Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

13

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    BTW the South didn't loose, IIRC General Robert E.Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant in the town of Appomattox Court house, April,1865




    http://www.onthisdeity.com/9th-april-1865-%E2%80%93-robert-e-lee-surrenders/

    Not to re-litigate the history of the civil war, but isn't surrendering losing? I'm not claiming this as original, but one analysis of the civil war that I've seen is [paraphrasing]: the south had better tactics but the north had better strategy.

    While Lee overall was a better battle General than Grant and won more with less in the Mid Atlantic, the real "hero" of the North was Sherman. I know he name is cursed to this day in the south, but the real underlying strategy of the North and why they ultimately won was to have Grant keep Lee occupied in the Mid Atlantic while Sherman slipped in the back door and slit the South's throat by annihilating their supply chain (in conjunction with the naval blockades and taking control of the Mississippi).

    Lee and the South mistakenly thought that the way to victory was to crush the other side's Army. The North (or at least Sherman) understood that the way to victory was to avoid direct contact with the enemy while destroying the other side's ability build and supply it's army.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,700 Senior Member
    Lee and the South mistakenly thought that the way to victory was to crush the other side's Army. The North (or at least Sherman) understood that the way to victory was to avoid direct contact with the enemy while destroying the other side's ability build and supply it's army.

    Lee wasn't mistaken...he was a gentleman who would not have intentionally waged war on civilians that he probably still considered countrymen, since he had served the US in battle, before.

    Sherman didn't give a damn.
  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    This brings to mind one summer when we were little and were over at Paw Paw's house for a month. My grandfather had a stray dog that showed up one day and he felt sorry for the dog and started feeding it and gave it the name Sherman (I don't know why). Well, it was not long and some chickens were killed but not eaten. Not sure what was doing it he sat on the back porch for most of that day, but fell asleep and then all of a sudden the chickens go nuts, as he went out the screen door Sherman ran right past him with Paw Paw's favorite hen. He wheeled around with his shot gun dropped Sherman right there. I always wondered why he said, "never can trust a dog that will avoid you when you call him." That came to mind when I read the post.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    And if King John had not capitulated, then what? Would that have made it illegal?

    I am not sure; it was after all a written proclamation by King Henry I.
    ....if King John had no capitulated, history would have recorded it as a "prequel" of what Cromwell did to King Charles the First....

    Not quite the same, no Parliament or National Army as such.


    ‘Some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their King. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period but in 1215 John had no obvious replacement.
    Instead of a claimant to the throne, the barons decided to base their rebellion around John's oppressive government, a combination of higher taxes and unsuccessful wars.

    In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John confirm the Charter of Liberties, from what they viewed as a golden age.

    All this sounds familiar, things do not change that much.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    Couple of quotes that make sense, particularly 50 years after the seeds for our destruction were sown. I think our great experiment with the Republic is coming to an end; a slow and agonizing death that will end badly.
    "Ask the mirror on the wall, Who's the biggest fool of all? Bet you feel small, it happens to us all." Moody Blues

    "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize
    they can bribe the people with their own money."

    - Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But,
    under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,
    until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

    - Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • beartrackerbeartracker Senior Member Posts: 3,116 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Couple of quotes that make sense, particularly 50 years after the seeds for our destruction were sown. I think our great experiment with the Republic is coming to an end; a slow and agonizing death that will end badly.
    "Ask the mirror on the wall, Who's the biggest fool of all? Bet you feel small, it happens to us all." Moody Blues

    "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize
    they can bribe the people with their own money."

    - Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But,
    under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,
    until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

    - Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)

    Yes, it will more than likely end badly at some point as all things tend to have an ending indeed. Nothing ever stays the same or even close at times.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    I am not sure; it was after all a written proclamation by King Henry I.



    Not quite the same, no Parliament or National Army as such.


    ‘Some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against their King. Such rebellions were not particularly unusual in this period but in 1215 John had no obvious replacement.
    Instead of a claimant to the throne, the barons decided to base their rebellion around John's oppressive government, a combination of higher taxes and unsuccessful wars.

    In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John confirm the Charter of Liberties, from what they viewed as a golden age.

