Robert E. Lee Day

[The Floridian Republic]

Had he accepted to lead the war on the union side then it would have been over in months.

Not really. The Confederacy had other competent generals, and a lot of what slowed the Union down was just getting mobilized and dealing with the geographic scale of the conflict. The South had a lot of territory, which meant it took a while to occupy. McClellan's leadership wasn't brilliant, but that wasn't the only reason why the war took so long.

Lee was a good general, but he wasn't God.

A lot of what slowed down was the fact the Union wasn't able to immediately bring to bear it's huge advantages in terms of industrialization, tranportation, communication and population.

The South was superior in one on one military terms.

[Neanderthaland]

Alright, but specifically Lee did what?

He managed to scare off McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign. Is that the brilliant thing he did that's so brilliant he's clearly the best general in the war? Because that's when all the Confederate newspapers start treating the guy like a hero. But that's not really that impressive, McClellan just got cold feet. And a lot of Confederate soldiers died.

Lee has other victories too. Fredericksburg wasn't nothing. But the legend of Lee isn't justified by his record.

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

I think you mean "Fredericksburg."

So, for a brief period between being given command of the army and Gettysburg, he managed to do pretty good against Generals who were against their better judgement being pressured to attack.

Again, I don't see the reason for the hero worship. Except for that Southerners really seem to want to have a hero to worship.

[The East Marches]

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

I think you mean "Fredericksburg."

So, for a brief period between being given command of the army and Gettysburg, he managed to do pretty good against Generals who were against their better judgement being pressured to attack.

Again, I don't see the reason for the hero worship. Except for that Southerners really seem to want to have a hero to worship.

Pardon my misremembering of the name. At any rate, he did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good general. I see plenty of reason to admire his leadership and take lessons from them.

[Minzerland II]

A single OP? I'm convinced, sir, I'm convinced! The holiday is surely racist! How could I ever have any doubt?

Well, given that most people have never heard about it...

And, coincidentally, Aryan Nation decides to bring it up...

In this case, yeah, that's definitely what's happened.

That's quite a leap, if you ask me.

[USS Monitor]

I'll agree with that.

We have to study important figures in history - even those who were on the wrong side and defended horrible things.

The other question is why we then overlook the slave states which fought on the side of Union? I don't believe it was a single dimensional war which makes so interesting as a conflict to read up about.

The Union slave states had very small numbers of slaves, which meant preserving slavery was less of a priority compared to states like Mississippi where the economy was dominated by slave labor.

[Neanderthaland]

I think you mean "Fredericksburg."

So, for a brief period between being given command of the army and Gettysburg, he managed to do pretty good against Generals who were against their better judgement being pressured to attack.

Again, I don't see the reason for the hero worship. Except for that Southerners really seem to want to have a hero to worship.

Pardon my misremembering of the name. At any rate, he did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good general. I see plenty of reason to admire his leadership and take lessons from them.

Yeah, but good enough for a holiday?

I don't think he was a bad general, he certainly did better than I would have in his shoes; and I suspect that for many Southerners during the war, the idea of his brilliance was the only real hope they had. But when it comes to defensive wars against better equipped numerically superior enemies, there are so many better comanders. Granted, in the Americas, most of them are Natives... but there are plenty of options out there.

[The East Marches]

Pardon my misremembering of the name. At any rate, he did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good general. I see plenty of reason to admire his leadership and take lessons from them.

Yeah, but good enough for a holiday?

I don't think he was a bad general, he certainly did better than I would have in his shoes; and I suspect that for many Southerners during the war, the idea of his brilliance was the only real hope they had. But when it comes to defensive wars against better equipped numerically superior enemies, there are so many better comanders. Granted, in the Americas, most of them are Natives... but there are plenty of options out there.

My original post on this matter said that holiday was a bit much. Yes there are lots of other commanders for that sort of thing too, I don't disagree. The war college constantly puts out studies and other stuff on what he did. They wouldn't count him as important if they didn't.

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

[Neanderthaland]

Yeah, but good enough for a holiday?

I don't think he was a bad general, he certainly did better than I would have in his shoes; and I suspect that for many Southerners during the war, the idea of his brilliance was the only real hope they had. But when it comes to defensive wars against better equipped numerically superior enemies, there are so many better comanders. Granted, in the Americas, most of them are Natives... but there are plenty of options out there.

My original post on this matter said that holiday was a bit much. Yes there are lots of other commanders for that sort of thing too, I don't disagree. The war college constantly puts out studies and other stuff on what he did. They wouldn't count him as important if they didn't.

