Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Lee had accepted command of federal forces?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    JAD,

    A reasonable view. Saving the Union was Lincoln's initial goal, not freeing the slaves.
    not after the South tried secession and lost. the North, and not just the abolitionists of the Republican Party, would have had Lincoln's head if he accepted status quo antebellum.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      Can't it be tested. You ought to know better than to create a fact from speculation.

      The rest of your post is in the same mold.
      This entire thread is speculation.

      The Union did win the Civil War. Gen. Lee is considered to have been one of the best generals of that war. If he had served the Union rather than the Confederacy the war would have ended sooner with a Union victory. That is all I am saying. I can't give an exact date of when the Confederacy would have surrendered to the Union with Gen. Lee in the Union Army.

      Comment


      • #63
        Again, are you stating that Lee would have made mince meat out of Longstreet and Stuart?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Again, are you stating that Lee would have made mince meat out of Longstreet and Stuart?
          My point, which I have made several times, is that if Robert E. Lee had been a Union general it would have been good for the Union, and bad for the Confederacy.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mandala View Post
            My point, which I have made several times, is that if Robert E. Lee had been a Union general it would have been good for the Union, and bad for the Confederacy.
            Maybe the Union should have let the Confederacy go. Afterall, deaths should be avoided, right? Wars should be avoided, right? If only cooler heads had prevailed...
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Mandala View Post
              My point, which I have made several times, is that if Robert E. Lee had been a Union general it would have been good for the Union, and bad for the Confederacy.
              You are either being stupid or trolling or don't know a single thing. I'm betting you don't know a single thing.

              The reason why Lee was so great was because of Longstreet and Stuart.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                My point, which I have made several times, is that if Robert E. Lee had been a Union general it would have been good for the Union, and bad for the Confederacy.
                Your point is wrong. Lee has a great reputation among John Q Public, not so much among military historians ie the people who are trying to set you straight.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Lee was adequate.

                  He was good on some occasions, great on others, and failed spectacularly in other occasions.

                  BTW that is the evaluation of Bud Robertson and Bob Krick. I am paraphrasing.
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    "adequate" is a bit harsh, IMHO. he -was- a good general, whom looked great because for the first three years he was fighting a bunch of generals that ranged from wildly incompetent to merely decent.

                    then when he faced a general whom was his superior strategically, and -at least- every bit his equal operationally/tactically...to paraphrase Shek from earlier, inside of 30 days the ANV went from being one or two major victories from potentially ending the war to becoming incapable of doing much more than surviving.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Mandala View Post
                      This entire thread is speculation.

                      The Union did win the Civil War. Gen. Lee is considered to have been one of the best generals of that war. If he had served the Union rather than the Confederacy the war would have ended sooner with a Union victory. That is all I am saying. I can't give an exact date of when the Confederacy would have surrendered to the Union with Gen. Lee in the Union Army.

                      Mandela:

                      My apologies. I didn't see we were in the 'what if' thread. I thought we were in one of Albany's other Civil War threads. It is fair game to make all the declarative statements you wish in this one and suffer same from others.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        JAD,



                        not after the South tried secession and lost. the North, and not just the abolitionists of the Republican Party, would have had Lincoln's head if he accepted status quo antebellum.
                        asty:

                        I think you missed my point. I was speaking of Lincoln's mindset in the beginning. He said--I paraphrase—if the only way to save the Union was to allow slavery, I would do it. But if I could save the Union and end slavery I would do that too.

                        He wasn't afraid of the abolitionists. With victory on the horizon in 1864, he rejected the South's last attempt at a peace settlement. By then
                        he saw that he could have his cake and eat it too.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          JAD,

                          He said--I paraphrase—if the only way to save the Union was to allow slavery, I would do it. But if I could save the Union and end slavery I would do that too.
                          sure, that was Lincoln's mindset at the beginning (of course, the Union was in considerably desperate straits when he said that-- the British PM was within an inch of recognizing the Confederacy then).

