MovieChat Forums > Field of Lost Shoes (2015) Discussion > VMI Cadets at New Market 1864 = Hitler Y...

VMI Cadets at New Market 1864 = Hitler Youth at the Eastern Front 1944

posted 10 years ago by bethebestforthejob
29 replies | jump to latest

There, I said it.

I compared it.

Yes, I think the decision to send brainwashed juveniles to fight their own country (United States) for the sake of having their shoes regularly polished by brutalised human beings is THE SAME IN VALUE AND VALOR as Hitler sending equally brainwashed teenagers to fight people who were liberating their own country from deranged, murderous wannabe-Empire.

This movie should be a testament to human arrogance and delusion that SOMEBODY ELSE ALWAYS HAS TO PAY FOR; in this case - kids.

The Civil War was effectively lost by 1864, the Confederacy had no strategic chance of winning ANYTHING at this point, but hell; they could still kill some of their own: so why not jump at the chance! Similarly everybody knew that the Eastern Front in 1944 was nothing else but a slaughterhouse for the German Army.

Just like we condemn Hitler today for the DUMB-AS-F!CK strategic decisions, Americans are aggrandising unnecessary massacres of their own men as honourable.

Absolutely despicable.

oh, and by the way: by May 1864, THERE WAS NO VIRGINIA ANYMORE, SO YOU COULD NOT FIGHT FOR IT. There was only Confederacy. It was the Union that re-established the States in the South as independent administrative entities and gave them back their rights; Confederacy wiped out absolutely ALL autonomy of the States within its borders!

And guess what: no pretty white boy from the VMI would have said this juicy line: "We should not be fighting to keep people in chains" - since those people: were not human to them! They had their own name, like animal groups do! They were N...s! And no, no-one would have said "We should not be fighting to keep N...s in chains" - because this was Abolitionist Talk!!! and in 1864 Virginia? I don't think so!

White Southern men would NOT use the word "chains" when talking about slaves to begin with: it was a metaphor, after all, an abolitionist metaphor, everybody in the South knew slaves were only transported from place to place in chains, on the plantation/at home etc. they would most definitely be without!

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

I agree with you completely about the "We should not be fighting to keep people in chains" line. It sounds like modern, revisionist talk designed to make us like these Confederate characters. I wonder who in 1864 Virginia would have said this out loud.

However, I disagree with you about the fight in Virginia. By spring 1864, I think Confederates had a LOT of reason to believe they still had a chance to win the war they had already sacrificed so much for:

-Confederates were still winning battles that year- Olustee in February and Ft. Pillow in April;

- Lee's Army of Northern Virginia inflicted a lot of casualties against the Army of the Potomac during the Overland Campaign in May and June (though they sustained a lot of casualties as well);

- Lee was still able to split his army and send Early to the Shenandoah, which eventually led to a third invasion of the North (Monocacy and Ft. Stevens);

- The Battle of the Crater in July was a plan gone wrong from the start and a disaster for the North.

I don't think Confederates at all considered the war a lost cause in May 1864. Success at New Market only made them believe that God was on their side and if they held on, they could still win.

[–] blfsweet16 10 years ago

I wonder who in 1864 Virginia would have said this out loud.

I am by no means a revisionist. The Civil War would not have been possible if not for slavery. However, to say that ALL Virginians supported slavery as well as secession is a huge generalization and is just not true. West Virginia was once a part of Virginia, but they seceded from Virginia when Virginia voted to secede from the Union. WV got their statehood in 1863.

There were many counties in eastern Tennessee that refused to take up arms against the Union and remained neutral throughout the war. You also saw resistance in North Carolina and Arkansas to the idea of secession.

Slavery was indeed THE cause of the American Civil War, to say anything else is just wrong. However, to say that every young lad in Virginia was fighting for a rich man's slaves in 1864 is just as equally wrong.

When Phil Sheridan and his Union Army came up the Valley in 1864, they didn't care if you supported the Confederacy or not. He found you guilty by association and ordered your property and your crops burnt to a crisp. A lot of pro-Union families lost everything in this raid.

