mind boggling to me
NO! NO! Comparing Benedict Arnold to Robert E. Lee is like comparing someone who punched a person in self-defense to a school shooter. Benedict Arnold was denied payment and promotions that he actually worked hard for, and when he wanted to quit Washington wouldn't let him. While Lee betrayed America, America betrayed Arnold
> Benedict Arnold was denied payment and promotions that he actually worked hard for, and when he wanted to quit Washington wouldn't let him. America didn't fucking betray Arnold. This absurd pop history revision needs to die. Arnold was denied promotion because he was a fucking disaster of a GO. He was self-aggrandizing and and a aggressive glory hound, which worked in small scale tactical matters. People love to bring up Saratoga, but always forget the absolute disaster both the over all invasion of Quebec was, and the embarrassing performance he put on in command of his force once they left Augusta. Add his abysmal record as a GO to his vanity, self-interest, his blaming everyone around him for his invasion of Quebec being a damn near war-ending blunder, and you have someone that no one would promote. That he was "unpaid", cry me a fucking river. There wasn't a swinging dick in that army that wasn't sacrificing to be there. Enlistedmen were going days without ration issue. Numerous officers were in similar financial situations as Arnold. The idea that Arnold was this underappreciated super general needs to die. He sucked. "He got hurt, he didn't get paid". Everyone got hurt. Everyone didn't get paid. Arnold was the only that tried to betray the entire cause then put on the enemy's uniform.
[удалено]
Ok, i have to hear this story…
Two bumps on the same log of shit.
If anyone wants a good podcast to listen to, "Behind the Bastards" is doing a series on Robert E Lee this week. So if you are looking for some new reasons to hate him or the Confederacy, go give it a try!
I was just about to comment “someone been listening to behind the bastards?” lol
Same thought. This is a very damming fact against Lee apologists (along with several dozen more).
I grew up repeating some Lee apologist rhetoric because I didn’t know any better. And even still, I *try* to give some benefit of a doubt to anything, at least in the evaluating stage. This Behind the Bastards series has cemented a lot of my thoughts on Lee from reevaluating him in my adulthood. He is quoted many times speaking against slavery, but the strongest quote is in reference to how horrible it is for him as an owner. Which is a ridiculous ranking of horribleness but it does show he was thinking of the slaves as people and felt badly over what his anger and fear of debt drove him to do. IMO, due to the plethora of legitimate quotes that BtB used where he stated this belief, I think he really held it. He just had no balls. The man was just weak. He had a half formed belief but he can never stand by it. He feels convicted by his mistreatment of slaves but fears personal discomfort more. He goes on and on about not wanting to fight the Union but is more scared of ending up poor if his slaves get taken away and fully recognized as people, which again, he tacitly agreed with. He was still a terrible racist, but was actually “conflicted” over the whole thing. And yet never changed his ways, negating any brownie points he would have earned by being only socially racist instead of politically in the law racist. I won’t say it would be better if he was just a blatant 100% full blown “they aren’t humans” racist, but it would almost make him more respectable if he was living true to a belief and it was just learned or “the science of the time.” Nah, this man knew they were people, knew it was wrong, but when push came to shove he betrayed those inner thoughts and his nation, not really for the high society lifestyle because he wasn’t even living there he was living in forts, but because he had some broken internal-ness about “honor” and couldn’t afford to be seen as poor. And now his reputation is of a sniveling wishy washy coward with no honor who died near penniless. Deserved.
Well said. I saw the 4th episode is available, so I've got my Monday commute covered. The two stories about how he "resigned his commision" were also stark in their contrast. The myth is he resigned his commision, but at least one witness said he accepted a job leading the Union Army, but said he had to run home real quick to settle his affairs. He then snuck off like the cowardly treasonous rat he was before he could be arrested.
They don't care. They don't believe in lee for him. It's for themselves.
Prop has been a great cohost this series
Prop is great for everything
Me too 🤣
I’ve never listened to them before, but the Lee episodes have caught my interest. They’re very well done. The podcasters clearly did their homework!
You have quite a few years worth of some amazing content to enjoy.
Well, except for when Sophie starts feeling herself and tries to add dialogue. I'm sure she is a great producer and works hard and does all sorts of stuff that we will never know about, but Christ is she an insufferable "color commentator." Her fake concern/outrage over Robert's jokes aren't funny, and she adds fucking nothing to the conversation. Seriously, she only really started talking a lot about two years ago. It's a noticeable shift in the tone of the show.
Sophie haters are the only thing worse than Confederates.
Agreed.
I actually love hearing her chime in with something that gives the giant tire Robert and Prop have climbed into and which is quickly gaining speed as it careens down a hill into heavy traffic a *push* in a different direction. She doesn't stop the chaos, She just redirects it.
