Why It Makes Sense... (5 Viewers)

On these last two posts, I have to agree with George - not about Ron individually, but about a lot of Southerners I met, worked with, and even became friends with in the 8 years I lived in the South - I am a proud American, who like George can admire and respect the courage of all my countrymen, no matter what region they hail from, but I met quite a few people who didn't consider themselves Americans first, but Southerners, or citizens of the State they hailed from, and who, frankly, looked down on, hated, bad mouthed or just plain disrespected the North East, North Central and west coast portions of our great nation. Why? You'd have to talk to them to get the definitive answer, but frankly, I suspect that there are a lot of ignorant people who fear, hate, and need to blame their problems on anyone who looks, sounds, dresses, votes, or believes differently then they do. I am sure there are plenty of these people in the North as well, but the ones in the South I met tended to be the ones who used the Civil War as an excuse to hate northerners.
 
Thats an interesting point Louis. Being a citizen of a state before the US. I have to be honest, thats how I was tought in Texas. Up till 5th grade I and most of my classmates were unaware that we were American citizens. Only the Texas flag hung in our classroom; we only said the Pledge of Allegiance to Texas. Luckily towards the end of 5th grade I had developed my love for American History and realized what was going on and that yes, Texas is the 28th state of the United States.
 
You know what guys, here in 2009, Im really not fond of this North vs. South stuff. To debate the war, the causes, and what not, well thats one thing and Im all for it. In the process of that discussion both "sides" have accidentally let slip some comments that we really shouldnt have. OK whatever, get over it. Its a computer guys. No one would really try to insult you over a computer on these forums. Id like to think were all mature enough to agree on that one.

My opinion, if someone has a personal problem with posts by another member, please dont fight about it on the thread that I started. I want this to be a thread to discuss that period of American History, not our personal problems with each other. Maybe its out of line for me to request that. If it is, Im sure Brad will let me know and I will totally understand and back off this point of view.

To summarize: please keep this to a discussion of history. We will all enjoy it much more.
 
I appreciate your concern but the differences, perceived and real, between the North and South is history Harris. There is just no need to be irrational about them and frankly I don't sense that is the case here. The last few observations leave me to expand a bit on my own in the interest of clarity and I see no harm in that.
....I am a proud American, who like George can admire and respect the courage of all my countrymen, no matter what region they hail from,

So am I and so is Ron if you read what he said but I am also not afraid to consider the mistakes as well as the courage, no matter what region they may represent.

….but I met quite a few people who didn't consider themselves Americans first, but Southerners, or citizens of the State they hailed from, and who, frankly, looked down on, hated, bad mouthed or just plain disrespected the North East, North Central and west coast portions of our great nation. Why? You'd have to talk to them to get the definitive answer, but frankly, I suspect that there are a lot of ignorant people who fear, hate, and need to blame their problems on anyone who looks, sounds, dresses, votes, or believes differently then they do.
Yes I grew up with many such people and have met many more since then in every region of the country. It is certainly not a uniquely Southern phenomenon or even disproportionately prevalent there. In fact, it is not even a uniquely American practice; every area of the world has such people who blame those that are different from themselves and perceived to be better off usually for their troubles.
I am sure there are plenty of these people in the North as well, but the ones in the South I met tended to be the ones who used the Civil War as an excuse to hate northerners.
Well I hate to be glib but that is because it is so convenient for such purposes. In other regions it will be something else but the point is the same. At least it is not as bad as for the Bosnians and Serbs or even the Irish and English for that matter. War and occupation wounds die hard, especially for those who are the most insulated from competing ideas. I have met just a many Northern bigots and I have in the South and they all have one thing in common; a willingness and capacity to ignore competing ideas.
 
Im just talking about percieved personal attacks. I understand its history, but the percieved personal attacks are what I am refering to in my statement before. Im all for the discussion of history and I realize this subject in particular brings about some interesting emotions, but the back and forth percieved personal attacks is what bothers me.
 
My opinion, if someone has a personal problem with posts by another member, please dont fight about it on the thread that I started. I want this to be a thread to discuss that period of American History, not our personal problems with each other. Maybe its out of line for me to request that. If it is, Im sure Brad will let me know and I will totally understand and back off this point of view.