When you have a Union army coming through your childhood home, burning everything in sight, it makes a little bit of sense why these young cadets of VMI would march out and fight against the Union Army for a cause other than the preservation of slavery. By 1864, all of the early war rhetoric and goals had been thrown out the window. Most soldiers were fighting for the guy next to them by that point, both North and South. Neither side couldn't have cared less about slavery when they fought at New Market.

"Oh, *beep*! I picked a cute one!" --Penguin, "Batman Returns"

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

Hi blfsweet16,
I don't believe I said "ALL Virginians (or all Southereners, for that matter) supported slavery as well as secession." I know that there were some Southerners who rejected secession. But the bottom line is, the Confederacy (and that includes VMI in those days) was a place that wanted to be defined by slavery.

Having seen many Civil War movies and TV programs since the 1980s, I've found it very interesting that most of these programs include a moment where a Confederate character explains why he is fighting the war... and it's never about slavery. I'm convinced this is done to make the characters more likeable to us as viewers of the program than it is to be historically accurate.

I think in order to truly gauge the words "We should not be fighting to keep people in chains" and how accurate they would have been coming from a VMI cadet in 1864, you would have to do a study of the demographics of the Corps of Cadets at that time. Were they mostly from the planter class? If so, they were young men who looked forward to inheriting the plantations owned by their fathers and the slaves that came with them.

I still say the feelings of remorse over slavery by a Confederate character in a movie set in 1864 are more to appease our modern sensibilities about race and slavery rather than something a young man who pledged to defend a government and a society formed on the cornerstone that "the Negro is not equal the the White man" and that "Slavery is his normal condition."

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

I am a class of 2002 VMI graduate and New Market is something very sacred to us. Attempts to place Hitler's Third Reich on par with the Confederate States of America is very glib and misinformed. Davis, Lee, Jackson, Stuart were all devout Christians and had a profound respect for all human life unlike Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goring. The former saw all humans, regardless of ethnicity as being created in God's own image and likeness.
The horribly tragic American Civil War wasn't fought entirely over slavery. Most historians agree that slavery would not have survived had the South won, as slavery was a very outdated implementation that had grown very unpopular on a global scale. The causes of the American Civil War are complex, multifaceted and profoundly tragic that American's felt compelled to resolve the differences through warfare upon each other. The VMI cadets who fought in the Battle of New Market exemplify the courage,e type of resolve and selfless service upon which our nation was founded and kept alive

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

I'd rather not compare Confederates to Nazis and the Holocaust either but I disagree with some of your other points.

Slavery was anything but dying by 1860. I haven't read anywhere that "most historians agree that slavery would not have survived had the South won." There institution had more net worth by 1860 than all of America's railroads and factories combined. In fact, a victorious Confederacy might very well have looked to expand its borders into Mexico, Cuba and other Latin-American countries.

As far as Davis et al being "devout Christians," that's fine if they were men of faith... but they clearly believed in the racial inferiority of Black people and believed slavery was the best condition for them. Christians are people that haven't always got things all right. The bottom line is, their point of view of race was just plain wrong. Yes, most White Americans of the mid-19th Century held racial attitudes that we would consider reprehensible today. I'm sorry but at some point, I can't keep making excuses for their beliefs. Thank God men like William Lloyd Garrisson and Lewis Tappan were right in their beliefs of racial and social equality and fought for social justice.

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

I appreciate your response but I think you are missing my point.

I think Slavery is by far the most disgraceful practice in American History as it stands in direct contrast to the ideals for which we fought for our independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal ". Nothing can justify America's practice of Slavery and I think its important that all generations be made aware of the role that it played in the American Civil War. Almost importantly though, is that all generations be made aware that this war was not fought entirely over slavery, which is unfortunately the most common perception in today's society.

As for Slavery dying out, can you tell me where else in the world it was predominant in 1860? How well did it flourish in other countries around the world during the second half of the 19th Century?