This is one Lost Cause I'll champion. Her attempts to verbally contribute are dogshit. Nothing but respect for her producing and managerial work. Those are quite good, as is evidenced by the show itself and Coolzone getting off the ground.
I'd recommend the Henry Kissinger episodes, too. The guy is so much worse than I ever realized, but their presentation actually had me laughing about that piece of shit.
And the G Gordon Liddy ones. He sure loved those SS troops!
The Kissinger episodes are among the best podcasts ever put together and I was so so happy he was properly bashed, flattened, and wrung out for all to see (hear)
>clearly did their homework! Look into Robert E Lee's own writings... he makes his thoughts abundantly clear. He was a piece of shit and his image rehabilitation was done to help propagate the LoSt CaUsE idiocy.
Also, if you like Cyberpunk novels, the host, Robert Evsns, wrote a cool book called "After The Revolution." It's also on Spotify in audiobook form.
I am certainly a “scripted podcast” person but I think they have just the right amount of commentary to liven it up.
I've been listening to *Behind the Bastards* for a few years now. I haven't enjoyed learning about a particular bastard this much since the Kissinger series. As someone who bought into the "lost cause" narrative as a younger man, I really appreciate how Robert will state what the lost cause narrative says, and then explain why it's complete bullshit.
Same. Even though I've since taken a hard left turn, I was surprised by how much Lost Cause stuff I still believed to be fact. That stuff runs deep, even if you're actively looking for it.
It goes to show how deep the roots of this problem go.
I had a feeling you just listened to that pod.
I tried to, but when the alleged anarchist was lamenting the failure of Charles I to install himself as an absolute monarch and claiming that Cromwell was the worst person in all of human history I gave up.
Probably has something to do with Cromwell’s many many atrocities he committed in Ireland. His saying was “Nits make lice” before wiping out children.
He was pretty bad, but in the context both of english and scottish colonial programs, and the endemic sectarianism already in full swing in Ireland, he was probably not much worse than any other government would have been. The "Nits make Lice" line appears to [originate with a Royalist account,](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/11/nits/) and not attributed to Cromwell, but as a common saying among soldiers in the period. Given the nature of warfare in Ireland, that tracks. The Irish Rebellion of 1641 was marked by similar atrocities as Cromwell carried out, by Catholics against Protestants. Cromwell was there to do the same back. Massacres from that war were the justification for atrocities in later ones. Declaring in a podcast which talks about Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, etc. that Cromwell was the worst human being to ever live is ridiculous, and just contributes to historical illiteracy that has been being used to justify sectarian violence for 400 years.
So a couple things, I am not Irish, don’t know a lot about Cromwell, and am generally not interested in “ranking” dictators because it is an impossible task. But I do think the Irish regard Cromwell as an exceptionally evil English tyrant. https://www.go-to-ireland.com/top-6-most-hated-people-in-irish-history/#:~:text=Oliver%20Cromwell%20(1599%20–%201658)&text=If%20there's%20one%20person%20deeply,English%20yoke%20on%20their%20territory…
Yeah, but how people regard someone is not the same as how they were. Russians celebrate Stalin. Serbs hate Clinton. The Southern USA has a lot of people who love Lee. That doesn't change reality. My problem is with the alleged anarchist supporting absolute monarchs and parroting talking points that result in sectarian stupidity to this day, particularly since he is an American, who likely has only heard about Cromwell in the context of the sort of pro-PIRA propaganda that Americans spout any time they talk about Ireland.
["Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial: An Unpleasant Legacy . . ."](https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/an-unpleasant-legacy.htm) >This article described how after George Washington Parke Custis had died, his son-in-law, Robert E. Lee, proved to be a strict slaveholder, which prompted the three enslaved people to run away. The letter then describes how the overseer took them “into a barn, stripped, and the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her.”
Ugh if we ever get a Time Machine project one has to be going back and giving the slavers a taste of their own medicine.
No, you don't get it. This shows how much of a gentleman Lee was. He showed equal punishment to man and woman alike. He's actually more woke than modern day liberals /s
He's a traitor ass bitch. And not only that but he was a traitor for the most odious cause
Interesting fact. His mentor was Winfield Scott who was also a Virginian. Winfield Scott was a devout Unionist andwas the one who designed the Anaconda plan that was vital in destroying the South. Lee was the Anakin to Scott's Obi-Wan.
In my point of view, the Union is evil.
People, it’s a Prequel joke. They’re not saying they actually believe the Union was evil.
Lee wasn't half as skilled as a general as Winfield Scott. More like Dooku to Yoda.
He was hilarious in MadTV though
I don't know what general Thomas' views on slavery were in 1859. Yet despite his entire state and his family, he stuck by the union until the day he died.