    All this sounds familiar, things do not change that much.

    You're splitting hairs, Shush. Is it a matter of one being written by a sitting king but not confirmed by a successor, as opposed to the other being written by a group of common men and not confirmed by a sitting king make one more legal than the other? Or does it that you believe British royalty have rights and privileges that common men don't that sticks in your craw?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    You're splitting hairs, Shush.
    Not ‘splitting hairs’ just not sure.
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    ..... as opposed to the other being written by a group of common men and not confirmed by a sitting king make one more legal than the other?
    Where have I said anything like that? :uhm:


    ‘The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable.’
    Was part of a quote. Not my words.
    Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
    Is a question from a quote. Not my words.

    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Or does it that you believe British royalty have rights and privileges that common men don't that sticks in your craw?

    I do not know what this is about and no, I have ‘nothing stuck in my craw’ thank you.:up:

    I am, on the other hand, biting my tongue at the moment and I may go on doing so for some time, I think.

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    Treason it was in light of the English law at the time. Couple of papers on history that explain why it was treason. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew full well the ramifications of signing the document and what failure would mean.

    http://www.nps.gov/revwar/unfinished_revolution/treason.htm
    Benjamin Franklin made the point more tellingly when, as he was about to sign the Declaration, he remarked, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately.”
    In suggesting that hanging might be the fate of those who signed the Declaration, Franklin was choosing an easier end than the one traditionally meted out in England to traitors. Traitors were subject to the ferocious and gruesome punishment of being hanged, drawn, and quartered, reflecting the ancient judgment that a single death was an inadequate response to the crime of plotting the king’s death or seeking to overturn the established order.




    http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/bonifield/treason2.html
    (Full paper at website, and worth the read. It isn't long.)

    Today, the most famous offenders of the eighteenth-century English treason laws are the American revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence violates the 3rd law of treason in this statement: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other out Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" [8]. When John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and other founding fathers signed this statement, they did not sign some empty philosophical statement, they signed their death warrant. This action displayed their dedication to the cause of American independence and the ultimate disloyalty to King George the Third (below). Until the Declaration of Independence, Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the others only disagreed with Parliament, not the Crown; in fact, after a day of fighting the British soldiers, Washington and his officers would toast the King before dinner. This document is important because it marks the revolutionaries' acknowledgment that the corruption of the English government was not contained within the Parliament, but extended all the way up to the King; it marks the point of no return: either the revolutionaries were going to gain their independence from England and create a new country, or they were going to lose the war to the best army in the world, forfeit everything they owned, ruin their families, and be drawn and quartered.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    "Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil- - - - -'cause I'm the meanest, evilest dude in the valley!" To commit treason and get away with it, you've gotta be tough! Maybe it's time to show another corrupt government how tough and persistent free men with a just cause can be!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Lee wasn't mistaken...he was a gentleman who would not have intentionally waged war on civilians that he probably still considered countrymen, since he had served the US in battle, before.

    Sherman didn't give a damn.

    The British also tried to fight like gentlemen and look how well that worked out for them.

    Those that aren't willing to do what it takes to win usually don't.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,700 Senior Member
    The British also tried to fight like gentlemen and look how well that worked out for them.

    Those that aren't willing to do what it takes to win usually don't.

    True, but that philosophy was not well established at the time. Lee was a reluctant rebel who went with Virginia out of loyalty to his sovereign (at the time) 'homeland.' Bear in mind that the Constitution allowed for the sovereignty of the individual states, and that the overwhelming majority of southern men were willing to fight for that right, with slavery being only a peripheral issue, since most could not have afforded slaves, anyway. That's not to say that they didn't believe in the right of the individual states to decide the issue for themselves, or that they were not manipulated by politicians who did consider slavery the main issue. As always, the men who actually did the fighting, on both sides, were not always politically astute enough to grasp the real issues, when they were being recruited - once enlisted, it didn't matter because they were there for the duration, regardless.

