Adios, Andrew Jackson

[falafel]

That's Thomas Jefferson, not Dr. Cornelius.

Do we know for sure they are not the same person?

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

[Jeff Lebowski]

Haha. I love David Burge.

[creekster]

Ha! Now you have hit a nerve (you have a knack for that with me). I hate Lee! Not only was he immoral or amoral in his personal humanity in the worst possible way, he is a monstrously overrated general. I swear this lionizing of Lee was part of propaganda to help unify the country. All kinds of compromises must always be made in the interest of a lasting and wholesome peace, for the future generations. The Japanese Emperor must not be tried for war crimes, indeed must retain his throne and be not vilified--on the contrary, he must be still respected even adored. The hundreds of thousands or millions of professional and business class Nazis must be allowed to resume their workaday lives in obscurity, or we will relive post-World War I. And General Lee must be propped up as a genuine national hero. One of my pet peeves about U.S. history is the overrating of General Lee.

Lee could have won the war. How? Had he fought Grant and Sherman the way Kutuzov fought Napoleon--guerilla style and scorched earth. The Union had almost as much territory to occupy and subjugate as did Napoleon, the supply lines were nearly as attenuated as Napoleon's, and the weather conditions were about as brutal. The Union also was fighting at the whimsy of an electorate that was ambivalent about the war. Lee looked brilliant with his scalpel fighting the incompetent McClellan. But he even lost to Meade when it counted most. And his scalpel was no match for Grant/Sherman's broad sword.

Immoral in his personal humanity? You're talking about a general in the civil war? That's hilarious. You have a deomnstrated bias to those with whom you agree. Yes, support of slavery was immoral and yet you point to the ambivalence about fighting this immorality in the north as a factor that limited Grant's greatness. Grant had no love of slaves. Nor did Sherman. They both would have been happy keeping slavery and not fighting the war. They ended up on the right side of victory and of the moral issue by chance of geography as much or more than any other reason. In fact, that you label Lee immoral ignoring the rampant immorlaities on both sides just underscores your bias against him because he lost.

As I said before, Sherman had his moments. He was impressive in the mountains and his march to the sea is, of course, legendary. But Grant was typically a plodder who was delivered more men, better supplies and more money than his opponents. Grant did possess a willingness to fight and to persevere. And that is what put him above the rest.

Lee was a great general. Chancelorsville was a masterpiece. Surely even you can concede that. His greatest failing, it seems to me, was his insistence on staying and attacking the union after the first skirmish at Gettysburg. That was the high water mark of the confederacy to be sure. That the high water mark is found in northern territory years after secession is, in itself, a testament to Lee's brilliance in the field.

Now, to be fair, Grant at Vicksburg was also impressive. That may have done more to defeat the south than anything. But none of his subsequent attacks against Lee were as impressive and his reputation as a plodding general in the field derived not from his victory at Vicksburg but from his cudgel like approach against Lee. Is Lee's reputation overblown? Perhaps, but so are your attacks on his generalship.

I don't idealize the South or Lee. They were the wrong side. I am glad they lost. But if I had to choose between Lee and Grant to fight a desperate battle, my choice is clear.

[SeattleUte]

Immoral in his personal humanity? You're talking about a general in the civil war? That's hilarious. You have a deomnstrated bias to those with whom you agree. Yes, support of slavery was immoral and yet you point to the ambivalence about fighting this immorality in the north as a factor that limited Grant's greatness. Grant had no love of slaves. Nor did Sherman. They both would have been happy keeping slavery and not fighting the war. They ended up on the right side of victory and of the moral issue by chance of geography as much or more than any other reason. In fact, that you label Lee immoral ignoring the rampant immorlaities on both sides just underscores your bias against him because he lost.

As I said before, Sherman had his moments. He was impressive in the mountains and his march to the sea is, of course, legendary. But Grant was typically a plodder who was delivered more men, better supplies and more money than his opponents. Grant did possess a willingness to fight and to persevere. And that is what put him above the rest.