How well would have the Confederate States of American have been received in the international community by continuing a practice that was condemned by world powers?

Christians have behaved in ways that are very Un-Christian ways since their very beginnings . I brought up the faith of the leaders of the Confederacy because it assists my goal to suggest they lived their lives and made decisions on an entirely different moral plain than the leaders of Nazi Germany. This is what the original commentator suggested. Slavery was, is and will always be morally wrong. The Slaves in America may not have been free but no one deemed them to be unworthy of life or called for their extinction as a race, as which happened in Nazi Germany.

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

tomschillo,
I think I get your point about the moral difference between Confederates and Nazis. Remember, I'm not the person in this discussion who compared the two as equally evil. But while you say that "the Slaves in America may not have been free but no one deemed them to be unworthy of life," I think that statement needs to be better understood. The only value slaveowners saw in the lives of the people they kept in chains was as pieces of property. They did not see value in their minds; or their dignity; or their potential; or their individuality; or their beauty as human beings.

I'm not sure why you're asking me about slavery dying out and what was going on worldwide regarding human bondage in the mid-19th Century. My point was about slavery in the United States.

I think the main place where we differ is that I believe there was only one reason for Southern secession and Confederate war- the preservation of the enslavement of people of African descent. In their state declarations of secession in 1860-61, they give no other reason but slavery.

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

Bryan, I understand your concern. You seem to want to place me in a position where I am required to justify slavery. I have been very clear that I am of the opinion that slavery is morally wrong and nothing can justify it's practice.

Like many people in today's society, you seem to have difficulty grasping the reality that the American Civil War was not entirely fought over slavery. The VMI Cadets at the Battle of New Market did not enter into that Battle willing to sacrifice their lives because they believed African Americans were inferior and deserved to be subjected to indefinite slavery. I have studied the Battle and have not found such ideology anywhere.

You are very quick to downplay the international climate of the 19th century and its position on slavery. The global climate of that era was very unacceptingg of slavery and this (along with domestic opposition in the north) placed pressure upon Washington DC to eradicate it. The Southern States felt threatened by the power that the Federal government wanted to weild upon them because they had enjoyed a very significant degree of Autonomy for most of their existence . At that time one's highest loyalty was to their native state, not the Federal government.

As I said before, this does not justify Slavery. Please be open to the reality that the Civil War was not entirely fought over slavery.

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

No, no, NO I am NOT trying to place you in a position where you are trying to justify slavery in ANY way, shape or form. I've never done that in this discussion anywhere. My understanding on Southern secession and Confederate war doesn't come from what modern people are saying. It comes from what 1860s people said.

I have also read about the battle of New Market and I know about the story of the VMI cadets. I know they also had some participation in other Civil War battles. But the question is, what did they feel about slavery? The preview of the movie The Field of Lost Shoes features a young cadet saying, "We shouldn't be fighting to keep people in chains." My question is, did any VMI cadet say something like that in 1864? Do you know of any existing records from ca. 1864 where a cadet expresses thoughts on race and/or slavery? I realize one person's thoughts are his own but does such an attitude expressed really teach what most White Southerners of the time really thought and felt?

Anyway, I know that VMI cadets (and their professor, Thomas J. Jackson) were present at John Brown's execution in 1859. Is there any records of their thoughts on what they believed about a man seeking to arm Blacks to fight against their own enslavement... in some ways, maybe no different than the VMI cadets who went into battle to fight against the threat of invading forces in the Valley in 1864.

In the same year as New Market were the battles of Olustee, Fort Pillow and the Crater. All three of these battles were Union defeats where the USCT soldiers were not allowed to surrender as POWs but were murdered on the battlefield. Is there any record of what VMI cadets thought of Black Union soldiers and the Confederate official policy to execute them or to enslave them?

tomschillo, I'm proud of you for completing a very tough curriculum to get through the Virginia Military Institute and I thank you for your service. I understand why cadets today remember the service and sacrifice of those young men in 1864 and I think the school should continue to remember them. But I can't minimize who Confederates were and what they fought for- a society "based on the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man" and "that slavery is his normal and natural condition."