    Lee had made his desire to free and 'rehabilitate' the slaves known, as early as 1856, and Abraham Lincoln was certainly aware of this, when he offered him command of the northern army. Whether he disagreed with Lincoln on a Constitutional basis, or was simply unwilling to fight Virginians is not clear, but there has never been any doubt that he wished to preserve the Union, as it had been before Lincoln began expanding its power.

    I doubt that Sherman cared much, one way or the other, and like Lee, he likely picked his side based on regional loyalty and personal glory - generals are that way, usually, or at least they were in those times. One thing is clear, and that is that he showed no sympathy for the slaves he freed, nor did he make much effort to restrain his soldiers who were burning and pillaging their way to the sea. He was fighting a war of conquest, and seemed not to be bothered much by the fact that that the people being harmed had once been his countrymen, and would be, again.

    Right or wrong, Lee and Sherman were fighting under different rules.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    "Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil- - - - -'cause I'm the meanest, evilest dude in the valley!" To commit treason and get away with it, you've gotta be tough! Maybe it's time to show another corrupt government how tough and persistent free men with a just cause can be!
    Jerry

    :agree::agree: I want my Children and grandchildren to have a better life than I had. So I agree with Teach. Bring it on. I am with ya'll. This time it ain't going to be Yankee against Southerner, We all bundle this time for the good and salvation of our Great Nation the USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Freedom!!!! Freedom!!!!!! Freedom!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    Reading through this thread makes me think of the similarities (and the differences) between the American Revolution and the Irish Republican Army.

    My wife was just assigned to watch the movie "The Wind that Moves the Barley" about the Irish independence movement, the story begins in the 1920's. Now it may just be a clever bit of propaganda in favor of the IRA, but a lot of the motivations for their actions could be construed as the same reasons we fought the Revolution - oppression of the masses, occupation of sovereign ground by foreign troops, unjust treatment of the people under oppressive rules. Opens with a scene in which a group of Irish citizens are set upon by a British troop detachment to punish them for an "unlawful assembly", playing a banned "native" game (I missed the name, but basically Irish field hockey), and one of them is dragged from the group and cruelly bayonetted to death for giving his name in Irish Gaelic instead of English when asked by the troops' sergeant.

    The movie is available on Netflix, and makes an interesting watch when compared to a movie like "The Patriot", and includes several scenes of debate even among the IRA as the struggle intensifies. And the IRA are considered "terrorists" today, because unlike the founding fathers, they were unable to successfully break from Mother England.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Reading through this thread makes me think of the similarities (and the differences) between the American Revolution and the Irish Republican Army.

    My wife was just assigned to watch the movie "The Wind that Moves the Barley" about the Irish independence movement, the story begins in the 1920's. Now it may just be a clever bit of propaganda in favor of the IRA, but a lot of the motivations for their actions could be construed as the same reasons we fought the Revolution - oppression of the masses, occupation of sovereign ground by foreign troops, unjust treatment of the people under oppressive rules. Opens with a scene in which a group of Irish citizens are set upon by a British troop detachment to punish them for an "unlawful assembly", playing a banned "native" game (I missed the name, but basically Irish field hockey), and one of them is dragged from the group and cruelly bayonetted to death for giving his name in Irish Gaelic instead of English when asked by the troops' sergeant.

    The movie is available on Netflix, and makes an interesting watch when compared to a movie like "The Patriot", and includes several scenes of debate even among the IRA as the struggle intensifies. And the IRA are considered "terrorists" today, because unlike the founding fathers, they were unable to successfully break from Mother England.

    Still biting my tongue but please look here;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NnWphc8IY

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    playing a banned "native" game (I missed the name, but basically Irish field hockey)

    The game is called Hurling. Sortof a mix between field hockey and lacrosse.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" is a good movie of the times. It goes into the politics and conditions that drove the Irish to rebellion. They'd had a bad time of it since the British Lords had taken great swaths of Northern Ireland as gifts from the king through the Adventurer's Act in 1649. Oliver Cromwell played a great part in that. Suppression of the Irish Catholics until 1829 had kept the pot of rebellion boiling. The period from 1916 to 1921 was a bad time, and Ireland was partitioned North and South.

