# revisionist History



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Folks, I am not a history major...but I am a history buff. I have spent many years discussing how we have rewritten the civil war and its positions/objectives with regards to slavery to now be a very left leaning history with all the real facts omitted. I would like to start a thread that discusses the initial cause for secession as well as when the other issues came to light...along with the wartime or political motivators that precipitated those events. So with that I will say: I learned that the civil war was a war about states rights. an industrial north with a great population controlling the house of representatives based on population because slaves did not count and representatives were based on white population only.Southern slave owners while acknowledging that slavery was coming to an end...needed to increase the price of agricultural products to be able to afford slaveless operations. The north heavily taxed exports of agricultural products which caused further issues with freeing slaves. The south fought to get slaves included in the census as citizens but the north opposed this. THey settled on the 3/5th compromise where the north said a slave counted only as 3/5th of a free man. Finally states said enough. and seceded. Slavery did not become an issue of the civil war again until the north, which continued to have slavery itself, began to lose the war. At that time Lincoln...a republican...decided that freeing the salves would have a negative impact in the south and a positive impact in the north and push forward the emancipation proclamation. SO where is my learning skewed? Help me help myself.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm not an expert but I hear the north stationed Union troops in Fort Sumter smack in the middle of Charleston harbor which sounds a bit cheeky to me, so no wonder the south was annoyed and shelled it and started the war.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Everything you have stated so far is spot on SF from how I understand it.

I will look up the exact dates when I get home this weekend, but there was an agreement in the Virginia state legislature in the early 1850's to free the slaves and outlaw slavery within Virginia. The state would have compensated the slave owners for their loss and the freed slaves would have been full citizens with all of the rights that implies. However, the agreement was contingent on the northern states allowing roughly half of the freed slaves to resettle there. The guilds in New Your and Philadelphia (the unions of their day) fought vehemently against the idea since it would have greatly driven down the wages for the dock workers and other low skilled jobs. Virginia could not move forward with the idea without being able to resettle some of the freed slaves to others states since it would have left them with more than 30% of the Virginia population unemployed and with no means of caring for themselves. 

The northern states, New York particularly, used the issue of slavery as a bludgeon but every proposal the south made to phase the institution out was met with resistance from the exact folks that were complaining about it the loudest. It seems that rich and powerful New Yorkers then were pretty much the same as they now.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Lucky Jim said:


> I'm not an expert but I hear the north stationed Union troops in Fort Sumter smack in the middle of Charleston harbor which sounds a bit cheeky to me, so no wonder the south was annoyed and shelled it and started the war.


Fort Sumpter was built after the war of 1812 as a part of a line of port Forts. It was manned by "Federal" troops because at the time ALL troops were Federal, there wasn't a Confederacy yet, and the Fort had been manned since it was built. However they were doing improvements to it.


----------



## Eagles700LvL (Apr 10, 2014)

Old SF Guy said:


> So with that I will say: I learned that the civil war was a war about states rights.


Yes.

The Civil War is a fascinating topic. Robert E Lee is a fascinating man as well. Was mostly opposed to slavery, didn't agree with succession and Lincoln offered him a command for the North. But he had such dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia he had no choice but to be of her service.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Eagles700LvL said:


> Robert E Lee is a fascinating man as well. Was mostly opposed to slavery, didn't agree with succession and Lincoln offered him a command for the North. But he had such dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia he had no choice but to be of her service.


Robert E Lee ranks among the top Generals this country has ever produced.
At one time in Florida his birthday was a state holiday and we got the day off from school.

For a brief presentation on the General, go here Robert E. Lee Birthday Celebration


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Eagles700LvL said:


> Yes.
> 
> The Civil War is a fascinating topic. Robert E Lee is a fascinating man as well. Was mostly opposed to slavery, didn't agree with succession and Lincoln offered him a command for the North. But he had such dedication to the Commonwealth of Virginia he had no choice but to be of her service.