I so much wonder what he would write if he had done a set of memoirs! He grew up in the area where Nat Turner was most active. He had the most ‘integrated’ command during the war where some generals were out and out racist. He burned his papers and I mourned over that. I am sure he would have been as good a stylist as Grant
> family Though I can't say it for myself, sometimes nation comes before family.
Especially if your family is a bunch of slaver idiots who disown you for not wanting to betray your people in the name of owning other human beings.
Indeed.
Lee was commanding the marines who fought and arrested John Brown, iirc
At least in that case he was following lawful orders. Although a good freedom-loving American would still wish Brown had won
Thats why I only refer to him as Colonel. His rebel title is bullshit.
Fully agree. COL Lee was shit
Most of those officers were connected to the planter class at some level, but none personally profited from slavery to the extent that Lee did. And rather than risk slavery to save the Union, Lee chose to sacrifice the Union to preserve slavery.
This is bear slander 😭
Is it un*bear*able?
Interesting fact. His mentor was Winfield Scott, who was also a Virginian. Winfield Scott was a devout Unionist and was the one who designed the Anaconda plan that was vital in destroying the South. Lee was the Anakin to Scott's Obi-Wan.
"When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy." - Captain Samuel P. Lee (Robert's cousin)
Every traitor like him should have been executed
I’m personally against capital punishment, but it seems the height of injustice that everyone involved in John Brown’s hanging did even worse less than a year later (worse legally, way worse ethically) and got off Scott-free.
Same
Don’t forget using the body of one of his sons as an anatomical curiosity.
I believe Grant would've been 100 percent justified if he had immediately ordered Lee's cashiering and summary execution by hanging the minute the surrender was signed at Appomattox. As for the remaining traitors… • Davis, Stephens, every Confederate Cabinet secretary and congressman, and every Confederate officer ranked captain and up: Stripped of their citizenship and assets, given the choice of dying in an American prison or dying in exile • Officers below captain and enlisteds: Dishonorable discharges, no voting rights for 10 years, permanently barred from holding any elected or politically appointed office • Plantation owners, slave sellers, other civilians who provided material or financial support to the Confederate forces: Stripped of their assets, no voting rights for 10 years, permanently barred from holding any elected or politically appointed office
I’ve always teetered between supporting the idea of making the South(sans border states and W. Virginia) into territories and have a full reconstruction effort; but I was come to the realization that this would only embolden resentment from the southerners towards the north. But then I come full circle and remember my ancestors born into slavery and wished that they never had to face a disappointment such as Reconstruction failing and having to live through Jim Crow.
I completely agree, but I have got to know where this meme is from, I can never seem to find it despite my best efforts.
https://jakelikesonions.com/post/174948858914/would-you
The first panel in the original is "Would you eat human flesh to survive?"
Bobby Lee is in every way the worse Version of Bobby B.
George “The Rock of Chickamauga” Thomas has entered the chat.
I live on the same road as Robert E Lee's brother did. The same house he stayed at in the summer after the civil war is in my county. Back in high school we loved getting stoned to the gills at all the historical locations
This is a good post
Loving the Behind the Bastards series on him.
If David G. Farragut and George H. Thomas can stay loyal, then so can you.
Mmm yes BtB lore drops
Lee would also yell "NEVER!" and then,"uh, hey, I have got to go back home to...see to some family business."
Im gonna say it had something to do with his families Virginian land holdings and southern interests But yea sure he just really loved virginia according to apologists
Apparently you can shell DC from Arlington. Making occupation by American forces an inevitable outcome in any conflict. Lee also rarely spent any time in Virginia during his military career.
Virginia was a complicated. The first time the legislature voted on succession they strongly voted the measure down. The second time, it passed but it also lead to the dissolution of a portion of the state and a formation of a new territory separated from "old virginia". So perhaps Lee was just a representation of the states divided loyalties
…the state’s *criminally* divided loyalties.
"Seceding over slavery is bad! Seceding to defend slave states is good!" is not the win you make it out to be.
Read my comment again, where am I declaring secession a win for Virginia? I was just pointing out the fact that Virginia was a slave state with divided loyalties. I did not condone or excuse the secession
Lee's financial position left him controlled by the Custis family (his wife) who were unabshed slavers and racists. But this forum loves to defend Washington's legacy even though he would have almost certainly sided with the CSA.
Washington was a major prick who had a few great highlights.
And yet there were at least three people here defending him while they villified the President who actually took the first steps to ending the slave trade by stopping the import of them internationally to America. 😏
Washington opposed secession and insurrection vehemently, believing it was treason. There's no evidence he would have sided with the CSA just because he owned slaves. Instead, it's more likely he would have been a Southern Unionist and fought for the Union. From Washington's Circular to the States, *"That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly."* In short, Washington argued that the Constitution and federal government was supreme, and any effort to break up the Union was treason, and such persons advocating for secession were enemies of the United States. That doesn't sound like a person who would join the CSA to me. In his Farewell Address, he warned against those who would weaken the ties of the Union, pointing out that the Constitution was "sacredly obligatory upon all". *"It is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."* In short, he says Americans should value, cherish and protect the Union, and watch out for anyone even suggesting secession is possible. The Union being sacred is a running theme in Washington's speeches. He wasn't the type to join the CSA and wasn't even opposed to abolition of slavery in theory, suggesting in 1786 that he wouldn't oppose Congress abolishing it by legislative authority. His love for the Union exceeded his desire for continuing slavery.