    Good website for a timeline of what happened when is here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/overview_ni_article_01.shtml

    I make no claims as to the write or wrong of either side of this; it is what it is.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

    ‘The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
    Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
    The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.’

    smiley-flag013.gif


    We would say that, would we not?:tooth:

    Nothing that happened or was decided in those days was "TRIVIAL" it was important then and it is important now...

    No taxation without representation was not just about conflict, it was about paying and supporting an absent Landlord...
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member

    cjp wrote: »..... Oh dear God, I've admitted to liking something Limey.I'll never hear the end of this.

    Jayhawker wrote: »...But seriously Shush....

    Big Chief wrote: ».........walking around with a greasy butt ain't no fun, though!

     


     

  • gunrunner428gunrunner428 Senior Member Posts: 1,018 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    Still biting my tongue but please look here;

    I'm not purporting to be an expert in Irish history, but my point in the comparisons was the perceptions of the involved parties years after the events. America's revolutionaries successfully pulled a world superpower out of the one-time oppressed colonies, chipped in during two major world wars to save England's collective bacon, and outlasted any other political superpower worthy of the title. Ireland is still seen as a quaint country, while the Irish Republican Army, to my foggy recollection of the late 20th century, enjoyed the unenviable reputation as anarchist rabble. Whether that is actually true or not, I can't speak to, but the news reports of the violence and bombings in Irish cities during that period always seemed to have that slant.

    I'm also not saying "the Patriot" with Mel Gibson was a historically accurate picture outside of the atmosphere and detail in the battle scenes, but the debates presented and the conflicts between loyalists and revolutionaries was well represented. Moviemakers can take the most bizarre facts and twist them to make their point (JFK's "magic bullet" that, when studied in the light of accurate ballistics and positioning of the occupants of the car makes perfect sense despite Kevin Costner's over-acted courtroom scene), but the overall effect of the "Barley" film aimed to show the conflicts from without and within that led the IRA and its members make the decisions they made, and showed it in a pretty dramatic way.
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    Not to re-litigate the history of the civil war, but isn't surrendering losing? I'm not claiming this as original, but one analysis of the civil war that I've seen is [paraphrasing]: the south had better tactics but the north had better strategy.

    While Lee overall was a better battle General than Grant and won more with less in the Mid Atlantic, the real "hero" of the North was Sherman. I know he name is cursed to this day in the south, but the real underlying strategy of the North and why they ultimately won was to have Grant keep Lee occupied in the Mid Atlantic while Sherman slipped in the back door and slit the South's throat by annihilating their supply chain (in conjunction with the naval blockades and taking control of the Mississippi).

    Lee and the South mistakenly thought that the way to victory was to crush the other side's Army. The North (or at least Sherman) understood that the way to victory was to avoid direct contact with the enemy while destroying the other side's ability build and supply it's army.

    I don't know what books you've been reading but that doesn't add up. For one thing, Grant was a head on attacker and didn't believe in slipping around anywhere. Men were slaughtered on both sides because he began taking the war to the south even though Lee was a better general. He did it with sheer numbers. And of course in every war a big help is to sever the other sides supply lines and try to inhibit the other side's ablility to wage war.

    Grant was a hard charging general, but not quite the equal of Lee, however he did it as I said, sheer numbers and a no guts no glory plan of attack. Up until the time that Lincoln selected Grant, he had tried to deal with McClellen, but McClellen was a timid warrior. Grant sacrificed a lot of men to win. But win he did. He finally wore Lee down as I said, with sheer numbers.

    And Sherman was a pretty hard charger himself. He didn't differentiate too much over civilian or soldier. He just went for the Jugler.

    The south had more than just Lee. One of the best cavalry officers on either side was Nathan Bedford Forest. He was a natural. He knew how to win. And also, when things got bad, such as at Shiloh and Vicksburg, he knew when to cut his losses and get out of Dodge instead of sitting there waiting to surrender. He took men out of the battles in the area of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers which cut the South's losses, before the Battle of Shiloh and also at the Seige of Vicksburg. My Great Great Grandfather road with Forrest for the entire war. He named my Great Grandfather Bedford after him. In my family it is said that he held Forrest in the highest regard as a commander and as a man.