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

Fair enough.

To be honest, I'm only really arguing with you because you're the only one who bothered responding.

[USS Monitor]

The third Monday of January is both MLK and Robbie Lee day.

It's unlikely to be an accident. I like to think it's calendar-level trolling.

Well I only celebrate MLK day.

So does most of the US.

[The East Marches]

My original post on this matter said that holiday was a bit much. Yes there are lots of other commanders for that sort of thing too, I don't disagree. The war college constantly puts out studies and other stuff on what he did. They wouldn't count him as important if they didn't.

Fair enough.

To be honest, I'm only really arguing with you because you're the only one who bothered responding.

Its not a problem, I do enjoy being challenged to think of things I've not for a long time.

[USS Monitor]

Not really. The Confederacy had other competent generals, and a lot of what slowed the Union down was just getting mobilized and dealing with the geographic scale of the conflict. The South had a lot of territory, which meant it took a while to occupy. McClellan's leadership wasn't brilliant, but that wasn't the only reason why the war took so long.

Lee was a good general, but he wasn't God.

A lot of what slowed down was the fact the Union wasn't able to immediately bring to bear it's huge advantages in terms of industrialization, tranportation, communication and population.

The South was superior in one on one military terms.

Man for man military prowess is a difficult thing to judge since wars aren't fought on a level playing field. The Union took longer to get its war effort organized, but that doesn't mean the Confederates were consistently better soldiers throughout the war. There was a lot of variation from one unit to the next, and some troops got better with practice as the war went on.

[San Marlindo]

Alright, but specifically Lee did what?

He managed to scare off McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign. Is that the brilliant thing he did that's so brilliant he's clearly the best general in the war? Because that's when all the Confederate newspapers start treating the guy like a hero. But that's not really that impressive, McClellan just got cold feet. And a lot of Confederate soldiers died.

Lee has other victories too. Fredericksburg wasn't nothing. But the legend of Lee isn't justified by his record.

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

You weren't around at the time. I don't care whether you live in a state that stayed in the Union a hundred and fifty years ago. Stop saying "we" like you were actually there on the front lines in a blue jacket carrying a musket.

With posts like these I'm beginning to understand why Americans are having such a hard time moving on from their past. People in the North and South who still identify with either side of a long-dead conflict would do well to keep that in mind.

British people never say "we" when they talk about the Roundheads and the Royalists. Ditto with the modern Greeks, Irish, Russians, Austrians, and Spaniards - all of whom have undergone far more recent civil wars than the United States.

My country underwent an inter-ethnic conflict that bordered on civil war until the late '80s, but nobody around today says "we" when they talk about the different armed groups just because we were born in the same region where one originated, or spoke the same language as one faction which was fighting at the time.

I swear it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Nobody else is as obsessed with their own fucking history to the point of blurring the lines to this degree between the past and present as Americans. And there are New Englanders who just as guilty of this shit as cliche Dixielanders living in the Mississippi Delta.

[The East Marches]

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

You weren't around at the time. I don't care whether you live in a state that stayed in the Union a hundred and fifty years ago. Stop saying "we" like you were actually there on the front lines in a blue jacket carrying a musket.

With posts like these I'm beginning to understand why Americans are having such a hard time moving on from their past. People in the North and South who still identify with either side of a long-dead conflict would do well to keep that in mind.

British people never say "we" when they talk about the Roundheads and the Royalists. Ditto with the modern Greeks, Irish, Russians, Austrians, and Spaniards - all of whom have undergone far more recent civil wars than the United States.

My country underwent an inter-ethnic conflict that bordered on civil war until the late '80s, but nobody around today says "we" when they talk about the different armed groups just because we were born in the same region where one originated, or spoke the same language as one faction which was fighting at the time.

I swear it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Nobody else is as obsessed with their own fucking history to the point of blurring the lines to this degree between the past and present as Americans. And there are New Englanders who just as guilty of this shit as cliche Dixielanders living in the Mississippi Delta.

Its a sports team thing fam. "Our team"? You've never heard us talk about football or baseball or anything of the sort? For instance: "We shrekt Dallas yesterday, what a bunch of losers". You identify with the team. 0/10 for not knowing Americanisms.

[Genivaria]

Not really. The Confederacy had other competent generals, and a lot of what slowed the Union down was just getting mobilized and dealing with the geographic scale of the conflict. The South had a lot of territory, which meant it took a while to occupy. McClellan's leadership wasn't brilliant, but that wasn't the only reason why the war took so long.