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

I welcome this discussion, however I am not aware what is available to concretely say one way or the other what the VMI cadets of a specific era felt about race and slavery or any other social topic for that matter.. Records could exist but I really don't know one way or another

As someone who is very passionate about the equality of races and the values that VMI instills, I would like to think that the Cadets shared my views on the equality of races but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

I can tell you however that had the VMI Cadets of that era strongly opposed slavery on a personal level, they still would have answered their call for service and sacrifice because this is what VMI teaches at its very core. This selfless courage is what makes New Market sacred to us.

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

As someone who is very passionate about the equality of races and the values that VMI instills, I would like to think that the Cadets shared my views on the equality of races but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

I can tell you however that had the VMI Cadets of that era strongly opposed slavery on a personal level, they still would have answered their call for service and sacrifice because this is what VMI teaches at its very core. This selfless courage is what makes New Market sacred to us.

I think when it comes to analyzing history, we always have to be careful to steer away from the temptation to place our values on historic subjects we fondly remember. Perhaps some cadet or White Virginian in those days believed slavery to be morally wrong and wanted to see Blacks embraced in equality. To me, the more interesting question is how could humane, Christian people believe in something so obviously immoral?

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

That question is a fair question to ask. However, I think it is just as applicable to that era as any other in pre Civil rights America.. The abolition slavery, while a step in the right direction did not come close to providing the freedom that our founding fathers envisioned for all Americans . Segregation and outright racism denied core freedoms to these liberated peoples for roughly another 100 years and this denial was implemented and accepted all across America, North and South.

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

tomschillo

I am a class of 2002 VMI graduate and New Market is something very sacred to us.

Well, to be honest I think your affiliation to the VMI may influence your interpretation of the event. Mind you, I do not question the dedication and courage of VMI cadets on the battlefield. I would never claim they were cowards, or committed War crimes etc. What I say is the order to send them into battle was criminal. I do not question their personal beliefs or skill in battle.

Attempts to place Hitler's Third Reich on par with the Confederate States of America is very glib and misinformed.

Third Reich ideologues actually commented on American history during the Nuremberg trials. I am sure they've done it on other occasions, but I am just not familiar with it. You are right when you say one cannot genuinely compare them: Germany was a nation in the midst of epic conquest, Confederacy was a nation well settled into their way of life, which included slavery.

I said the order to send teenagers into battle - while there was an alternative - is equal to Third Reich's decision to send their youth into ruthless fight. Immoral. Self-destructive. I find the argument well, but they were defending their homeland - insufficient.

Why did they need to defend their homeland in the first place? How did it come about that an Army (United States Army in this case) threatened it?

Hitlerjugend troops defending Berlin in April-May 1945 displayed some of the greatest bravura, courage and selfless sacrifice in the history of warfare. What thy have shown on the battlefield was absolutely astonishing; I recommend you to look closely at this particular event.

But what does it change? Does it make their actions; noble? No! Is it celebrated by anyone today? No! Can they claim heroic, principled defense against overwhelming odds? No!

The responsibility for this carnage (the boys were slaughtered immediately after losing; there were only two [2] who survived) lies squarely with the German Command! They caused the War, they escalated it with the attack on the Soviet Russia and they brought total, deliberate destruction on the entire population instead of surrendering.

Yes, there were heroic incidents, gallant moments, examples of incredible courage and brilliant military skill: nobody can deny it. Yet it is overshadowed by the cause, the rotten cause, and the final shameful decision to throw into the fire those they were sworn to protect; their youth!

Davis, Lee, Jackson, Stuart were all devout Christians and had a profound respect for all human life unlike Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Goring.

