Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is as absurd as those who like to blame all the war dead on President Lincoln.
The Civil War was the outgrowth of a problem the Constitutional authors papered over because they feared addressing it head on would prevent ratification. This was followed by seven decades of compromises until finally reaching a point where compromise was no longer possible.
Of all the people involved, the slaveholders, the abolitionists, the Jayhawkers, the Bushwhackers, John Brown, Stephen Douglas, the southern firebrands, the compromisers...over the course of seventy years, you manage to zero in on Lee and proclaim him responsible for all the deaths? Lee? A man who opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor demanded that he defend his home? He is at fault for all of it?
I agree. The war occurred because the Founders failed to resolve an issue that they fully recognized. Many people forget that the South did not invent the institution of Slavery. Conflict was inevitable, as 70 years of failed compromises showed. Everyone (except the slaves themselves) bore some measure of responsibility. And if Lee had not existed, to my mind it would not have changed anything except perhaps, and this is pure speculation, the duration of the war. But who is to say that someone else might not have risen to the occasion? This might be unlikely, but still possible. Many of the military reverses that beset the Confederacy occurred in theaters beyond Lee's control, so I think Lee's overall impact is sometimes overstated.
You seem to be missing that under your scenario, he was a prime cause of 620,000 dead. And I say that as a person who has some admiration for Lee.
You seem like a person who has discussed the American Civil War with folks from other Countries? On a daily basis, I interact with people from all over the World who are here, in the United States of America, in NY, & on a relatively small island, Manhattan, & on a relatively larger island, Long Island. I'm no one special, not in lifestyle, career, or by having any other outstanding attribute. Most times the folks I interact with are pretty much the same, sometimes with some exceptions, most times not. In many instances, my family has only been here a generation or two longer than theirs. Most times, the most common bond we have is curiosity about the other. & appreciation of the other on so many different levels, I find it challenging to even express. So I won't.
Granted, I don't always have the opportunity or even inclination, to discuss history with everyone I meet! The reason why I bring this up here & now is because when I discuss the American Civil War with some of these folks, it's as if they're relieved or something that I'm willing to listen. As if they've picked up a certain something when it comes to Americans & have been reluctant to share it because they don't want to be offensive or disrespectful. & there are so many other things they love about this Country & have come to view as their home away from home, so to speak.
Don't know if you've seen 'Fight Club' but it's like ... The First rule is ... I'm not supposed to talk about it, 2nd rule is ... I'm not supposed to talk about it, 3rd rule is ... It being the cause of the American Civil War & the continuing problems, issues, & other what-have-you underlying or at root cause of some of the problems in the present day.
Why is it apparently easier for some of our more recent American citizens to come to terms with the idea that demonstrating a loyalty to their Country does not have to include demonstrating a loyalty to mistakes made, both grave & small, by earlier American people, including the earliest designers?
Was Cassius right? "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
I've read three biographies of Lee and numerous treatments of him in monographs and general works on the war. I still don't feel like I've ever gotten a real grip on Lee.
Lee left behind no memoirs, never tooted his own horn, was tremendously polite and reserved, even when being critical, always behaved as a gentleman no matter the situation....we have to base what we think of Lee on what he did because what he thought while doing it, he kept to himself.
The same things generally apply to the man after whom Lee decided to model himself, George Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I just finished explaining that I am talking about character, not cause....and this is your response, right back on the cause issue.
Did you not understand at all?
Perhaps I should have just simply said that, imho, the two men are not comparable. President George Washington had better & more versatile skills than General Robert Lee. General Lee may have decided to model himself after President Washington however he did not possess his leadership capabilities.
President George Washington had better & more versatile skills than General Robert Lee. General Lee may have decided to model himself after President Washington however he did not possess his leadership capabilities.
You will need to spell out the specifics. The above isn't an argument, it is assertion.
I have no desire &/or need to do any such thing. Specifically, not interested in the hero-worship thing. Have at it yourself.
As long as you understand that people will not embrace a thesis unaccompanied by argument and/or evidence. Those are the elements needed if an assertion is to be taken seriously.
As long as you understand that people will not embrace a thesis unaccompanied by argument and/or evidence. Those are the elements needed if an assertion is to be taken seriously.