    But back on subject, Lee did what he could do with what he had to do it with. The only time I believe Lee was out generaled was at Gettysburg with Pickett's Charge. Whatever other losses he had endured were not due to being out generaled but just because he was out manned and out supplied. The South just didn't have the resources it needed for a long sustained campaign. If it had, it would have won hands down.
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    One huge mistake was the south's failure to take Washington DC after the first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, depending on which side's name you prefer to use. The Washington elite were on hand, sort of like a party atmosphere, to watch the rebels take a whipping, and when it turned into a rout by the south, a lot of them probably had to change their fancy underpants!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,700 Senior Member
    snake284-1 wrote: »
    The only time I believe Lee was out generaled was at Gettysburg with Pickett's Charge.

    By that time, Lee had lost the initiative, in part due to Buford's early tenacity in holding the high ground with cavalry until infantry could reinforce. Jeb Stuart's absence accounted for Lee not knowing that he was facing only cavalry, at the time, but Buford's performance cannot be discounted.

    Also, the failure of Jubal Early to follow up on his successful attack on East Cemetery Hill allowed the Union to reinforce, and Early's commander, Ewell failed to commit his division to an attack on West Cemetery Hill. Pickett's charge up the middle should not have ever been necessary, or at the worst, should have been against less defenders who had been seriously weakened. This was not a failure in battle tactics, but rather a timid or confused execution of them, by Ewell.

    Lee's failure at Gettysburg was in not realizing when his initiative had been lost. Delays in the deployment of his forces allowed his enemy to reinforce and choose where the decisive battle would be fought. This was against the good judgement that had won him previous battles. Not having his cavalry left him blind to the enemy's strength, but he pressed on anyway. He faced some good soldiers who held the high ground and were competently commanded, and he probably should have disengaged and waited for a more favorable battlefield. There may have been good reasons for not doing that, but mainly, he had not had much experience in retreating, at that point, and was just unwilling to do it.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Snake284-1 wrote:
    Grant was a hard charging general, but not quite the equal of Lee, however he did it as I said, sheer numbers and a no guts no glory plan of attack. Up until the time that Lincoln selected Grant, he had tried to deal with McClellen, but McClellen was a timid warrior. Grant sacrificed a lot of men to win. But win he did. He finally wore Lee down as I said, with sheer numbers.

    Longstreet was somewhat timid and cautious too IIRC.. Pickett well he was gun-ho too much.. Pickett's Follies
    Although the assault is known to popular history as Pickett's Charge, overall command was given to James Longstreet, and Pickett was one of his divisional commanders. Lee did tell Longstreet that Pickett's fresh division should lead the assault, so the name is appropriate, although some recent historians have used the name Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault (or, less frequently, Longstreet's Assault) to more fairly distribute the credit (or blame).
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    snake284-1 wrote: »
    I don't know what books you've been reading but that doesn't add up. For one thing, Grant was a head on attacker and didn't believe in slipping around anywhere. Men were slaughtered on both sides because he began taking the war to the south even though Lee was a better general. He did it with sheer numbers. And of course in every war a big help is to sever the other sides supply lines and try to inhibit the other side's ablility to wage war.

    Grant was a hard charging general, but not quite the equal of Lee, however he did it as I said, sheer numbers and a no guts no glory plan of attack. Up until the time that Lincoln selected Grant, he had tried to deal with McClellen, but McClellen was a timid warrior. Grant sacrificed a lot of men to win. But win he did. He finally wore Lee down as I said, with sheer numbers.

    And Sherman was a pretty hard charger himself. He didn't differentiate too much over civilian or soldier. He just went for the Jugler.

    The south had more than just Lee. One of the best cavalry officers on either side was Nathan Bedford Forest. He was a natural. He knew how to win. And also, when things got bad, such as at Shiloh and Vicksburg, he knew when to cut his losses and get out of Dodge instead of sitting there waiting to surrender. He took men out of the battles in the area of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers which cut the South's losses, before the Battle of Shiloh and also at the Seige of Vicksburg. My Great Great Grandfather road with Forrest for the entire war. He named my Great Grandfather Bedford after him. In my family it is said that he held Forrest in the highest regard as a commander and as a man.