One point of interest, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War Robert E. Lee's wife had inherited some slaves. Lee and his wife intended to free them immediately but it was brought to their attention that should they do so the slaves would not have the means to support themselves and they would starve. Their answer was that they were having the slaves taught a trade so that they could support themselves when the war broke out.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Robert E Lee ranks among the top Generals this country has ever produced.
> At one time in Florida his birthday was a state holiday and we got the day off from school.
> 
> For a brief presentation on the General, go here Robert E. Lee Birthday Celebration


Same with Alabama. As a matter of fact, his birthday was on the wall calenders. Of course he was removed from the calenders and replaced with Martin Luther King.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Some day they are going to figure out that road named after my GGG grand pa was a colonel under Lee and SHTF will happen and it'll be renamed MLK drive....glad my pa won't see it.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

Robert E Lee was a traitor to the South. He purposely lost the war. He knew the south did not have the resources to fight the war the way he conducted it. He was a military trained office and his father played a reasonably roll during the Revolutionary war.

We won our independence by having the British chaise us all over the 13 states. One could and many do say we won the war but never won a battle.

If Lee had used this strategy the South would have won. Just look at the battles we did win and the cost to the North. If Lee had used the passion of his men and his skill to wage war like our strategy during the our war for independence the South would have won. The men of the north had no passion or will for running over mountains in winter and through swamps in summer. All the while being ambushed winning the ground but losing the most men.

If you are going to be politically honest about the war then be honest about how Lee betrayed his men and the South.


----------



## MrsInor (Apr 15, 2013)

Uh oh. I can see this thread headed for both turtle and bacon.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> Robert E Lee was a traitor to the South. He purposely lost the war. He knew the south did not have the resources to fight the war the way he conducted it....


I don't see him as a "traitor", he was incredibly brave to do his duty and fight even though he knew the Norths vastly superior manpower and manufacturing strength would win in the end.
The Souths politicians were to blame for starting a war they should have known they'd never win, no doubt they were gambling that the North wouldn't respond, and they lost the gamble.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Bobby Lee a traitor to his men? I don't think so. In one instance a number of small issues came together to make a winnable battle lost. Gettysburg for example. The loss of Stonewall Jackson at Chanclorsville in May(?) of 63 meant that there was only one seasoned Corp Commander in the Army of Northern VA and no time to break another one in. The lack of decent foot gear in both armies and an ad in a newspaper for a shoe sale didn't help. Two Cavalry commanders Generals Buford and Custer on day one and three were in the right place and were armed with new fangled breach loading rifles - Custers men had Spencer Repeaters. Bobby Lee Was sick with dysentery. And lastly Lee did allow his subordinates abit too much latitude in how they obeyed his orders. That Left Stuart on a jaunt instead of locating the union army, and allowed the Union to occupy the high ground around Cemetary and Seminary Ridges on day ne that Lee's boys would have to charge up over the course of day two and three.

And the happening of this battle are not isolated. They would occur to some extent in just about all of the battles


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

I think the battles and strategies, successes and failures of the war have been well documented and covered probably with the least amount of revision as compared to the reasons and circumstances with why the war began. I suppose thats what I was really trying to check my information about. I could be very misinformed. If you read Wiki-lie a little-pedia, I get a completely different position than what I was taught.
Origins of the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just wanting to get more information.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Robert E Lee was a traitor to the South. He purposely lost the war. He knew the south did not have the resources to fight the war the way he conducted it. He was a military trained office and his father played a reasonably roll during the Revolutionary war.
> 
> We won our independence by having the British chaise us all over the 13 states. One could and many do say we won the war but never won a battle.
> 
> ...


Well boys and girls... This is an example of why it is never a good idea to drink and post.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> Robert E Lee was a traitor to the South. He purposely lost the war. He knew the south did not have the resources to fight the war the way he conducted it. He was a military trained office and his father played a reasonably roll during the Revolutionary war.
> 
> We won our independence by having the British chaise us all over the 13 states. One could and many do say we won the war but never won a battle.
> 
> ...