To summarize: please keep this to a discussion of history. We will all enjoy it much more.

Harris has made a reasonable request. I hope we can all comply.
 
I must say that there are so many people just on this thread alone that really know what they are talking about,the personal attacks on each other only take us away from a fascinating subject.Each time i read posts from North or South just makes me want to learn more.

I'd like to ask a question if Harris doesn't mind (as although its Civil war related its not answering his thread question)but if he does i'll happily delete this post.

Did Lee really have any other option other than surrender when he did,were there any factors that could have aided him fighting on or did he simply have no choice?.

Rob
 
Rob - I am going from memory here but I believe Lee had less than 20,000 effectives left. He was cornered, cut off from supplies and any possible re-enforcement. It was end game and he was all but check-mated. He could have broken the army up and possibly have carried on guerilla style warfare but he knew it was futile. He really had no options, so to curtail further loss of life, he surrendered. This is a basic summing up and I am sure there are many other students out there who can give much better explanations. -- lancer
 
"The term "Yankee" has also been used to described all Americans. So do you find it offensive when we call that by europeans, spainish and other cultures."

"What I dont appreciate is your vail reference to Southerners being bigots - (or was that just reserved for me) - that is what is sad. you dont know my deep beliefs on race relations and for you to make that underhanded statement is offensive to me. Actually, it is uncalled for totally."

Bigots? Again, where did I say that? What I did say is you and others like you seem to have a very difficult time letting go of the ACW and your comments back it up, reread (you know, the two eyes thing again) what you have said throughout this thread and tell me otherwise. If you view that as being a bigot, then there you go.

I'll say it again; 143 years is not enough time, there will never be enough time.

We have literally beaten this subject to a bloody pulp; I suggest in the future for everyones sanity we stick to talking about battles, leaders, etc and stay away from ANY debates about the causes of the war, what is the proper name to call the war, etc as it is an excersize in futility.

Why don't we discuss Lee's options in April of 1865 instead as Rob suggests.

So lets hear it Ron, let us know what Bobby Lee's options where.
 
Did Lee really have any other option other than surrender when he did,were there any factors that could have aided him fighting on or did he simply have no choice?.

Rob

After Sheridan's cavalry turned Lee's flank at the Battle of Five Forks-(where Pickett was relieved of his command for incompetence) it effectively ended the nine month seige of Petersburg. Lee was forced to abandon the city and Richmond.
He moved to Appomattox Station where he had supply trains, from there his plan was to join Joe Johnston's army in N.C. But boy Custer and his Wolverines got there first and destroyed all three trains and the Army of the Potomac was converging upon Appomattox Station. With his stores destroyed Lee then moved to his final option Lynchburg where he had his very last supply train. He hoped to break through the cavalry screen before the Union Infantry came up in support but a swift 21 hour march by Gibbons XXIV Corps followed by V Corps scotched that plan.
However John Gordon's Corps attacked the Union cavalry on the morning of the 9th April with the intention of Longstreet's First Corps in support to attempt a breakthrough but the Union II Corps moved against Longstreet before he was able to support Gordon. Gordon actually drove back the Union cavalry but seeing three whole Corps already assembled to his front he sent a courier back to Lee that he would be unable to hold a Union advance. With Longstreet being repelled Lee quoted "There is nothing left for me to do but to go and talk with General Grant and I would rather die a thousand deaths"

Most of Lee's general officers agreed that surrendering the army was the only option left, but there was one dissenting voice Chief of Artillery Porter Alexander who correctly stated that if Lee surrendered there would be no chance for the rest of the Confederacy which still had 170,000 men in the field across the South.
He was right three weeks after Lee surrendered to Grant Joe Johnston offered his sword to Sherman, Kirby Smith surrendered his Trans Mississippi army in May with the last Confederate General Stand Watie laying down his arms 23rd June 1865.