    But back on subject, Lee did what he could do with what he had to do it with. The only time I believe Lee was out generaled was at Gettysburg with Pickett's Charge. Whatever other losses he had endured were not due to being out generaled but just because he was out manned and out supplied. The South just didn't have the resources it needed for a long sustained campaign. If it had, it would have won hands down.

    I will admit that I'm not a civil war historian am certainly not an expert. In my impression however, I agree with you that Lee was the best field general in the war and with equal men and equal supplies he would win just about any battle against any general. However, I think overall too much attention is paid to all the major battles that took place in the mid-atlantic region. These were important, but never actually all that decisive. The truly decisive actions on the part of the Union involved things like the naval blockade and actions like Sherman's march which were far more important in diminishing the Souths ability to maintain and supply their army while also striking at their will to continue the conflict. I see Sherman's march sortof like the fat boy and little man of the civil war. In many ways it was an atrocity and was rightfully seen that way by the South, but it was also a decisive blow that helped end the war sooner than otherwise. Conversely as far as I understand the south was never able to make any significant strikes against the North's war machine. They won plenty of battles, but most of them only amounted to routing an army, but didn't impact the north's ability to supply and send more troops at them. Many of the lessons from the civil war filtered over into the strategies used in the major conflicts of the 20th century.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    I will admit that I'm not a civil war historian am certainly not an expert.

    That's not surprising. You've been spoon-fed the sanitized version of the war the winning side of the conflict has allowed to be recorded in the history books, and you've gobbled it down and asked for seconds. In a way, the rewritten history of this nation's most massive trauma has followed the same basic format as the holocaust deniers are using now- - - - -teach several generations of students enough blatant lies, and eventually the truth will cease to exist. The winners of wars write the the history books, and one of the first casualties is the truth.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,246 Senior Member
    Snake284-1 wrote:


    Longstreet was somewhat timid and cautious too IIRC.. Pickett well he was gun-ho too much.. Pickett's Follies
    Although the assault is known to popular history as Pickett's Charge, overall command was given to James Longstreet, and Pickett was one of his divisional commanders. Lee did tell Longstreet that Pickett's fresh division should lead the assault, so the name is appropriate, although some recent historians have used the name Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault (or, less frequently, Longstreet's Assault) to more fairly distribute the credit (or blame).

    When I used to study such things, Longstreet was credited with trying to get Lee to disengage from Meade, slip around him and put themselves between the Army of the Potomac and Washington on ground of their own choosing. His being tentative was credited to realizing that their tactical situation was not good with Meade having the high ground. Lee would not do so because of all of the grief he caught early in the war and his defense of Richmond where he was called "Granny Lee". Buford gets nowhere near the credit he deserves for his dismounted cavalry holding off the early assaults and saving the high ground for Meade.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Regardless of legal or not, I think we are past the statue of limitations...
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    That's not surprising. You've been spoon-fed the sanitized version of the war the winning side of the conflict has allowed to be recorded in the history books, and you've gobbled it down and asked for seconds. In a way, the rewritten history of this nation's most massive trauma has followed the same basic format as the holocaust deniers are using now- - - - -teach several generations of students enough blatant lies, and eventually the truth will cease to exist. The winners of wars write the the history books, and one of the first casualties is the truth.
    Jerry

    If that's the case I welcome your enlightenment...btw I also spent 8 of my first 12 years south of the mason Dixon line and my grandfather was from TN. I don't really have a dog in this fight or a strong opinion either way.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    One huge mistake was the south's failure to take Washington DC after the first battle of Manassas/Bull Run, depending on which side's name you prefer to use. The Washington elite were on hand, sort of like a party atmosphere, to watch the rebels take a whipping, and when it turned into a rout by the south, a lot of them probably had to change their fancy underpants!
    Jerry

    Man that's right on for sure, and such an obvious mistake! Why? Why did they leave that golden goose be??? They could have rode into town on a Budweiser Wagon. That would have won it right then and there. What were they thinkin'?
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.