I'm asserting I'm uninterested in the hero-worshipping. G'night & have a pleasant tomorrow.
You seem like a person who has discussed the American Civil War with folks from other Countries? On a daily basis, I interact with people from all over the World who are here, in the United States of America, in NY, & on a relatively small island, Manhattan, & on a relatively larger island, Long Island. I'm no one special, not in lifestyle, career, or by having any other outstanding attribute. Most times the folks I interact with are pretty much the same, sometimes with some exceptions, most times not. In many instances, my family has only been here a generation or two longer than theirs. Most times, the most common bond we have is curiosity about the other. & appreciation of the other on so many different levels, I find it challenging to even express. So I won't.
Granted, I don't always have the opportunity or even inclination, to discuss history with everyone I meet! The reason why I bring this up here & now is because when I discuss the American Civil War with some of these folks, it's as if they're relieved or something that I'm willing to listen. As if they've picked up a certain something when it comes to Americans & have been reluctant to share it because they don't want to be offensive or disrespectful. & there are so many other things they love about this Country & have come to view as their home away from home, so to speak.
Don't know if you've seen 'Fight Club' but it's like ... The First rule is ... I'm not supposed to talk about it, 2nd rule is ... I'm not supposed to talk about it, 3rd rule is ... It being the cause of the American Civil War & the continuing problems, issues, & other what-have-you underlying or at root cause of some of the problems in the present day.
Why is it apparently easier for some of our more recent American citizens to come to terms with the idea that demonstrating a loyalty to their Country does not have to include demonstrating a loyalty to mistakes made, both grave & small, by earlier American people, including the earliest designers?
Was Cassius right? "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
interesting perspective. I too have lived in foreign countries and felt like it was my home away from home so I get what you are saying. But I also get a chuckle because an American becomes thrilled when he does genealogy or a dna blood test and is happy to find he is 19% Ukranian or 23% Scottish. My Ukranian or Scottish friends find this odd and say no you are not. You are American.
Yet we are so glad to find our roots and love our 'makings' as it were. Whereas the Ukranian and Scot may be in the world of today. I don't think we live in the past, but we love what made us who we are and we understand the world and its situation at that time if we like history. Cant judge yesterday by today, basically.
This is as absurd as those who like to blame all the war dead on President Lincoln.
The Civil War was the outgrowth of a problem the Constitutional authors papered over because they feared addressing it head on would prevent ratification. This was followed by seven decades of compromises until finally reaching a point where compromise was no longer possible.
Of all the people involved, the slaveholders, the abolitionists, the Jayhawkers, the Bushwhackers, John Brown, Stephen Douglas, the southern firebrands, the compromisers...over the course of seventy years, you manage to zero in on Lee and proclaim him responsible for all the deaths? Lee? A man who opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor demanded that he defend his home? He is at fault for all of it?
1. I said, "a prime cause", not the only cause.
2. Who was the main confederate general during the war?
3. You actually just diminished my respect for Lee since you tell me he "opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor..." What a petty man he must have been to trade all those dead for his honor.
2. Who was the main confederate general during the war?
3. You actually just diminished my respect for Lee since you tell me he "opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor..." What a petty man he must have been to trade all those dead for his honor.
"prime cause" is just as incorrect. Lee did not want a war, he did not want secession, but he felt compelled to defend his home when war came. How in any reasonable interpretation could he be seen as any sort of cause of the war, much less "prime?"
I think that what has you confused is that Lee was so effective a military leader that he probably contributed to prolonging the war. If we accept this as true, that still doesn't make Lee a cause of the war.
It is ridiculous to try and focus on a single individual when we are talking about a war which had causes reaching back to the Constitutional Convention.
Your third point is not very thoughtful. Lee was offered the command of the Union army at the start of the war. Had he accepted it because he decided that the higher honor was to the nation rather than the state, he still would have been out there leading men into death. Would you then say the same thing? That he chose honor over sparing lives? What general couldn't have that said about him?
Your position make no sense. Why not say Harriet Beecher Stowe was primarily responsible? Or John Brown? Or Preston Brooks?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