                          but had the Confederacy surrendered in 1861-- even if the surrender involved some sort of face-saving measure, like graduated, compensated manumission-- everyone understood that once the south resorted to arms to press their case, they just made an all-or-nothing gamble. and that's the only way either side would have negotiated, in terms of a surrender, not as a negotiated re-entry into the Union.

                          it would at the minimum announce to everyone that the balance of power between the northern and the southern states had decisively shifted (the exact fear of which prompted the South to secede in the first place).

                          so slavery would certainly not have continued indefinitely. Lincoln was not so stupid as to invite the South to try again after another generation.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            JAD,



                            sure, that was Lincoln's mindset at the beginning (of course, the Union was in considerably desperate straits when he said that--the British PM was within an inch of recognizing the Confederacy then).
                            asty:

                            That was my point and I think it had, at least for Lincoln, much more meaning than merely a bow toward the political and international considerations of the day. He spoke of the union in almost mystical terms, but in practical terms as well. He saw willful dissolution of the union as the destruction of democracy for future generations; if any state could secede from the union at will, the union would remain weak and forever be in danger of disintegrating into petty states; therefore, a strong union had no choice but to crush secession by whatever means it had at its disposal.



                            but had the Confederacy surrendered in 1861-- even if the surrender involved some sort of face-saving measure, like graduated, compensated manumission-- everyone understood that once the south resorted to arms to press their case, they just made an all-or-nothing gamble. and that's the only way either side would have negotiated, in terms of a surrender, not as a negotiated re-entry into the Union.
                            Some might have seen it that way, but many in the North favored letting the South go its way, and as late as 1864, there were strong support in the North urging Lincoln to negotiate a peace and he did meet with a Confederate peace commission. The southern representatives wanted to reenter the Union with practically no change in their former status; take up their seats on Congress and keep their slaves. Lincoln realized that with the southern congressmen back in Congress, it would be almost impossible to get the 75% vote needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution banning slavery. The calculus was simple: the Union was winning the war; it had the advantage of greater manpower and unlimited war supplies. Lincoln could take the alternative route he saw at the beginning--if he could win the war and abolish slavery, he would, and he did.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              JAD,

                              He saw willful dissolution of the union as the destruction of democracy for future generations; if any state could secede from the union at will, the union would remain weak and forever be in danger of disintegrating into petty states; therefore, a strong union had no choice but to crush secession by whatever means it had at its disposal.
                              i completely agree. that's why i can't see lincoln taking a confederate offer, even in 1861, of just getting back into the union as if nothing had happened. even more importantly, i can't see the -north- standing for it. declaring war and seizing US military installations and fighting has consequences.

                              letting the confederates come back without so much as a slap on the wrist would merely encourage others to do the same, because the costs for doing so would be negligible.

                              The southern representatives wanted to reenter the Union with practically no change in their former status; take up their seats on Congress and keep their slaves. Lincoln realized that with the southern congressmen back in Congress, it would be almost impossible to get the 75% vote needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution banning slavery. The calculus was simple: the Union was winning the war; it had the advantage of greater manpower and unlimited war supplies. Lincoln could take the alternative route he saw at the beginning--if he could win the war and abolish slavery, he would, and he did.
                              AFAIK the Confederates never wanted to re-enter the Union. as late as Feb 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference, the Confederate representatives insisted on CSA independence, while holding out the "carrot" of temporarily shelving the conflict aside to jointly invade Mexico.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                JAD,


                                AFAIK the Confederates never wanted to re-enter the Union. as late as Feb 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference, the Confederate representatives insisted on CSA independence, while holding out the "carrot" of temporarily shelving the conflict aside to jointly invade Mexico.
                                The record of that conference is pretty scanty. If the WIKI source is right, the joint invasion of Mexico was the brainchild of Francis Blair, not the southern delegation, but wasn't discussed at the meeting. It also states the southern delegation wanted independence, as you mentioned. Of course, each side in any negotiation is expected to shoot for the moon as an opening gambit.

                                Whether the south would have continued to insist on independence at a second conference, is anyone's guess, as no further conferences were held. However, the fact that the conference lasted several hours would lead one to suspect that other possibilities beside full independence were discussed.
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X