DB: Should Obama Honor Dixie?

[Seabee1973]

and? obama isnt "a black president" he is the president. thats it.

save the black/white **** for some place else and keep it out of the white house. he doesnt represent black people he represents the people period.

and you know what? if you want to respect Tut's post then you should respect mine. Im telling you how this feels to American people who arent hung up on guilt or race.

I agree I have heard a lot of people say the only reason they voted for hgim was because he was black. If thats the only reason people voted for him then we are screwed.

People saying he shouldnt send a wreath. We were all Americans no side was perfect both sides had their faults. The blacks that fought for the south fought along side white people the northern blacks that fought were segregated.

[Popeman38]

So why would I want to honor that?

This is the point. You don't have to. You can feel anyway you want to about what happened. And the points you bring up are valid and understandable. But Obama isn't a private citizen. He is the President, representative of every American. Even those who cherish the CSA. He has an obligation to honor all of Americas fallen on Memorial Day. And he did, while also honoring the blacks that fought and died for the North. Instead of upsetting a large portion of the South, he took the high road and honored more fallen vets. Shows me he has a higher sense of honor than I thought he had.

[Smoot Point Really]

lay the wreath down and then nudge it with your foot.

win/win.

Yeah! He could pull one of those sneaky "scratch his nose with his middle-finger" routines...

[Johnny Punani]

It was rather brilliant, was it not? Thanks for the compliment.

Now the feigned pat on the back...

Feel better now?

I just found your comments ironic considering what you said when I mentioned I was in a union and voted for democrats before.

[JMS]

I've always thought the adoration for Robert E Lee was blown way out of proportion. As a matter of fact, in my opinion he was solely responsible for losing the war.

Yes he was solely responsible for taking a largely agrarian confederacy and looseing to a heavily mechanized North which whose population dwarfed that of the south by about 8-1.

27.4 million North to about 4 million South

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

Also if you ever get out to Gettysburg or any of the other battlefields, you will note the very very large monuments honoring the Irish contributions to the Union Army. You will note that it was not uncommon for immigrants to be enlisted in the Union army right off the boats from Europe and sent into battle.

Not only did the North have the advantage in production, population, and railroads; but during the civil war the Union manufactured an additional 20,000 miles of track, while the south did not produce a single mile of new track.

Fact is Lee's superior generalship is about the only thing that kept the South in the war.

Grant was not a superior strategist nor tactician. Grant was a bulldog, who's genius was he was willing to sacricifice 5 union soldiers for every confederate casualty. Grant realized he had 5 more union soldiers to take the place of his casualties, while the south had no replacements.

Grant was pretty much a moron. He simple was superior to the 6 other top Union generals who Lincoln had tried first. Because most(*) of those other Union generals were afraid to fight an army led by General Lee and found any excuse to not take the field.

(*) The Union's first general was Winfield Scott, he was a fine general, but he was to old at the onset of the war to take the field. Scott's and Lincolns first choice to fill the vacancy as top Noorthern commander was General Lee, who turned down the Union command.

Had he simply fought a war of attrition, the North would have eventually given up. Like the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Yeah he should have attrited a force which outnumbered his own by 10-1.

Great Plan.

Fact is Lee's strategy was risky, because the confederacy was never an even match for the Union. Lee's plan was to invade the north, make the union come out and fight him. Destroy their army; and capture Washington. Doing all of this before the Union was fully mobalized and the South was too warn down to go on the offensive. If he could have done these things, he could have dictated terms to the Union. It all came down to Gettysburg and a risky open field charge.

Instead, Lee's ego had him marching his army throughout MD and PA where he was destroyed. Easy pickins for Sherman sweeping through the south.

Sherman wasn't at Gettysburg, neither was Grant. They were in the west when Gettysburg occured. The reason Lee went to the North was because he didn't have supplies for his own troops in the South. In the North his army lived off the land. They also fought and destroyed the Unions bread basket.. ( one of them anyway).. and spared the south the devistation, at least for a time. Fighting in the North did one other thing. It provoked the Army of the Patomac to leave washington and come up and face him. Lee had won every major battle prior to Gettysburg. He knew his forces were growing weaker, and the Union was growing stronger. He had ot provoke a decisive battle it was his only real chance at victory.