Please read what you wrote again. Have mercy on me, you are projecting so much! All men mentioned by you were Christians, but guess what: they were also devout slaveowners. Hardcore believers in the institution. One did not exclude the other! A very peculiar interpretation of Christianity, - as practiced by Southeners - allowed for both. And profound respect for all human life? I am fighting the urge to really serve you a line now. Let me just stop before I escalate this exchange.

These were the men who attacked their own country. All of them originally swore allegiance to the United States, and swore to protect it as officers of the United States Army; then joined the competition. There is no greater treason than that.

The horribly tragic American Civil War wasn't fought entirely over slavery. Most historians agree that slavery would not have survived had the South won, as slavery was a very outdated implementation that had grown very unpopular on a global scale.

I will excuse you for writing this and just assume you are the product of faulty education. I am tempted to ask: was this revisionist interpretation of history served to you at the VMI?

The causes of the American Civil War are complex, multifaceted and profoundly tragic that American's felt compelled to resolve the differences through warfare upon each other.

Again: either ignorance, or deliberate manipulation of well-known facts. Don't know you so cannot say which.

The VMI cadets who fought in the Battle of New Market exemplify the courage,e type of resolve and selfless service upon which our nation was founded and kept alive

If by our nation you mean; Confederacy, then your statement is correct.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tomschillo 10 years ago

bethebestforthejob

I started reading your most recent rant above and concluded that it is not worthy of time to address, let alone read fully. Had I known that I was responding to someone this irrational, I would not even have taken the time to address your original post.

In hindsight, your sloppy comparison of the VMI Cadets at New Market to the 1944 Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany was more than sufficient to expose your inability to engage in a rational and intellectual discussion with people who disagree with your perspectives

[–] bethebestforthejob 10 years ago

Why did you delete your two previous posts? Just curious.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

[–] nighttrumpet 10 years ago

While the chance of winning the war on the battlefield is rendered impossible after Gettysburg there was a chance of influencing the '64 presidential election in their favor. Though McClellan will reject the peace plank of the Democratic platform further defeats on the battlefield may have forced his hand had he defeated Lincoln. The Civil war was not effectively lost in 1864, it would take the events of that year to make it so.

The Confederacy did not wipe out autonomy among the southern states. In fact one of the primary reasons it lost the war was because it was not a united effort. The States' Right calling card that created the Confederacy also killed any chance of a central government leading a united war effort. Individual states will withhold men and supplies to protect their own borders instead of contributing to the national war effort. If the Confederacy squelched all autonomy then why does West Virginia exist?

And despite what the one review said the VMI cadets were not sheltered from the war. They were called out on three previous occasions to fight, so I doubt they were brainwashed. While it was the stated goal of the Confederate government to create an independent nation with constitutional protections for slavery individual soldiers fought for a myriad of reasons not strictly for slavery.

I get what your trying to do with the whole moral equivalency thing but at least research it next time.

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

How was the chance of the South winning the war "rendered impossible after Gettysburg?" Morale was still very high in the Confederacy after July 1863. And as far as the battlefield, Confederate victories came at Chickamauga (September 1863) and Olustee (February 1864). And in the Overland Campaign (May 1864) the Wilderness and Spotsylvania were both stalemate battles with no clear winner.

Also don't forget that Lee was able to divide his army again in 1864, sending Jubal Early into the Valley, which led to a third invasion of the North and the batles of Monocacy and Fort Stevens. The latter was a Union victory but still, the Confederates were inside the District of Columbia and about 5 miles from the White House. And finally, the Crater (July 30) was a Union disaster by Grant's admission and a major shot in the arm for Confederate morale.

I think Gettysburg is very important but highly overrated in Civil War memory. If Confederate battlefieldvictory really was impossible after Gettysburg, you have to wonder then why Robert E. Lee was left in command of the Army of Northern Virginia for the rest of the war.

Also, it wasn't a "States' Rights" calling card that created the Confederacy... it was a slavery calling card, no question about it. Indeed, the CS Constitution declared no state could join the Confederacy without being a slave state. The declarations of secession issued by the many Southern states said slavery was their reason for breaking up the Union. The only state right at issue for them was the right to keep a Black person in bondage. Not saying this to hate Southerners... but it's just the truth of history.