Reb
 
After Sheridan's cavalry turned Lee's flank at the Battle of Five Forks-(where Pickett was relieved of his command for incompetence) it effectively ended the nine month seige of Petersburg. Lee was forced to abandon the city and Richmond.
He moved to Appomattox Station where he had supply trains, from there his plan was to join Joe Johnston's army in N.C. But boy Custer and his Wolverines got there first and destroyed all three trains and the Army of the Potomac was converging upon Appomattox Station. With his stores destroyed Lee then moved to his final option Lynchburg where he had his very last supply train. He hoped to break through the cavalry screen before the Union Infantry came up in support but a swift 21 hour march by Gibbons XXIV Corps followed by V Corps scotched that plan.
However John Gordon's Corps attacked the Union cavalry on the morning of the 9th April with the intention of Longstreet's First Corps in support to attempt a breakthrough but the Union II Corps moved against Longstreet before he was able to support Gordon. Gordon actually drove back the Union cavalry but seeing three whole Corps already assembled to his front he sent a courier back to Lee that he would be unable to hold a Union advance. With Longstreet being repelled Lee quoted "There is nothing left for me to do but to go and talk with General Grant and I would rather die a thousand deaths"

Most of Lee's general officers agreed that surrendering the army was the only option left, but there was one dissenting voice Chief of Artillery Porter Alexander who correctly stated that if Lee surrendered there would be no chance for the rest of the Confederacy which still had 170,000 men in the field across the South.
He was right three weeks after Lee surrendered to Grant Joe Johnston offered his sword to Sherman, Kirby Smith surrendered his Trans Mississippi army in May with the last Confederate General Stand Watie laying down his arms 23rd June 1865.

Reb

Thank you Reb (and also Lancer) for your post.That explains it very nicely and in a straightforward way that an ACW novice like me can understand.

My interest in the ACW was first ignited When i saw the episode of Ken Burns series about Bull run, i really wanted to know more.Thought it was very interesting to hear about how folk in carriages and armed with picnics came out to watch what they thought would be the first major Union victory and were forced to flee when it didn't quite work out like that.The tales of Union troops streaming back into Washington was fascinating and must have come as a huge shock at the time.

As i said before there are so many knowledgable ACW Buffs on here that it makes for fascinating reading,even for a WW1/2 enthusiast such as i.

Rob
 
I must say that there are so many people just on this thread alone that I'd like to ask a question if Harris doesn't mind (as although its Civil war related its not answering his thread question)but if he does i'll happily delete this post.

Did Lee really have any other option other than surrender when he did,were there any factors that could have aided him fighting on or did he simply have no choice?.

Rob


Well, Rob it seems you got your question answered. I was out at a bar watching the Georgia game (they beat Michigan State 24-12 by the way) and thats why I didnt respond in a more timely fashion. Even though your question wasnt in line with the original topic of the thread I have no problem with it; in fact I welcome anyone who has questions or other topics about the WBTS to discuss. As I write this Ive forgotten who posted this earlier, "Lets stick to battles, leaders, tactics, etc." I 100% agree.
 
Gents,

I've been out all day and looks like I have my work cut out for me. I hope we can now tone it down. If I contributed in any way, you have my apologies.
 
Most of Lee's general officers agreed that surrendering the army was the only option left, but there was one dissenting voice Chief of Artillery Porter Alexander who correctly stated that if Lee surrendered there would be no chance for the rest of the Confederacy which still had 170,000 men in the field across the South.
He was right three weeks after Lee surrendered to Grant Joe Johnston offered his sword to Sherman, Kirby Smith surrendered his Trans Mississippi army in May with the last Confederate General Stand Watie laying down his arms 23rd June 1865.

Reb

Wow it was 170,000 still left in the field? I had no idea it was that many. I understand that the Army of Northern Virginia was the main Confederate forces but with that many men still under arms Im surprised the other armies surrendered so easily. I had been under the impression that all the Southern armies were in similar conditions as the Army of N. Va.
 
Well, Rob it seems you got your question answered. I was out at a bar watching the Georgia game (they beat Michigan State 24-12 by the way) and thats why I didnt respond in a more timely fashion. Even though your question wasnt in line with the original topic of the thread I have no problem with it; in fact I welcome anyone who has questions or other topics about the WBTS to discuss. As I write this Ive forgotten who posted this earlier, "Lets stick to battles, leaders, tactics, etc." I 100% agree.

Thanks Harris,much appreciated.

Rob
 
Wow it was 170,000 still left in the field? I had no idea it was that many. I understand that the Army of Northern Virginia was the main Confederate forces but with that many men still under arms Im surprised the other armies surrendered so easily. I had been under the impression that all the Southern armies were in similar conditions as the Army of N. Va.