Lee was a great general. Chancelorsville was a masterpiece. Surely even you can concede that. His greatest failing, it seems to me, was his insistence on staying and attacking the union after the first skirmish at Gettysburg. That was the high water mark of the confederacy to be sure. That the high water mark is found in northern territory years after secession is, in itself, a testament to Lee's brilliance in the field.

Now, to be fair, Grant at Vicksburg was also impressive. That may have done more to defeat the south than anything. But none of his subsequent attacks against Lee were as impressive and his reputation as a plodding general in the field derived not from his victory at Vicksburg but from his cudgel like approach against Lee. Is Lee's reputation overblown? Perhaps, but so are your attacks on his generalship.

I don't idealize the South or Lee. They were the wrong side. I am glad they lost. But if I had to choose between Lee and Grant to fight a desperate battle, my choice is clear.

I admit to being prejudiced against Lee because he chose to betray his country and fight for the South, in a war that was all about the abolition (or not) of slavery. Likewise, my attitude toward Rommel is shaded by the fact he fought for worldwide fascism (though unlike Lee he won some battles against competent generals)--the Confederacy was a no less despicable cause. At the same time, clearly Lee's demigodic reputation is because he was the South's supreme general. There is no history more fraught with political and ideological agenda than the Civil War's. We have each made our arguments for who was better, and the conclusions are intensely subjective; now, choose ye this day whom he will serve....

[creekster]

I admit to being prejudiced against Lee because he chose to betray his country and fight for the South, in a war that was all about the abolition (or not) of slavery. Likewise, my attitude toward Rommel is shaded by the fact he fought for worldwide fascism (though unlike Lee he won some battles against competent generals)--the Confederacy was a no less despicable cause. At the same time, clearly Lee's demigodic reputation is because he was the South's supreme general. There is no history more fraught with political and ideological agenda than the Civil War's. We have each made our arguments for who was better, and the conclusions are intensely subjective; now, choose ye this day whom he will serve....

Rommel is not like Lee at all. Unlike Lee, Rommel's victories came against less well-equipped armies and which generals did he defeat that were so competent?

I certainly don't elevate Lee to demi-god status (whatever that means) but he was a great field general.

[Commando]

Lee was very highly regarded before the war even started. He had a history of being devoted to the ideal of duty- which is likely most of the reason for his ending up in command for the Confederacy-- not because of a twisted personal morality . He and Ulysses Grant fought together in the Mexican-American war and distinguished themselves. He was offered the Union's senior command when Virginia seceded, but instead sided with his state. He was a highly effective field commander, and despite being a brutal warrior, not bloodthirsty or vindictive but rather a gentleman after surrender, advocating for reconciliation rather than a sustained Southern insurgency. I don't care about the South or its legacy at all, and obviously the secession being quelled and slavery ending was a good thing (and Lee said as much himself). I hardly think Lee has been "propped up."

[Green Monstah]

Lee was very highly regarded before the war even started. He had a history of being devoted to the ideal of duty- which is likely most of the reason for his ending up in command for the Confederacy-- not because of a twisted personal morality . He and Ulysses Grant fought together in the Mexican-American war and distinguished themselves. He was offered the Union's senior command when Virginia seceded, but instead sided with his state. He was a highly effective field commander, and despite being a brutal warrior, not bloodthirsty or vindictive but rather a gentleman after surrender, advocating for reconciliation rather than a sustained Southern insurgency. I don't care about the South or its legacy at all, and obviously the secession being quelled and slavery ending was a good thing (and Lee said as much himself). I hardly think Lee has been "propped up."

You just wikipedia'd the hell out of this thread.

[PaloAltoCougar]

You just wikipedia'd the hell out of this thread.

For me the most interesting historical tidbit about REL (pre-Civil War) is that he led the federal troops in putting down the rebellion at Harper's Ferry.

[Commando]

You just wikipedia'd the hell out of this thread.

