Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I think it's more that people don't want to dispense energy on someone who clearly shows covets of lost cause ideology. I could go into detail talking about the Vicksburg campaign but there's no point in even going there when you throw out /pol/ words like "cope".
You have ceded any intellectual ground and all you have left is to assail the credibility of well reasoned arguments and statements of fact.
Why dont you go into the VIcksburg campaign where Grant, while totally surrounding an enemy and with an extreme numerical advantage, could not even knock out the entire army?
The fact is Grant's "strategy" isnt a strategy, there was no strategy, Grant was notorious for throwing men against engineering works and the Confederates quite literally only giving in when they ran out of ammo from taking down so many Union brigades.
Show us an example where Grant had one or more of the following
-fewer men than his enemy
-fewer supplies than his enemy
-less political support than his enemy
You parrot The "Just Cause" myth which elevates the Union leadership such as Grant to sainthood and condemns everything Southern as backward, anti-intellectual, unrefined, and ethically unsound/damnable.
You are the definition of someone who does not think but regurgitates what other's tell them.
FYI, there is no pro-McClellan subset of the blood libel known as "The Lost Cause Myth".
You cant even get your slander right, no wonder you have all the 'right' opinions on history lmao even.
Look there is no way around it, the south was very much in the wrong on the issue and the civil war. That doesn't mean that southerners didn't fight valiantly or believe passionately... it just means they were in the clear moral wrong on those issues. It also doesn't mean southerners today need to own that sin.
One thing that is incredible about Germany is how much they accept and own the holocaust. They don't deny it or justify it (as opposed to Austria who does). There's no way around that being a very black spot on German history, but they accept it and have devoted to learning and not repeating. It's actually incredibly powerful to go there and see thay in their museums and culture.
If I were a southerner, I would adopt a similar view. Today's southerners don't enslave a race, but southerners did for 250 years. Accept it and acknowledge it and learn from it.
Lord knows there's plenty of faults and sins for our nation to acknowledge and learn from. Like the cultural, geographical and population destruction of the first peoples (native Americans). That's a pretty sad story in our history. Best we all acknowledge it and learn from it.
As far as Grant goes, that is at least debatable and a matter of opinion. I think arguing Lee was better is a classicly good debate. I think one would have a hard time arguing Grant was a bad general or that McClellan was better.
However, if Grant was a bad general then it means the south was whooped by a bad general. Something to think about when throwing things around there.
Completely agree, well written.
It's my stance and reasoning too that if the Germans can accept their past, then the south should accept their past as well and learn from it.
But it's easy to understand why there's people that deny that the war was about slavery when you take a look at what happened during reconstruction. The influence can be seen directly with what we see today with QAnon, Proud Boys and Jan 6.
The Germans went through a denazification process and no such process occurred after the civil war in the South.
Organisations like the daughters of the confederacy were allowed to try and rewrite history.
A lot of the blame can be put on John Wilkes Booth for the killing of Lincoln and directly putting Andrew Johnson in the drivers seat but I feel not even Lincoln would've done enough to reconstruct the south.
In my opinion, the majority of white southerners were duped and sold on a system that kept them poor and kept wealth concentrated by the planter class (which was literally a formal class recognized by the US Census as owning 40+ slaves, true story) by being given a place above an enslaved race. Reconstruction needed to address that, and show that the elite in the south were the true problem.
Instead, Reconstruction allowed planters and fire eaters, who are the most responsible for the war, to get off with almost no penalty (the CSA exempted planters from the draft even) and allowed them to take their properties back with impunity simply by swearing an oath they had already broken once. Worse, working class whites were devastated by having paid the blood price for the south to return to their economic livelihoods pretty much destroyed. Worst of all, relatively noting was done to uplift African Americans from slavery. The few schools and limited political involvement was ended shortly and was a drop in the bucket. A whole race had been subjected intellectually, economically, politically, and culturally for 250 years by then. Drastic action was needed to empower and equipment them with the tools to be successful. And the fact that we still haven't addressed that issue is continuing to vex us 150 years later to this very day.
Reconstruction should have penalized the planters and southern elite with the blame they deserved, and used 2hat should have been their confiscated wealth to rebuild the south for whites and to address the sins of slavery by paying for and supporting a true empowerment and enfranchizement of African Americans.
And of course the icing on the cake of how terrible reconstruction was is symbolized that it wasn't even officially ended by public policy decision making, but instead one of the biggest and most disgusting acts of corruption in US history.