[Henry]

I think you're selling Grant short, JMS. He was VERY successful the West, and not as a bulldog. He became a bulldog against Lee because eventually it became clear that was the only way to beat Lee.

That said, I agree with you that Lee was the only reason the South lasted as long as they did. The Confederacy was getting smacked around pretty badly in the West by the time Gettysburg took place (Vicksburg was falling with or without a victory in the East ... that was Grant by the way) and once that happened Sherman out-maneuvered Hood and cut Lee's legs out from under him by crushing the Deep South. Everyone talks about how much better the Southern generals were, but Southern generals outside of Virginia weren't any more impressive than their Northern counterparts. Lee was really the big difference ... until Grant transferred East and the Union finally had a general that didn't run and hide whenever Lee gave him a dirty look.

Without Lee, and his aura of invincibility to keep the likes of McClellan at bay for years, the South would have fallen far sooner.

[JMS]

Sure did.

Before I went off to college, it mostly was draped on the back dashboard of my 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 (except when I went down into DC to go to bars and stuff. Even then I somehow subconsciously knew that it might not go over well there).

And it's generally called the Battle Flag, I think.

I went to Collegel up in Boston. They didn't believe me up North, when I told them some folks in the South still flew the stars and bars. I also went to school down in Alabama. they didn't believe me when I told them I went K-12th grade with the direct decendants of both Robert E. Lee and Ulysis S. Grant in my school and often in my classes.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I actually saw a Bonnie Blue flag flying over a hitch store the other day. I lol'd

[JMS]

I think you're selling Grant short, JMS. He was VERY successful the West, and not as a bulldog. He became a bulldog against Lee because eventually it became clear that was the only way to beat Lee.

The civil war made Grant. Grant was out of the army nearly bankrupt, selling hats before the war. An alcoholic, who had to fight to get a commision in the Union army, when the North was sorely looking for officers, because his reputation as a lush preceeded him. He was also bankrupt after his presidency after the war, and that with both a military and presidential stipend.

Grant was sucessful in the west as you say, but only in retrospect and only as a subordinate. Remember Lincoln didn't offer Grant his command in the east because he was so sucessful in the West. Lincoln offered the command in the east to first General Pope, then to General Halleck because of their sucesses in the west, of which Grant was a part. Grant came east with Halleck as a staff officer. Grant got over-all command only because everybody before him failed. He kept command, because he fought.

Also Lee and the cream of the Confederacies generalship wasn't in the West. Nor was their army. Grant was fighting hugely overmatched Southern forces in the West an doing so under other General's overall leadership. Lee starved the west for soldiers. Lee didn't have the forces for both east and west campagnes, and he realized the war would be won or lost in the east; so that's where he concentrated his forces.

Still you are correct that Grant distinguished himself in the West as a subordinate. Even that was remarkable for Union Generals at the time. Union Generals going against Lee in the East were not getting promoted, they weren't even keeping their commands.

I also agree that Grant had a kind of brilliance. It's frankly brilliant to realize the man who you stand against is smarter and his army is better than yours, and then to come up with a plan to defeat him anyway. That's what Grant did, and that's only half of what made Grant the greatest major general in the War for the North. The other half is that Grant had the grit to do what had to be done to impliment his "strategy" of bleeding the South. Not many men would / could sacrifice his own troops like Grant did, in order to bleed Lee into submission. Lincoln knew that because he had tried 6 generals before Grant, none of which had that Grit to fight, loose men in horrific battles, and then continue to engage Lee and fight on the next day. ( Lincoln had gone through 8 generals in the east before Grant, if you count Winfield Scott who was 74 in 1860 on the eve of the war, and General Robert E. Lee himself who was offered overall command by Lincoln first, early in the war before Virginia seceeded. )

If the North had not found the butcher General they needed in Grant, It's possible Lee could have continued fighting and significantly extended the war. It's also true, if Grant has been in charge at Gettysburg, He might have ended the war two years earlier, because Grant woudln't have made the same mistake Meade made, letting Lee slip away rather than following and destroying his wounded army.