To begin with, Lee was NOT in command of all Confederate Forces. He was the Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Anytime that he wanted to take his forces outside of Virginia he had to get permission from the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis.

There is a gigantic difference in how the Revolutionary War and the Civil War was fought because there was a gigantic difference in the circumstances. The British Forces were coming from across the Atlantic ocean. They had a logistics problem with such a long supply line. The largest size of the British Forces was 25,000 troops. In addition, very little was known about lands West of the Ohio River.

Lee COULDN'T do the same as the Colonies did during the Revolutionary war. Sherman had for all intents and purposes destroyed the Army of Tennessee and was coming up from the South and West, and Grant was coming from the North with the Army of the Potomac. Both of the Union Armies were not only much larger then the Army of Northern Virginia, but a whole lot better supplied.

It would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Lee to used the same tactics that were used during the Revolutionary war. Different times, different circumstances. Frankly to say the Lee "purposely" loss the war is plain ludicrous. As for Lee knowing that he couldn't win the war, it depends on what you mean by "win". If you your definition of victory is. If Lee's purpose was to defend the South to the point that the North just gave up, then he came very close to accomplishing just that several times. If he had won at Gettysburg, then the road to Washington D.C. would have been open and it could have very well won the war. 
If you definition of victory was for the South to invade the North and control the whole North, then it would never have happened. Once a again, logistics. The North had a heavy industrial base. The South didn't. The North produced almost ALL of it's own weapons. The South got most of it's weapons from Europe. The North was able to produce all of the food that it needed. The South's agriculture was in a large part geared towards cotton and tobacco. The North's Navy was able to blockade most of the Southern ports. The South's navy was comparably very small. The North had a population many times larger then the South, so could afford many times the casualties.


----------



## dutch16 (Mar 13, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Bobby Lee a traitor to his men? I don't think so. In one instance a number of small issues came together to make a winnable battle lost. Gettysburg for example. The loss of Stonewall Jackson at Chanclorsville in May(?) of 63 meant that there was only one seasoned Corp Commander in the Army of Northern VA and no time to break another one in. The lack of decent foot gear in both armies and an ad in a newspaper for a shoe sale didn't help. Two Cavalry commanders Generals Buford and Custer on day one and three were in the right place and were armed with new fangled breach loading rifles - Custers men had Spencer Repeaters. Bobby Lee Was sick with dysentery. And lastly Lee did allow his subordinates abit too much latitude in how they obeyed his orders. That Left Stuart on a jaunt instead of locating the union army, and allowed the Union to occupy the high ground around Cemetary and Seminary Ridges on day ne that Lee's boys would have to charge up over the course of day two and three.
> 
> And the happening of this battle are not isolated. They would occur to some extent in just about all of the battles


Thanks, Sarge! I didn't know that Spencer's were there, I thought they came after Gettysburg. A little checking and I found out it was the Michigan 5th and 6th were issued them before the battle.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

We'll guys I know his men loved him. I know he was a great tactics were textbook. But the facts remain his strategy lost the war. As a member of the SCV I make few friends with my position but they take my money anyway.

I did get an "A" on this paper from my professor who was a former OSS officer. The course was "The Evolution of Warfare." I aced the course also and he was a big Lee fan also and remained so. You guys can still love him he got many Americans killed on both sides. He just did not try to win the war doing it.

I know I am not going to convince (in any way that will make you admit it here) you to give up your emotional attached position here so I'm not going to string this out. But Lee did more harm to his men, their families and the South than anyone else during that period. Why do you think the powers that be let him be cast as a hero while others suffered at the pens of history? Given his position he was the least punished after the war. Why? 

