Robert E. Lee

Who cares if the war was shortened! I just care whether or not lives were saved by a just means. (not the burning down of citys and the raping of women)

Btw as to the hypothesis that Lee could have gotten out...



General Lee said
to General Grant:
"Grant, you didn't whip me, you just overpowered me, I surrender this day
8,000 men; I do not surrender them to you, I surrender on conditions; it shall
not go down in history I surrendered the Northern Confederate Army of Virginia
to you. It shall go down in history I surrendered on conditions; you have ten
men to my one; my men, too, are barefooted and hungry. If Joseph E Johnston could have gotten to me three days ago I would have cut my
way through and gone back into the mountains of North Carolina and would have
given you a happy time."


Also a extention of fighting were probably still have ultimately ended in surrender.

(You talk about shortening the war and saving lives... Well we all know how no blood would have been shed in the first place .... If the North would have kept its nose in its own buisness)

Your Friend and humble servant,
General Lee

*yawns* I feel sorry that you feel that the North was poking into the South's affairs. Only, the politicans and Abolitionists were. And, as for surrendering, he surrendered. Simple as that.

Heh, just because Lee was against seccesion doesnt mean you have to get all upset.

Thanks Oppie. The only reason he left the Union was the fact that he would have to fight his own family.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

....And, yet, you can't accept the fact that Sherman's March to the Sea shortened the war.....

IBG, you should know that Sherman's own statements prove he wasn't interested in ending the war first and foremost, as he should have been. His priorities lay in destroying the South and the people in it, that simple. His own records show that when he reached the Atlantic Ocean, and he recieved orders from Grant to transport his men by boat to the Virginia theatre of operations, Sherman rebelled in rage. His outraged reply stated that his men would go by foot, through the Carolinas, through Johnston's army, and then through Beauregard's army, to reach Grant, laying waste to the Carolinas the whole time, even if it meant delaying his army's combination with Grant's, and therefore prolonging the war. All for the villainous motive to "put the torch to the South." Sherman was not interested in shortening the war; facts show that he was willing to lengthen it in fact, all for the 'pleasure' of seeing the South burn. And he did lengthen it. Sherman's plundering wasted a good many lives for nothing on both sides. Please, don't try to say that the march shortened the war.

Well, even if Sherman is not willing to admit it himself, he forced the war to end sooner.

IBG, you're being rediculous now. Sherman didn't end the war faster. Even HE agrees with me on that, so don't mess with me.

General Stuart wrote:

IBG, you're being rediculous now. Sherman didn't end the war faster. Even HE agrees with me on that, so don't mess with me.

Stuart, you are outnumbered, I would be careful not to make hasty statements.

I don't need to say any more; if Sherman agrees with me, I got all the proof I need. So, Oppie, what did you think of the transcript? And answer this time lol.....

Sherman doesnt agree with you, you are misreading his statements.

That's an assumption. And you're wrong anyway, I quoted Sherman himself and used only facts.

(Let's look at Oppie's statements to see some of his debate methods)


"Bah. You're making assumptions. You're misreading his statements. I'm not listening. I don't care if you provided facts, they only look like letters to me. I don't care if you addressed all of my points, I'm not going to read your posts because they're too long."

You dare to mock me??!! OPPIE?? YOU PITIFUL LITTLE MAN.


YOU SHALL DIE!!

Ok look, Stuart. If Sherman didn't believe that the March would bring the end of the war closer, WHY WOULD HE DO IT? It doesn't make much sense to go on a whole campaign if it doesn't do anything for the war...

And now I hear the Unionist gasping about how I just DISSAGREED with Stuart.

No, you just have the hard hitting common sence that has kept america alive for centuries.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

*yawns* I feel sorry that you feel that the North was poking into the South's affairs. Only, the politicans and Abolitionists were. And, as for surrendering, he surrendered. Simple as that.

Only the politicans and the abolitionists? Are you rewriting history? Last I heard the North INVADED the South with an ARMY... Btw Sorry doesnt beat it. lol

Also though I wish Lee had not surrended, all I can say is this... He was there You I Oppie and Jeb where not. Just as God will hold Sherman acountable for his war crimes, so God will hold Lee acountable for needlessly lost lives. Btw Oppie... The way in which you were (described by Jeb) is hilarious. The are the trade marks of the wrong side.