That said, I agree with you that Lee was the only reason the South lasted as long as they did. The Confederacy was getting smacked around pretty badly in the West by the time Gettysburgh took place (Vicksburg was falling with or without a victory in the East ... that was Grant by the way) and once that happened Sherman out-maneuvered Hood and cut Lee's legs out from under him by crushing the Deep South.

Without Lee, and his aura of invincibility to keep the likes of McClellan at bay for years, the South would have fallen far sooner.

Lee was a truely great General. He had fought and defeated all of these Major Generals for the North. Most of them were fired ,one retired after fighting Lee. One was fired because he refused to fight Lee. (Little Mac).

• General Joseph Hooker, - Chancelorsville
  
• General Mead, - Peninsula Campaign (1862), Antietam
  
• General McClellan - Seven Days Battles, Maryland Campaign
  
• General Henry Halleck - Peninsula Campaign, Second battle of Manassas.
  
• General Pope - second battle of Manassas
  
• General Burnside - Battle of Fredricksburg, and Battle of the Crater
  

Lee always realized the war would be won or lost in the east. He also realized time was not on his side. Lee's major mistake of the war, Picketts charge in Gettysburg; to my mind, wasn't so much as a mistake as a measure of how desparate the south was. If Picket had pulled it off, the South very well might have won the war.

Even as disasterous as pickets charge was for the South, Lee's retreat back to Virginia from Pennsylvania is considered brilliant by military historians. He kept his army together and kept them fighting, and he bloodied his pursuers nose more than once on the long march home. If his army had broke and run, it's likely non would have reached Virginia. It's also unlikely the Confederacy would have lasted another two years fighting largely a defensive war after Gettysburg.

[Henry]

The civil war made Grant. Grant was out of the army nearly bankrupt, selling hats before the war. An alcoholic, who had to fight to get a commision in the Union army, when the North was sorely looking for officers, because his reputation as a lush preceeded him.

Grant was sucessful in the west as you say, but only in retrospect. Remember Lincoln didn't offer Grant his command in the east because he was so sucessful in the West. Lincoln offered the command in the east to first General Pope, then to General Halleck because of their sucesses in the west. Grant came east with Halleck. Grant got command only because everybody before him failed. He kept command, because he fought.

Besides Lee and the cream of the Confederacies generalship wasn't in the West. Nor was their army. Grant was fighting hugely overmatched Southern forces in the West an doing so under other Generals leadership. Still you are correct that Grant distinguished himself in the West as a subordinate. Even that was remarkable for Union Generals at the time. Union Generals going against Lee in the east weren't getting promoted.

Not much of an argument from me on any of this, other than the reason Grant didn't get his shot sooner is because he was low ranking and didn't play politics very well. Most men under such circumstances would never get a shot at the most important job in the war, but he an example of the cream rising.

Grant was never really successful at anything else in life, but as a general in the Civil War, he was pretty darn good.

[JMS]

Grant didn't get his shot sooner is because he was low ranking and didn't play politics very well. Most men under such circumstances would never get a shot at the most important job in the war, but he an example of the cream rising.

Grant was a drunk and a failure before the war much like he was after his Presidency. Grant also lacked the experience of other Union Generals. Grant had been out of the army for nearly a decade in 1861 when he returned to duty.. He didn't get a shot at major command earlier because frankly on paper he didn't look like much. When he did finally get a commission in 1861, as a supply officer he was un-impressive. Grant began to shine only after he was put in commnad of field troops. Even then most of his early sucesses in the West were attributed incorrectly to his superiors who rose in the ranks a head of him.

I think Lincoln also deserves a great deal of credit for finding Grant. Lincoln was desparate for Military Leadership after having run through a half dozen Generals. Giving Grant a shot at major command, even with his sucesses was a huge political gamble. Grant's foibles were well documented, as were his subordinates such as Sherman..