I totally had to in order to buttress my opinions. Notice I did insert some of my own commentary, though.

[Green Monstah]

I totally had to in order to buttress my opinions. Notice I did insert some of my own commentary, though.

You come by it honestly. Lawyering is one of the few professions where plagiarism actually gives the argument more credence.

[wuapinmon]

With all due respect, the Civil War wasn't all about you or your ancestors. What Sherman did had to be done. I bet none of your ancestors were raped or murdered.

My aunt has journals that hint at some of the things that my female ancestors had to do in the Winter of 1864-65 to survive and the everlasting shame and fear of hellfire they felt for having done so. So, you may say that it had to be done, but, those are my kin who were on the receiving end of his actions; it was very much about them and everyone else wrapped up in that conflict. Perhaps, you could argue that there was a moral cause that was greater than the suffering they experienced. You could argue that, though MLKJ would rebuke you for saying that. But, to say that war isn't about those affected by it is beyond obtuse.

He also freed their slaves.

No, he didn't. Only my Jackson, Tennessee and Asheville, NC relatives had owned slaves.

[SeattleUte]

Lee was very highly regarded before the war even started. He had a history of being devoted to the ideal of duty- which is likely most of the reason for his ending up in command for the Confederacy-- not because of a twisted personal morality . He and Ulysses Grant fought together in the Mexican-American war and distinguished themselves. He was offered the Union's senior command when Virginia seceded, but instead sided with his state. He was a highly effective field commander, and despite being a brutal warrior, not bloodthirsty or vindictive but rather a gentleman after surrender, advocating for reconciliation rather than a sustained Southern insurgency. I don't care about the South or its legacy at all, and obviously the secession being quelled and slavery ending was a good thing (and Lee said as much himself). I hardly think Lee has been "propped up."

I take a backseat to no one in my admiration of Wikipedia. But it's hilarious that you plagiarized Wikipedia to argue that Lee is not propped up.

[Topper]

I don't disagree with any of this. But I have always had a soft spot for Grant, and the story of McClellan/Grant has a distinctly American flavor. McClellan, the garlanded general with the silk-stocking background and education who lacked the mettle to be a general. Then Lincoln finds his general--Grant, an alcoholic all but disgraced who was considered unworthy of a major command. In the end Lee--himself aristocratic, supremely refined, educated, and adored by Southerners--must "go see General Grant" and tender unconditional surrender to his scruffy, still alcoholic adversary--and hope for mercy and magnanimity, which he and his soldiers are generously granted.

Also, you have forgotten that Grant was himself a world class writer. Late in life, dying of cancer, he realized he was about to leave his wife destitute (no fat pension for ex-presidents then!), and he got busy and wrote one of the greatest volumes of military memoirs ever, a lasting and important part of the American narrative.

The place where Grant wrote his autobiography in upstate New York is now a prison, IIRC. I have a soft spot for him as well. It was the first celebrity biographies that saved his family. He was in awful pain and wrote it in a short time span.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My aunt has journals that hint at some of the things that my female ancestors had to do in the Winter of 1864-65 to survive and the everlasting shame and fear of hellfire they felt for having done so. So, you may say that it had to be done, but, those are my kin who were on the receiving end of his actions; it was very much about them and everyone else wrapped up in that conflict. Perhaps, you could argue that there was a moral cause that was greater than the suffering they experienced. You could argue that, though MLKJ would rebuke you for saying that. But, to say that war isn't about those affected by it is beyond obtuse.


No, he didn't. Only my Jackson, Tennessee and Asheville, NC relatives had owned slaves.

Wuap, are you seriously going to argue that the fact that your particular ancestors suffered changes the overall question here? Anyone with ancestors who were slaves would trump your argument by a country mile.

BTW, one of the biggest logistical issues faced by Sherman was the thousands of slaves who escaped amidst the march and started following his army. Feeding them and protecting them became incredibly burdensome but he knew that turning them back would result in most of them being killed by Southerners.