Your impression is basically correct Harris the figure of 170,000 is a rough estimate by some historians but how many effectives is another story and the possibility of any substantial armies joining together was simply not viable. Plus from March through to April '65 the desertions from the Confederate Army were wholesale and unstoppable.

I haven't got all the facts but I do know that Lee surrendered just over 28,000 effectives at Appomattox. Joe Johnston's Army of Tennessee had approx 34,000 when Sherman resumed his march northwards on the 10th April. Johnston followed him having no illusions about being able to stop 80,000 Union troops marching through NC unopposed (he was definitely no Bobby Lee). Whilst en-route he learned of the evacuation of Petersburg and the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattox. This brought an end to any hope of joining the two armies together to either defeat Grant or Sherman.

Others that come to mind:-
Dept of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana under the command of Lt Gen Richard Taylor surrendered over 14,000 troops on 4th May.
Confederate District of the Gulf commanded by Gen Dabney Maury had also attempted to join Johnston's army after retreating from Mobile but after JJ's surrender he followed suit the next day surrendering 10,000 effectives.
Dept of South Georgia & Florida under MG Sam Jones surrendered 16,000 troops to General McCook at Tallahassee, the only Confederate state capital, east of the Mississippi that was not captured by military action.
Thompson's Brigade in Arkansas under Meriwether Thompson surrendered 9,000 efffectives at Jacksonport.
Gen Wofford surrendered 10,000 men at Kingston GA.
And it's also worth remembering that most Southern states had State & Militia troops normally under the command of the State Governor for example Georgia had 20,000 such troops that were surrendered by the Georgian Governor to the Union Army.

The other substantial Reb army was the Trans Mississippi Dept under Lt Gen E. Kirby Smith he had a little under 30,000 troops and he continued to resist following Lee and Johnston's surrenders, decrying all Confederate deserters with the threat of them being shot if caught. He travelled with an entourage to Houston with plans to rally the Texan Confederates to join his army and continue the struggle. When he arrived he learned that Lt Gen Simon Bolivar Buckner had surrendered the army during his absence. This didn't stop this old warrior and he led 2000 ex-Confederates into Mexico with grandiose plans for the Confederacy to rise again but slowly over the following months this rag-tag army dissolved (Incidentally this episode was the basis of the 1964 Hollywood movie "Rio Conchos").

I haven't done the math to the above and there were many many other smaller detachments such as Mosby's Cavalry who surrendered their sabres following the capitulation of the main Confederate Armies.
One interesting fact that you may or may not know is that the Confederate States of America were never formally surrendered. The States, Armies, forts, warships etc of the Confederacy all surrendered over a period of time and Jeff Davis captured and made a prisoner of war, but at no time was the Confederacy as a whole country surrendered and I believe that to be still extant today.

Reb
 
...
One interesting fact that you may or may not know is that the Confederate States of America were never formally surrendered. The States, Armies, forts, warships etc of the Confederacy all surrendered over a period of time and Jeff Davis captured and made a prisoner of war, but at no time was the Confederacy as a whole country surrendered and I believe that to be still extant today.

Reb
It would seem that Lee was the heart and sole of the Confederate Army so without his leadership and inspiration it was truly a lost cause.

You are indeed quite correct about the formal surrender of the CSA but then how does one accept the surrender of something that it maintained could not legally exist?;):D
 
One interesting fact that you may or may not know is that the Confederate States of America were never formally surrendered. The States, Armies, forts, warships etc of the Confederacy all surrendered over a period of time and Jeff Davis captured and made a prisoner of war, but at no time was the Confederacy as a whole country surrendered and I believe that to be still extant today.

Reb


That is interesting. Ive probably read that before and just dont recall it. But a very interesting piece of trivia that only the military and states surrendered.
 
Folks,

I've gone back a few pages and cleaned up (or tried to) some of the posts that got a little personal.

A good rule of thumb for when things get personal is the use of the word "you." When you start to use that, it's probably getting personal. It kind reminds me of when a player/manager gets in an argument with an umpire. Umpires allow arguments but when someone uses the word "you," he's usually ejected. We should try to follow the same rules here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top