( Sherman, "The First Modern General" was arguable the Union's greatest calvery officer, but he also had spent time in the mental ward during the civil war, and was described as "insane" by a major Union Newspaper the Cinncinatii Enquirer. )

Grant was never really successful at anything else in life, but as a general in the Civil War, he was pretty darn good.

In Grant's memoirs he recounts going to New York after the war and recieving an honorary coat. He writes, there were times before the war, I really needed a coat and nobody would give me one. Now when I don't need it; they give me the coat. Grant was not just unsucessful before the war, he was pennyless and a total failure, since leaving the army.

Grant was a West Point Graduate who left the army in 1854 six years before the Civil War after serving as a lietenant in the Mexican American war in the late 1940's under Generals Scott and Taylor.

Grant rejoined the Army in 1861 after Fort Sumpter, but he had to wait for a field command. He was first placed in charge of supply....

The job Grant had selling hats in 1860, was given to him by his father-in-law. Grant and his wife were living with his wifes family on the eve of the American Civil War, because of their poor finances.

Grant was a man with a very particular set of skills. Uniquily suited to defeat Lee. He was not the General Lee was. He was however the General the North had been looking for unsucessfully for years. The General who could and would defeat Lee, regardless of the sacrifice or carnage.

[kuraitengai]

It is slightly complicated, until you realize that everyone who fought in that war was American and were fighting for their views of independence and freedom. I realize that slavery was a major aspect, but to lay all that blame on the Confederacy is hypocritical when you honor the Founding Fathers and the Revolution.

i was going to say the same thing.

when all was said and done, they were still americans fighting for what they believed in.

how is what they did any different from the founding fathers breaking off from england? both were about their principles. one worked, the other didnt.

[JMS]

Nope, you mixed up tactics with strategy somewhat.

So did Grant. How you attack a fortified position would be considered tactics. Grant did so by sending waves of his soldiers to break across Lees defenses. Looseing what many would say were needless deaths. That was Grant's strategy. To bleed Lee, to chase him, to continously engage him, and not not let him rest. Grant either wasn't suited to match Lee's tactics, or he didn't care. The fight is what what was Grants strategy. Who won the fight that day or week or month was irrelivent. Grant knew Lee couldn't replace the troops or supply he was loosing and the North easily could.

Lee was very focused on the Battles his own army of Northern Virginia was involved in and never really concerned himself with events outside his area of operations. Grant not only controlled the Army of the Potomac but directed all the Union armies efforts(and even some of the Navy's efforts). Longstreet and Forrest were the best stratgists the south had and they wanted to link the efforts of the souths armies but Lee successfully resisted this (To the detriment of the Confederacy).

Fact is communications of the day it was imposible to be involved in all the campagnes across the country from one location. Grant would have had an easier time of it, because franklcy the Union had supperior telecommunications and railroads, and continued ot expand on both throughout the war.

It's true Lee neglected even short staffed the west both with regards to soldiers and supplies. It's a major critism of his command. But Lee was right to do so. He didn't have the forces to fight both campagnes, he had to concentrate on that which was most important. Lee knew the war would be decided in the east. The only chance the South had was to capture the Union leadership in Washington. In order to do that he had to draw out the union army and destroy it early on in the war before their technological and populous advantages could be brought to bare.

Lee almost pulled it off too. The Union victory at Gettysburg turned on a handful of good decisions made by union subordinates. Early Union forces deciding to commit and hold the high ground as the Confederate troops who outnumbered them were massing, rather than flee. Chamberlan holding onto the left flank of the Union line at little round top even after his troop had run out of ammunition. General Hand****s amaizing masterful command of the Union center during all three days of the battle even as Lee was concentrating on him.

Any one of those things fails to happen, The Confederacy might have won Gettysburg.

BTW now you know of one (a military man) who considers Grant to be superior, and most of the ones I know, also consider Grant to be a better overall General (Lee was superior as a tactician).

1-100 then. The comparsions aren't really even close.

Grant was clearly the cream of the Major Generals in the north. Maybe Hand**** too, but ask yourself this.