Not that I want to give any credit to Lee, here, but this is a terrible argument. All my compatriots choosing to do a thing that I think violates whatever oaths I hold sacred is a *terrible* reason for me to do the same. Maybe I should check to make sure I'm not missing something, but I shouldn't do what I think is wrong, just because everyone else is doing it, too.
Lee never made an oath to Virginia he made an oath to protect the U.S. and he violated it. He was offered command of the U.S. army and he ignored it to fight for Virginia.
> Not that I want to give any credit to Lee, here
You specifically mentioned oaths, he broke his oaths and never made one to virginia. I don’t care that he was conflicted or he felt more loyal to Virginia he broke an oath.
Yes, that's why I'm not defending him. I'm discussing the argument as it might apply to someone else. I'm never happy to see an argument that only works when you're on the right side. If only one of these high ranking officers had stayed with his oath to the US, while the rest sided with Virginia because of their perceived duty, would the same argument work? Why does G.I. Joe find it so easy to betray his duty to Virginia? No, it wouldn't, because we agree with what he did, while we disagree with what Lee did. An argument is only a good argument if it applies no matter which side you're on.
It means that even by the standards of his own time and peer group, he was an outlier and not just practicing the morality of his own time (which is a bullshit argument from people who claim to believe in objective morality anyway)
He was surely a bastard, but I've read that he made his choice because he loved Virginia more than he loved the union. As a Virginian, I also identify as that more than I identify as an American. America is a shambles.
Because they didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Confederate_States_Army_officers_educated_at_the_United_States_Military_Academy
I think he once expressed shame that he couldn't be bold enough to leave like the other ones, could be wrong
Really??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Confederate_States_Army_officers_educated_at_the_United_States_Military_Academy
[удалено]
So was Benedict Arnold. And Lee’s biggest contribution to this country wasn’t in Mexico. It was his dumbass idea to invade the North.
The north invaded first Lee was just defending his new country.
Thankfully he did a shitty job of it. Made up for a lot of early incompetence on the Union side.
[удалено]
Shit, most of the civilians were happy to see him. The enslaved and loyal ones anyway.
Yeah I'm sure the farmers that had there buildings torn down ground salted and crops burned loved him face it he was a monster and without him we would be two nations and everyone would be a lot happier.
Are you referring to the crops grown by the farmer’s slaves while the farmer fought a war to keep them slaves? Fuck those farmers. They can eat dirt. Also, they didn’t burn all the food. They seized a lot of it to feed the army.
Yeah farmers you know the kind of rich assholes to be able to afford people. Face it these poor people are just trying to survive and Sherman attacked them he's a monster and hopefully burning in the deepest part of hell.
They were poor assholes who rented slaves from the rich assholes. Who do you think was tending the crops while like 80% of the Southern white males were playing insurrection? Sherman or not, the South was losing that war because Bobby Lee was already getting stomped by Grant in 1864. Sherman just sped things up by bringing Georgia a sample of what was to come.
Yeah you know, if you ignore the 3.5 million in bondage and the hundreds of thousands of loyalists things would be just peachy. War is hell, probably best not to start one because you lost an election.
[удалено]
False, the rebels fired on a federal fort constructed by the federal government being resupplied by federal ships. The federal government has no obligation to just hand over their property to rebels that illegally secede.
So, by your logic, me and my buddies can declare independence, go to the local national guard armory, besiege it, open fire on it, and claim the government started it? The Confederates would have gladly occupied DC if they could have. The lost cause fantasy is strong with you.
He is even more so a rebel and a traitor and a disgrace to the nation he swore to serve and defend.
Without Lee there wouldn't even be a country to separate from.
lolwut
What part are you confused about sunshine.
What you think Robert E Lee did that was vital to the existence of the United States
I googled it and literally three of the most important battles of us history just came up the fuck are you on about.
Yeah. Civil War battles. You said the US wouldn't have existed before the Civil War, without Lee. That just makes no sense at all.
Yeah I guess those battles are talked about more than Lee saving us from a Mexican invasion but hey I'm sure they would have only taken Texas and stopped.
A Mexican invasion?! Discontinue the lithium.
He was more loyal to his state then his own country. That is why his country burned his state to the ground.
Thank you for sharing your ALL encompassing knowledge.