Lee was a good general, but he wasn't God.

A lot of what slowed down was the fact the Union wasn't able to immediately bring to bear it's huge advantages in terms of industrialization, tranportation, communication and population.

The South was superior in one on one military terms.

In the same way that the beginning of the war between Germany and the Soviets heavily favored the Germans at first, the Germans planned it and the Soviets were caught off guard.

[USS Monitor]

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

You weren't around at the time. I don't care whether you live in a state that stayed in the Union a hundred and fifty years ago. Stop saying "we" like you were actually there on the front lines in a blue jacket carrying a musket.

With posts like these I'm beginning to understand why Americans are having such a hard time moving on from their past. People in the North and South who still identify with either side of a long-dead conflict would do well to keep that in mind.

British people never say "we" when they talk about the Roundheads and the Royalists. Ditto with the modern Greeks, Irish, Russians, Austrians, and Spaniards - all of whom have undergone far more recent civil wars than the United States.

My country underwent an inter-ethnic conflict that bordered on civil war until the late '80s, but nobody around today says "we" when they talk about the different armed groups just because we were born in the same region where one originated, or spoke the same language as one faction which was fighting at the time.

I swear it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Nobody else is as obsessed with their own fucking history to the point of blurring the lines to this degree between the past and present as Americans. And there are New Englanders who just as guilty of this shit as cliche Dixielanders living in the Mississippi Delta.

Is it all right if I say "we," since I was actually there?

[Grave_n_idle]

A lot of what slowed down was the fact the Union wasn't able to immediately bring to bear it's huge advantages in terms of industrialization, tranportation, communication and population.

The South was superior in one on one military terms.

In the same way that the beginning of the war between Germany and the Soviets heavily favored the Germans at first, the Germans planned it and the Soviets were caught off guard.

And there's no accounting for dumb luck.

[The Conez Imperium]

Its a sports team thing fam. "Our team"? You've never heard us talk about football or baseball or anything of the sort? For instance: "We shrekt Dallas yesterday, what a bunch of losers". You identify with the team. 0/10 for not knowing Americanisms.

Are you equating war with sports now?

I think its important that when talking about culture, we understand both the insider and the outsider perspective.

I suppose for Americans referring to the civil war as "we" seems like a normal thing to do - an Americanism. But to the outsider, it comes of rather oddly. As if the country is still fixated with 100 year old conflicts. Perhaps imaging another country using your same "Americanism" will help you understand an outsiders perspective.

[Genivaria]

Are you equating war with sports now?

I think its important that when talking about culture, we understand both the insider and the outsider perspective.

I suppose for Americans referring to the civil war as "we" seems like a normal thing to do - an Americanism. But to the outsider, it comes of rather oddly. As if the country is still fixated with 100 year old conflicts. Perhaps imaging another country using your same "Americanism" will help you understand an outsiders perspective.

I don't say 'we' personally since I do what I can to disassociate myself from the traitors.

[The East Marches]

Are you equating war with sports now?

I think its important that when talking about culture, we understand both the insider and the outsider perspective.

I suppose for Americans referring to the civil war as "we" seems like a normal thing to do - an Americanism. But to the outsider, it comes of rather oddly. As if the country is still fixated with 100 year old conflicts. Perhaps imaging another country using your same "Americanism" will help you understand an outsiders perspective.

We often times do in this country do so. Reporters ask question like "Is it fair to use nightvision when the otherside doesn't?", that is a particularly famous incident of it. So what if the other country doesn't do that? I have no desire to understand their perspective on the matter.

[Tsaraine]

He kept a force alive that was consistently outmanned and outgunned leading them to victory. He shrekt us at Seven Day's, made Pope look like a chump at Second Bull Run, Frederickville, Chancellorville, etc. It was excellent fighting tactics and strategy. We made serious serious mistakes.

You weren't around at the time. I don't care whether you live in a state that stayed in the Union a hundred and fifty years ago. Stop saying "we" like you were actually there on the front lines in a blue jacket carrying a musket.

With posts like these I'm beginning to understand why Americans are having such a hard time moving on from their past. People in the North and South who still identify with either side of a long-dead conflict would do well to keep that in mind.

British people never say "we" when they talk about the Roundheads and the Royalists. Ditto with the modern Greeks, Irish, Russians, Austrians, and Spaniards - all of whom have undergone far more recent civil wars than the United States.