If Grant commanded the southern troops would he have won? Would he even had lasted four years? certainly not. Likewise is there any doubt Lee would have finished off the south much faster than the combined efforts of the seven other major generals who eventually would try and fail to do so over the four years of war?

[JMS]

how is what they did any different from the founding fathers breaking off from england? both were about their principles. one worked, the other didnt.

The founding fathers broke from a monarchy in which they had no representation. The confederates broke from a republic in which they had participated, prospered, and even at times doominated for nearly a hundred years. The Condederates did so because over time they had been outmanuvered by the anti slave faction.

They broke not because they were in imminant threat of loosing their slaves, but rather because they couldn't tollerate the fact that they had lost the generational political battle; knowing they would eventually loose slavery.

It was sour grapes. It was also not in the interest of the majority of the south who was too ignorant or prideful to realize it, but rather it was a fate de complete imposed on the South by their wealthy elites.

Thus I believe it was a failure of representational government in the south which lead to a war, not in the souths best interest.

[JMS]

But if Lincoln had chose not to fight secession, there would have been no war.

The south might have seceded over slavery, but they both fought over the secession.

Fact is the South seceeded after Lincoln was elected, prior to his taking office. Larry is right. Lincoln was willing to allow the political effort to take effect and let slavery die a slower death in order to avoid civil war. The South didn't give him that option.

[JMS]

Have you read An Imperfect God?

I have not, I'll have to check that out.

I'd say Washington, by the end, was closer to the ideal we would like to portray and sustain than any other of the Southern founders, EXCEPT the father and son who crippled themselves economically by selling their slaves and actively becoming anti-slavery members of the Patriot cause. Can't remember their names now.

I too have been impressed by Washington in several books I've read on him; as well as books about his contemporaries who knew and described him. He is a very interesting man, if the country wasn't lucky to have gotten him as our first President I don't think the republic survivies.

In any case, I came away with more respect for the 'lesser' intellectual light of Washington compared to Jefferson, Henry and others. Going to show that true wisdom, courage and worth are not solely (and maybe rarely are) the province of a given society's 'intellectual' class.

That's very well said. I might have to steal that line.

Washington was a radical revolutionary who hated the British with a passion. He felt snubbed by them in the French and Indian war, and he grappled with them throughout the Revolution. What's amaizing to me is, Washington had the forsight to position the country in favor of the British rather than the French after the revolution. It was intelect rising over emotion; and Washington was a very charasmatic emotional military leader.

[JMS]

So Monty fails at military history. A lot of battles were WON under such conditions during that time period. In fact the Civil War, with rifled muskets and introduction of repeaters, was one of the first "wakeup calls" that such tactics were becoming too costly.

Figures, Monty failed as a tactician himself anyways. His only skill as a general was amassing overwhelming numerical superiority*, and sometimes getting his ass kicked anyways.

*And he had no control of being on the wealthiest most populous side. Rommel or Kesselring would've kicked Monty's ass on even terms. Thankfully, even terms they weren't.

It's a pretty good point. I've often thought of the parrellels between Monty in WWII and Mclellen in the Civil war. Both were aragant, full of themselves and both had plans to win. Their plans consisted of amassing totoal numerical and tactical superiority before fighting. It is a tallent of sorts.....

Monty also get's a little of Grants popularity. Both won and both were aclaimed for winning. Both required overwhelming superioty before they engaged. The difference was nobody ever claimed Grant wasn't agressive enough, or Grant let armies escape after he bloodied them, or Grant prolonged the war. All of those things were said of Monty...

[Predicto]

I agree I have heard a lot of people say the only reason they voted for hgim was because he was black. If thats the only reason people voted for him then we are screwed.

That's interesting. I have never heard a single real live person ever say that.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

That's interesting. I have never heard a single real live person ever say that.

I have a couple times.

The one guy also thought he was getting an Obama check too :doh:

[HailGreen28]

It's a pretty good point. I've often thought of the parrellels between Monty in WWII and Mclellen in the Civil war. Both were aragant, full of themselves and both had plans to win. Their plans consisted of amassing totoal numerical and tactical superiority before fighting. It is a tallent of sorts.....