Your unhumorous friend (trying to be humorous) lol

General Lee

About Sherman, I'll state my entire point one more time.

When I say that "the march" didn't help end the war sooner, I mean "the march" in the way of burning, raping, looting, pillaging, and destroying innocent, defenseless civilians and their homes. These did NOT help end the war sooner. The mere precense of 60,000 yankees deep in Lee's would obviously have a major effect on dicisions and events of the day. And Civ, of course Sherman was fighting to help end the war sooner; what else was every man in a uniform, north and south, fighting for? However, I don't think that ending the war asap was Sherman's #1 priority, and I have already provided a chain of events and facts that help prove that assumption. The crux of the matter is when Sherman reached the coast after marching through Georgia and some of South Carolina; it was here where he could have immediately dispatched himself and his army by naval transport to link up with Grant in Virginia. Sherman's army uniting with Grant was the greatest fear of the Confederate commanders. Sherman could have combined his men with Grant's and overwhelmed Lee outside of Richmond, thus bringing the war to a hasty conclusion. However, it is here that Sherman finally reveals his main priorities, in several letters to Grant he states his intentions to march with his force up through the Carolinas to Virginia, which would lengthen the war, but Sherman points out that he should make the "real secessionists" pay dearly for their actions. Sherman's whole point of going through the Carolinas, and he states this very susinctly, is to 'teach the secessionists a lesson they would never forget.' He says in a letter to Grant: "The United States...would rejoice at the destruction of this...area." He also states that "the devil himself couldn't control my men once they're there." So, he basically states that he will postpone the uniting of his and Grant's armies, -the ultimate sign of doom for the Confederacy- in favor of 'disposing (his form of) justice to the South.' I.E., he wanted to see the Carolinas burn before the war was over, even if it meant prolonging the war. This is my whole point; the Atlanta Campaign and the march to the sea were of strategic value, however, Sherman's own touches on these campaigns, -the rape of women, which I have provided proof of, the burning of homes of civilians, which provided no aid to the Confederate armies, murder and maiming of defenseless civilians, the theft of private property without promise of reimbursement, and, to top it off, the "salting" of farm lands, which makes the land uncapable of vegitational growth, so, as Sherman said, to the effect "that these lands will not see regrowth for many, many years to come." He not only wanted to see the south destroyed, he wanted it to never come back into being. This is genocide.

Jebs post is right on AGAIN!

Glad you agree Gen. Lee!

I compleatly understand that Stuart, and I agree with you. It just started sounding (to me at least) like you thought that the march had NOTHING to do with the ending of the war.

Anyway, we need to get back on topic. lol

If Sherman's campaign had had nothing to do with ending the war, Grant would have snatched up his men in no time (to help make up for the 60,000 casualties in that theatre). Just like he was doing with the Washington DC defenses. And I don't think I ever said that Sherman's Atlanta Campaign didn't help the war. The very precense of his huge army in the deep south put southerners in an awkward position. However, I don't think that Sherman put his army to the best use. R.E. Lee himself expressed his opinion to J. Davis, that 'once the armies of the confederacy are destroyed, with them go our last hopes', but that cities and ground could be sacrificed. Once Sherman's men abandoned the chase of Hood's army after capturing Atlanta, they were basically useless in the way of helping the war. From that point on, they did nothing but act as a mob of nomadic barbarians, much like the Huns, the Vandals, and the Goths. What is the purpose of an army, but to seek out its enemy and defeat him? Sherman was not seeking an army to defeat in order to end the war, he was molesting harmless, defenseless civilians who posed no threat to him or his men. In this way, he misused the services of 60,000 veteran soldiers, and therefore apparantly did everything in his power to lengthen the war.

ROBERT E. LEE PEOPLE.
Stuart, I like your posts about Shermen but we have two topics for that...

Yeah Stuart.

It is good to stay on topic, I agree, but my last post is relevant to R.E. Lee. I quoted him in my post and discussed how the combination of Sherman's and Grant's armies would affect him and his theatre of the war. No need to get upset, Civ. I wasn't the one who brought Sherman up on this topic anyway.