Also to the point about learning from Germany and WW2.... Marshall Plan anyone? The WW2 model was: 1) hang the Nazis, 2) occupy Germany, 3) use occupation to invest in rebuilding and changing the culture. It's what we should have done with Reconstruction.
I am adding a note that I didn't address the gentleman's comments about Grant at Vicksburg due to the length of my posts. However quite literally ever faucet of that is completely factually false.
But going back the first argument Little Mac was a bad commander. Reason Im not proofing you wrong is because every one has sated cold facts and you dismiss them or bring up another argument. You are just trolling on a civil war game disscusion page
Here's a few facts to back-up that point:
Grant:
-Won a major victory at Shiloh, though it was almost a disaster. While he's responsible for getting caught unprepared, he reacted well and there's no doubt the union only smashed the south on Day 2 because of his pure determination. He did well following victory at Corinth, though one could argue he might have been able to destroy Van Dorn with better coordination. His getting to Vicksburg was nor pretty, nor was his crossing the River, but again pure determination carried out. Once across the River and operations commenced against the CSA armies, I don't know how anyone could describe his performance as anything other than stellar. He out maneuvered three CSA forces, captured Jackson, and trapped Pemberton in Vicksburg where he successfully laid siege and completely eliminated the entire Army of Mississippi, 33,000. I believe that's the single biggest force to be surrendered in the ACW. Once transferred to the east, the Army of the Potomac got a hold of the Army of Northern Virginia and never let go until it also surrendered. Hard to argue with that record.
Lee:
Had some of the most stunning victories in the war at Bull Run 2 and Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg. He drove McClellan off the Peninsula, though the Army of the Potomac tactically won most of those battles. He did all that out-manned and out-gunned. His tactical performance at Antietam was perhaps flawless, though his strategic decision to fight, especially with his back against a river, was terrible and its possible facing anyone but McClellan would have resulted in his destruction. However, prior to assuming command of Northern Virginia, his overseeing the initial campaign in West Virginia was a flop and the CSA armies were pushed out. Additionally, he lost both of his two offensive campaigns and invasions... and they weren't even close. Then there's Picket's charge, which is a whole debate by itself.
Grant vs Lee:
Hard. Not sure how to pick. Both generals fought well, both had iron determination, and both very, very, very much understood the war's strategic objectives in all their actions. Lee understood he needed to preserve his army, but also deliver big blows to the Union by destroying an army or capturing D.C. etc. because he knew he couldn't win long term and had to force political defeat on the Lincoln administration. Grant knew the opposite was true, that the south would be defeated by its armies being destroyed. And he did that. Twice... with adding two nice victories in Tennessee in between. Grant lost more troops, Lee had some flashier victories for sure. Lee went 0-2 on offensive campaigns; Grant never lost a campaign. Truly, that's a tough one.
Jackson:
Who doesn't love Jackson? Well, initially the men under his command. His strategic and maneuver performance in the Valley campaign is without doubt brilliant, but if you look at the tactics of the battles they are incredibly flawed with miscalculation, poor coordination, and he lost more men than the union in most of those battles as a result. Great victory overall, but not flawless. His performance during the Peninsula campaign was simply bad, and there's just no way around that. Maneuver performance at Bull Run 2 was beyond brilliant, but once he got his corps into position he didn't attack the way he should and that's a mystery. Chancellorsville's can't be overstated, Harpers Ferry brilliant. No doubt fabulous, but also far from perfect and while his maneuvering was exceptional from the beginning, his tactics on the field and ability to translate that maneuvering into battle performance took time to become what we now think of it.
I will even throw a bad general in here, just to prove that part of my point:
Burnside:
The dude had no business being put in charge of the Army of the Potomac. Terrible, and simply not capable of that. BUUUUTTTTT.... he even said that much and refused command of the army after Bull Run 2 (resulting in McClellan's reinstatement), and actually tried numerous times to refuse command after Antietam saying over and over he wasn't up to it (he only accepted the appointment when the administration threatened to appoint Joe Hooker if he said no). Burnside never got entangled in the army politics, which is no small feat, got along with pretty much everyone, was honest in assessments and credit and blame more than any other general I can think of. Oh, and wasn't a terrible corps commander, was a pretty solid division commander, and was actually very, very successful and creative in his victories on the North Carolina islands prior to being transferred to help McClellan.... which he didn't argue with. See, even the baddies had mixed bags.