My country underwent an inter-ethnic conflict that bordered on civil war until the late '80s, but nobody around today says "we" when they talk about the different armed groups just because we were born in the same region where one originated, or spoke the same language as one faction which was fighting at the time.

I swear it's a uniquely American phenomenon. Nobody else is as obsessed with their own fucking history to the point of blurring the lines to this degree between the past and present as Americans. And there are New Englanders who just as guilty of this shit as cliche Dixielanders living in the Mississippi Delta.

I'm not sure that this is as unique to Americans as you think - ask White South Africans about the Boer War or the wars against the Zulu, or Koreans or Chinese about the Japanese, or Middle Easterners about any of the wars they've been involved in over the past millennium or so. Heck, ask Western Europeans about the World Wars. When a war becomes important to the national identity, people will have strong opinions about it.

[Wallenburg]

A lot of what slowed down was the fact the Union wasn't able to immediately bring to bear it's huge advantages in terms of industrialization, tranportation, communication and population.

The South was superior in one on one military terms.

In the same way that the beginning of the war between Germany and the Soviets heavily favored the Germans at first, the Germans planned it and the Soviets were caught off guard.

Yeah, not really. The Germans had far better industry and infrastructure behind their offensive. It was a combination of poor use of German troops and the total indifference of the Soviet government to the number of fatalities they suffered that led to a Soviet victory on the eastern front.

Pardon my misremembering of the name. At any rate, he did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good general. I see plenty of reason to admire his leadership and take lessons from them.

Erwin Rommel did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good field marshal. I see no reason to admire his leadership, because he was a fucking Nazi commander.

[The East Marches]

Pardon my misremembering of the name. At any rate, he did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good general. I see plenty of reason to admire his leadership and take lessons from them.

Erwin Rommel did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good field marshal. I see no reason to admire his leadership, because he was a fucking Nazi commander.

But his tactics were great. Thats why my country's tank commanders kept pictures of him in their tanks during Gulf War 1. There is no harm in learning from your enemy and using those tactics if they are superior to your own. To ignore that potential utilization of knowledge is to doom yourself to defeat.

[USS Monitor]

Are you equating war with sports now?

I think its important that when talking about culture, we understand both the insider and the outsider perspective.

I suppose for Americans referring to the civil war as "we" seems like a normal thing to do - an Americanism. But to the outsider, it comes of rather oddly. As if the country is still fixated with 100 year old conflicts. Perhaps imaging another country using your same "Americanism" will help you understand an outsiders perspective.

I think part of why regional divisions in the US are so persistent is because it's a large country. If you live in the Deep South, the North is awfully far away, and it just doesn't have the same impact on you that an opposing political faction or ethnic group in your own state would have. You don't have to learn to get along with the Yankees, because they're hundreds of miles away. Likewise, if you live in New England, you don't have to learn how to get along with Southerners because the South is a long way away, and you won't meet Southerners very often. And the West is its own thing because they're far from both the South and New England.

[The Conez Imperium]

Erwin Rommel did an excellent job and cost us many men. He was a very good field marshal. I see no reason to admire his leadership, because he was a fucking Nazi commander.

But his tactics were great. Thats why my country's tank commanders kept pictures of him in their tanks during Gulf War 1. There is no harm in learning from your enemy and using those tactics if they are superior to your own. To ignore that potential utilization of knowledge is to doom yourself to defeat.

One of my friends did a research assignment on Rommel. He told me that Rommel was an average general but nothing spectacular. It seems interesting there is a lot of hero worship of him.

Perhaps its an human instinct to believe in a shred of good in a tundra of dark. I mean they called Albert Speer the "good nazi". Maybe that's the same with Robert Lee.

[The East Marches]

But his tactics were great. Thats why my country's tank commanders kept pictures of him in their tanks during Gulf War 1. There is no harm in learning from your enemy and using those tactics if they are superior to your own. To ignore that potential utilization of knowledge is to doom yourself to defeat.

One of my friends did a research assignment on Rommel. He told me that Rommel was an average general but nothing spectacular. It seems interesting there is a lot of hero worship of him.

Perhaps its an human instinct to believe in a shred of good in a tundra of dark. I mean they called Albert Speer the "good nazi". Maybe that's the same with Robert Lee.

I would disagree with your friend's opinion. Regardless, whether or not he was good or bad is irrelevant to the effectiveness of what they did. If I thought Adolf Hitler's micromanging on the Eastern Front worked, I would advocate learning from that too. What matters is what works.