I am equally divided heritage wise my mother being from PA and father from SC. I am pro south. I take pride in my service, my children's, my ancestor's dating back to the French and Indian War, and both sides in the War of Northern Aggression. But if you examine the strategies not the tactics of Lee he betrayed the south.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

I am from the North. In my family 5 brothers fought in the War, 3 were killed, and one lost a leg. I do not have any emotional attachment to Lee at all. BUT I do know that HE did not dictate the Southern strategy. Jefferson Davis did. Lee did not have any control over any of the Southern Army's except his own, and even then he was subject to the directions of Davis. 

As for him being the least punished, bull. Ever hear of Arlington national cemetery? Know who owned it before the Union started burying soldiers there? LEE. They took his land and his home and turned it into a National Cemetery without compensation. Very few if any of the Confederate Generals were punished after the war if they took the oath of loyalty. You are not the only one who has taken University courses on history. I have too, and I am an avid history buff, but I have never heard that somehow Lee was actually working for the Union. Frankly I find the claim ludicrous.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Indeed. I recently read a history of Arlington National Cemetary entitiled This Hallowed Ground.
Union General Meigs, in particular, was on a crusade to screw over the Lee family.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Well, if we are going to have a ****-measuring contest, I'm in.

My great-great grandfather was a lieutenant in the Confederate States Navy. Before being captured by the damned yankees, he was overseeing the building of the ironclad, Muscogee. Damned yankees sunk the Muscogee, even though it wasn't even finished.

Anyway, your history teachers have told you lies, regarding who lost the war, and how it was lost.

The South didn't lose the war. In the dead of night, Grant stole Lee's sword, and Lee was too much of a gentleman to ask for it back.

Go forth, spread the news.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Why doesn't the history of the civil war ever include the two years leading up to the cessation of the first states? Why did they want to leave the union? Where is the constitutionally granted power to prevent cessation?

The civil war began because the federal government attacked the tenth amendment. The events that followed the attack on the tenth amendment were the actions of states standing up against the unlawful acts of the federal government.

If you follow the money you will see that before the civil war began the federal government was controlling the sale price of goods generated in the south. Cotton was labeled a "strategic" product and was price fixed so the northern factories could produce goods for less than imports cost. The southern states were prevented from selling their crops on the open market to make the same price as the rest of the world was paying for it. This limited the profit made by the growers. Tobacco is another product that was labeled "strategic" and the sale price was controlled and the market limited. 

This is the same thinking for a lot of what is going wrong in this country right now - it's all in the name of "national security".

The worst part of the civil war was that Lincoln threw out the constitution to save the union and that act destroyed the union.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

PaulS said:


> Why doesn't the history of the civil war ever include the two years leading up to the cessation of the first states? Why did they want to leave the union? Where is the constitutionally granted power to prevent cessation?
> 
> The civil war began because the federal government attacked the tenth amendment. The events that followed the attack on the tenth amendment were the actions of states standing up against the unlawful acts of the federal government.
> 
> ...


The reason this is (or rather, was) only taught in Southern schools is because the North won and it is in the Northern interest to hide the real facts behind secession and claim the war was some holy crusade to "free the slaves". In fact, it wasn't until 2 years into the War Of Northern Aggression, when things were going badly for the Yankees, that Lincoln came up with the whole slavery issue to rally support for the war.
And you are correct, Lincoln sure did rape the Constitution.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

I was raised in Yankee schools and believed the Yankee lie until Michael Shaara's (spelling?) book "The Killer Angles" was made into the movie "Gettysburg" that got me started to really research the topic. That was when I discovered what a monster Lincoln really was. As near as I can tell, he started the whole big government nanny state that we find ourselves in now. Just look at the private land grab he did to get the transcontinental railroad during the war... Too bad he and Booth did not meet at Ford's Theater in 1861 rather than 1865. It could have saved quite a fuss.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

***IMPORTANT NOTICE****
Whenever I discuss the Civil War, in no way, shape, or form am I saying anything positive or in support of slavery. It was nasty and definately anti-American and anti-humanity.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Inor said:


> I was raised in Yankee schools and believed the Yankee lie until Michael Shaara's (spelling?) book "The Killer Angles" was made into the movie "Gettysburg" that got me started to really research the topic. That was when I discovered what a monster Lincoln really was. As near as I can tell, he started the whole big government nanny state that we find ourselves in now. Just look at the private land grab he did to get the transcontinental railroad during the war... Too bad he and Booth did not meet at Ford's Theater in 1861 rather than 1865. It could have saved quite a fuss.