McClellan:
Has to be one of the more complex and fun to debate generals. There's no doubt he was brilliant. There's no doubt no person who has ever lived is as brilliant as he thought he was. There's no doubt he was an incredible administrator and organizer. His piecing the Armies of the Potomac and Virginia back together after Bull Run 2 was a sheer miracle, and his building the Army of the Potomac, training it, and all that in the first place was second-to-none. However, his using... or refusing to use... the army was pretty spectacular as well. That he didn't capture Richmond during the Peninsula campaign is simply mind-blowing, and is why my favorite of his many nicknames has to be "the Virginia creeper". Having said that, I don't see how one has any hope of arguing he was better than Grant, who developed into an incredible logistician and organizer as well and whose got the most successful record of any general.
I will try to be concise or break up my reply into sections of particular topics.
Secession and Slavery,
The war had been incontrovertibly over secession, about America being a propositional nation, can men leave it willingly or not? It was never settled, naturally the government would invade any semi sovereign entity on its borders and certainly would not allow an autonomous state within its borders, thus the destruction of Deseret, Invasion of Mexico, and support for the Banana wars, even today the American Government has its hand in every pie from Mexico to Belize. The Government is not your friend, its not my friend, its there to ensure a semblance of stability, its not moral, its not just, its a governing body, and many times in history, the Civil War being an example, it can become ill fitted to the people beneath its stewardship. Most of all America being a faux nation, really a set of tiny nations, its not as if the Confederacy was under any divine obligation or called to honor the sanctity of pieces of paper. Washington was not a King, Lincoln was not a King, they are owed no special allegiance beyond what is mutually beneficial.
The War was about a right to choose, you will notice those who had slaves did not force anyone to own slaves, they did not invade the North and say "You will purchase slaves", they only wanted to preserve their natural folkways from the burgeoning proto-Empire of the Imperialist Union, an Empire which modern liberals (and most the world) will decry as the great Satan yet they admonish those who first resisted the great evil.
The War was about a Right to Choose, a Man's right to choose whether or not he will own slaves, this right was extended to everyone, many did not even support slavery, but they supported the Right to Choose.
We can see how the Government destroying the Southern Folkway lead directly to the wiping out of Native Americans, Sand Creek one of the worst massacres in American history was done by Union cavalry taking a brief respite from fighting the CSA.
You may disagree with slavery for moral reasons, Lee and Jackson, most of the South, did too, however you can not say Slavery existing for maybe 80 years more at most was worse than creating a frankenstein of a nation, which is imperialistic abroad and tyrannical at home and has lead to far more death and destruction than 10 hundred Confederacies and their estates.
Furthermore, had Lee lost at Antietam, slavery doesnt end, had the Confederacy Conceded at their peak, Second Manasass, slavery would not have ended.
Had the Confederacy broke away, slavery would not have ended. Slavery was secondary and the proof of this is Lincoln's willingness to allow slavery to pass naturally.
Moreover Southerners were a barbarian people, if you send armed men into their home, they will, naturally, as any self respecting man would, draw arms against such an invasive horde.
Lee inherited his slaves, and said Slavery was a moral and political evil. His wife and daughter would educate slave children and slaves on the Lee estate were endeared to the Lee's even going so far as to resist Union occupation, preserve the Arlington legacy, and actively side with the Lee's against accusations and charges brought by other slaves even while occupied by the Union and fearing no retribution. By all accounts Lee was a benevolent master and he never actually did take an active role in slavery, he was away from home more than he was home, the slaves he had were inherited, and he settled it in court when their former master died the slaves would labor until the debts left by their former master were paid, at which point they would be granted their legal freedom.
As for Jackson, he was so kind to his slaves other slaves would seek him out and ask to be bought by him so they could live under the Jackson family.
He had also inherited his slaves and he taught and treated them better than many did their own kin.
Technically Lee never owned any slaves, the slaves inherited directly from his family (allegedly) were also (allegedly) released with clandestine circumstances surrounding their release, as per custom for an up and coming yet semi nomadic young officer.
However the Arlington slaves were never owned by Lee, technically, he only managed them.
They were owned by the former George Washington Parke Custis estate, so really they werent slaves, they were by definition serfs.
Which I would say is worse than slavery but who cares because Anglo-Saxons were all serfs at one points and its forbidden to put the plight of Anglos above that of those poor poor africans who, frankly, had much more benevolent masters. I know I would rather be a member of the Gray family than on some Norman baggage train or tied to a Yam farm in Africa.