Monty also get's a little of Grants popularity. Both won and both were aclaimed for winning. Both required overwhelming superioty before they engaged. The difference was nobody ever claimed Grant wasn't agressive enough, or Grant let armies escape after he bloodied them, or Grant prolonged the war. All of those things were said of Monty...

About McClellan: I'm convinced he didn't want to beat the Confederacy. Being bluffed from attacking in 1861 because of the "Quaker Guns"? An excuse not to seriously attack. The Peninsular Campaign? Another excuse not to attack, just make a big fuss about an amphibious flanking manuever, then retreat and blame it all on Lincoln when the Rebels reposition. Left Pope out to dry at Bull Run (2nd battle). .. so on. And of course McClellan ran for Prez in 1864 for an anti-war party, sure he reluctantly repudiated it, just like he had to claim he wasn't letting the Rebels off the hook on numerous occasions...

I think Monty was a different case. Whenever he planned an operation himself, like Operation Lightfoot or Market Garden, his troops succeeded in the larger battle IN SPITE of Monty's tactics, not because of them. Unlike Grant, who seemed to adapt his tactics when necessary (his campaign down the Mississipi, his adoption of seige tactics after battles of manuever failed against Lee's generalship), Monty just kept building up his forces till victory was assured. Not many famous generals had that luxury.

[Tut77]

The Union victory at Gettysburg turned on a handful of good decisions made by union subordinates. Early Union forces deciding to commit and hold the high ground as the Confederate troops who outnumbered them were massing, rather than flee. Chamberlan holding onto the left flank of the Union line at little round top even after his troop had run out of ammunition. General Hand****s amaizing masterful command of the Union center during all three days of the battle even as Lee was concentrating on him.

And Stuart's cavalry off gallivanting when he was supposed to be scouting and reporting to Lee left Lee exposed and without accurate intel. Wasn't it Gettysburg where the Union army found the confederates' battle plans that had been dropped by a courier?

[Seabee1973]

That's interesting. I have never heard a single real live person ever say that.

Quite a few people have said it.

[difleha]

I don't carry or wear a confederate battle flag in public nor do I proclaim to everyone in public that I have ancestors who fought in the confederacy. It's not my kind of thing but there is something special about having ancestors who were in the confederate army. My ancestors(1860) never owned slaves but when they were called up to fight for their states, they did not hesitate. They fought for their lands, families, and wealth. They fought against 21 million Northerners. They put their lives at risk just because the upper class families of the South felt they were having their rights taken away - slaves. Selfish things that harmed millions and millions of Southerners.

They were the little fishes in a big pond. Sadly, nowaday, ridiculous generalizations of Southerners being racist is now becoming widespread and popular and giving the true Americans who fought for their dignity a gruesome image. It's quite sad actually. I hope Obama understands this and pays his respect to these fallen heroes who apparently had their lives taken away because of the disastrous upper class families.

After the war, my great, great, great grandfather, who fought as a confederate soldier, had lands turned over to the Northerners because he lacked money to keep them being operated. Heard that he shot himself in the head in Washington DC a day later when he heard the report. Left his kids and wife behind just like that...

It's now a freaking golf course. I work there on the weekends.

[difleha]

First off, for those of you who have turned this into a race thread, I know what it is like to be a black man. In fact, I am Irish and stereotypically Irish at that as well. Lol. We were conquered people throughout thousands of years before the African Americans came along. I also don't like the anglo-saxons either.

However, when I see the confederate flag, I do not see a blanket image of racism spewed by these dumbass KKK men in the 1920s, I see glory, honor, heart, and prideful heritage. I see proud people who are proud to have confederate ancestors, no matter what other people think of them, that fought against 21 millions Northerners with guns that invaded their states.

[Old Bay]

And Stuart's cavalry off gallivanting when he was supposed to be scouting and reporting to Lee left Lee exposed and without accurate intel. Wasn't it Gettysburg where the Union army found the confederates' battle plans that had been dropped by a courier?

The lost orders were prior to Antietam, and McClellan still failed to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. The lack of Stuart's cavalry at Gettysburg was huge, though.