The railroads was were one of the major reasons that the North won the war. At the outbreak of the war the main means of transporting men and material was either by wagon or using waterways. With the building of the railroads the Union could flood an area with troops and material in a matter of days as opposed to months that if would take formally. It was an answer to a relatively short termed problem that had long term affects.

Another short term answer that has had long term affects is Welfare. Welfare was originally set up so that ONLY the widows and children of military men killed during WW2 could get it. FDR (NOT one of my heroes) was hesitant to sign it because he had fears that it would set up a permanent dependent class, but was assured by Congressional leaders, one of whom was LBJ, that no one would stay on it for more then 6 months, if for no other reason then they would be too embarrassed to do so and no decent person would be willing to live on Government Charity for any longer then they had to. In the 60's LBJ expanded the program to where it is today as part of his "Great Society" program. Short term answer to a problem that resulted in a long term problem.


----------



## Denver (Nov 16, 2012)

This thread is very interesting. I have enjoyed the response's. By the way I went to Robert E. Lee Jr. High in Pampa, TX It was renamed in the 70's after the civil rights movement came to town.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Denver said:


> This thread is very interesting. I have enjoyed the response's. By the way I went to Robert E. Lee Jr. High in Pampa, TX It was renamed in the 70's after the civil rights movement came to town.


I'll bet it was.:-D
Jacksonville, Florida still has a Lee High School, but last year, after much angry and bitter debate, Forrest High School (named after Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who later founded the KKK) was renamed. And the mascot/logo, The Rebels, of course had to go also.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Well, Mrs Inor and I still have a dog named: Stonewall Jackson. He is not going to be renamed now or ever. Previous dogs have included Tobias (named after Gen. Lee's stableman) and Miss Lucy Lang (named after Gen. Lee's favorite mare).


----------



## dutch16 (Mar 13, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> ***IMPORTANT NOTICE****
> Whenever I discuss the Civil War, in no way, shape, or form am I saying anything positive or in support of slavery. It was nasty and definately anti-American and anti-humanity.


No need to explain, RPD, I don' think anyone here is condoning slavery. And in my world, your resume includes fighting for freedom.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

PalmettoTree said:


> Robert E Lee was a traitor to the South. He purposely lost the war. He knew the south did not have the resources to fight the war the way he conducted it. He was a military trained office and his father played a reasonably roll during the Revolutionary war.
> 
> We won our independence by having the British chaise us all over the 13 states. One could and many do say we won the war but never won a battle.
> 
> ...


We won the Revolutionary war because we held on long enough to give the French a reason to enter and many members of the British government to tire of the war. Logistically, the British couldn't allocate the necessary shipping tonnage.

The North never had the logistical problems faced by the British. They also had the overwhelming advantage in manufacturing and population. The agrarian South couldn't begin to match the manufacturing or railroad infrastructure of the North. By the end of the war, Lee was on the verge of having to face a Union army of nearly one million troops. The South never had a chance. The absolute best they could have hoped for was a negotiated peace but once the northern economy reached a war footing, that wasn' going to happen. Lincoln had no intention of letting the Union dissolve. It's been said that we end the war as the united States but emerged from the war as The United States. That war secured our future as a united nation.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Pir8fan said:


> It's been said that we end the war as the united States but emerged from the war as The United States. That war secured our future as a united nation.


I would say the war ended our legacy as a Federalist nation and began our legacy as a Nationalist nation. But maybe I am just parsing words.


----------