On the ethics of slavery, you only think its wrong because you were socialized within [current year], it is a natural and healthy institution found universally in human civilization. The idea you are enlightened in some way the rest of humanity and the non-Western world isnt, is simply insulting, nothing further needs to be said on the ethics of the matter.
Germans accepting and owning the holocaust is absurd, the holocaust, however bad it was, has become something of a blood libel and socio-political bludgeon to beat down any opposition to the current regime which rules Germany and acts against the interests of the German people, it is debatable as to whether or not the German people even consent to such a state act in their interest at all. The way the holocaust has become a tool of social engineering ought to negate any usage of it in this discussion, it is simply to different and too 'charged' a topic to get into.
Also what kind of psycho defaults to the holocaust in a discourse about the ethics of gentlemen nobles and their eccentric if peculiar somewhat outdated customs, what a bizarre thing to bring up, do you have anything else you'd like to share in the stream of the strange and unrelated?
While not a Southerner I do accept and acknowledge slavery happened, I am however not so delusional as to pass judgement on a people who dwelt in a different time and different place and for all intents and purposes, the people they "oppressed" were more literate than contemporary serfs in Russia, and their descendants live lives more decadent than even the wealthiest most self indulgent of antique emperors.
I do however think the descendants of slaves should pay reparations to the descendants of Union soldiers, who fought to free them right because the war was about slavery, so its our blood that was spilled, we should have some reparations from those we free'd as a show of gratitude, and I know better than to ask this same question about the holocaust, something Anglos and Slavs also put an abrupt end to, as we know what happens when you 'go there'.
As I said before, the destruction of native Americans was mediated by Union troops while the war was still going on, while the brief moments of the Confederacy saw them on exceptional terms with the natives, while none of the natives were on good terms with the Union, from the Cherokee, to the Lakota, to the Jicarilla Apache, all done wrong by the Union, even Sherman himself went West with Sheridan and at the behest of Grant, The Same bayonet which laid low our brave and gallant Southern Heroes would also impale and upon it hang an entire Race of Men 27,000 years in the making.
These crimes are arguably unforgivable, and they were conducted by those who opposed both slavery and later on racism. remember that when think fondly of the evil that is "civil rights" a guise for a reign of terror and built on 20 million skulls. There werent even half that number of slaves.
Power naturally corrupts its wielders, it did so the Union-They sought power by any means and justifications for it later, you are the product of that justification and every day you benefit from the immense bloodshed conducted by 'your side'.
Further still you slander and blood libel the descendants of those heroes who fought against such villains.
Grant didnt beat the South, two million beat the South.
Had the war never occurred, would slavery persist past 1862?
Yes.
Had the war ended in 1862 would slavery have persisted past 1862?
Yes.
You can say slavery became a central issue as it was the most glaringly salient difference, but it wasnt the primary driver for the war, nor was it a driver for peace.
The Lincoln admin offering slavery as a way of appeasement did not slake the thirst for pursuing The Southern folkway.
Furthermore, to be against slavery is ironic because on the one hand you naturally acknowledge freedom as self evidently good, but you deny the Right of Southern Secession and the pursuit of the Southern Folkway even though the plight of slaves and Southerners are poetically intertwined and near identical, both struggle for independence and a right to live freely unmolested, in fairness Southerners undoubtedly gave a whole lot more for freedom, slaves rebelled and targeted women and children, Southerners fought a full scale war against an industrial nation 5x their size, and on top of it they nearly won.
I dont think its appropriate to bring in modern American politics, Americans are a different type of political animal in this era, as Aristotle would put it.
Nothing Americans have done in recent political memory is anywhere analogous to challenging the US Army or going toe to toe with an Industrial power exercising a form of total war.
The "denazification" of the South was reconstruction, unfortunately reconstruction was and still is being inflicted upon Northerners as well.
Who gave the Government the Moral authority to rule everyone in this great land? It wasnt us, it wasnt God, its the moral authority of a bayonet, which for liberal individuals such as yourselves can never be moral. Reconstruction, Resettlement, and Desegregation was pushed at the end of a bayonet, if your point must come via a blade, I dont care about your ethical imperialism, stop pointing weapons of war at children lol.
enough about the holocaust enough about slavery, stop sending soldiers after women and children, nothing justifies the actions of these scoundrels.
Sand Creek, Atlanta, Wounded Knee, Dresden, Hiroshima, Little Rock, like can you just stop abusing civilians for more than 50 years lol?