[–] nighttrumpet 10 years ago

The key phrase here being "on the battlefield." After Gettysburg they no longer possessed the ability to deal the North a defeat that would win the war in and of itself. How did Chickamauga or Olustee or the Crater change the strategic situation of the war? Chickamauga is immediately reversed by Chattanooga and Olustee kept 5000 soldiers from reinforcing enclaves that were in no danger of being lost and gaining black recruits. Regardless of the outcome of the Crater Grant is still besieging Petersburg. Not exactly something that was going to change the outcome of the war. As far as Spotsylvania and the Wilderness they didn't need to stalemate Grant they needed to force him out of Virginia. As long as Grant is in Virginia he is winning the war. The result of any battle that doesn't lead to a significant change in the strategic balance of power is a lost battle regardless of whether or not they won the field. I never said they couldn't win battlefield victories, just that they couldn't win the war with battlefield victories alone.

And where in my post did I belittle the status of slavery in causing the war? I know people are trained to see slavery when they see states' rights but it doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy existed because they believed states could do what they wanted. That slavery was the impetus for that is irrelevant in a discussion of the Confederate government's lack of autonomy over the various states. So thanks for a bunch of information that wasn't needed and had no bearing on the discussion

[–] bryanac625 10 years ago

The key phrase here being "on the battlefield." After Gettysburg they no longer possessed the ability to deal the North a defeat that would win the war in and of itself.

The other key phrase here is "in and of itself." What does that mean? That the South couldn't win that one battle that would make the North give up the war effort? For one thing, no one will ever know if Gettysburg could have been that one battle. And as far as Confederate battle victories, they were very important, despite of what you think. These victories continued to reinforce Southern morale and resolve to keep fighting... perhaps like scoring another run here and there gives the team that's down by ten runs the belief that if they keep it up, they can actually come from behind and win the game. Gettysburg and Vicksburg were looked at as unfortunate setbacks but they did not communicate to Southerners (and perhaps even Northerners) that it was just a matter of time before the Confederacy lost.

As far as Spotsylvania and the Wilderness they didn't need to stalemate Grant they needed to force him out of Virginia. As long as Grant is in Virginia he is winning the war.

I flat-out disagree with this point. For one thing, the Yankees were in Virginia for three years before Grant got there. Were the Rebels losing the war for those three years? Anyway, all the Confederacy really needed was a "tie" to win the war, i.e., for the North to decide the war wasn't worth it anymore. And that most certainly could have come from a stalemate in Virginia. To me, one of the final moments of Confederate defeat came not on the battlefield, but with the 1864 election. But if Lincoln loses and Lee holds his own in Virginia, it could have been enough to Keep Confederates going and believing they could do enough to finally get the Union to give up the war.

The result of any battle that doesn't lead to a significant change in the strategic balance of power is a lost battle regardless of whether or not they won the field.

If this is true, then perhaps the only battle of the Civil War that could be considered a real victory is Antietam because of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation.

And where in my post did I belittle the status of slavery in causing the war? I know people are trained to see slavery when they see states' rights but it doesn't change the fact that the Confederacy existed because they believed states could do what they wanted. That slavery was the impetus for that is irrelevant in a discussion of the Confederate government's lack of autonomy over the various states.

No one said you "belittled" slavery as the cause. But I think it's a mistake to act like a "myriad of reasons" had no connection to slavery and White supremacy for Southerners. Once the North issued the Emancipation Proclamation and put Black men in uniform, many of these people you talk about fighting for their homes or for three squares and a paycheck participated in the murder of USCT soldiers who tried to surrender ant Olustee, Fort Pillow, Poison Springs and the Crater (and when I hear people talk about Yankess coming down South and disturbing the lives of Southerners, I can only think about White Southerners continually disturbing the lives of slaves). And I disagree with you again. Because the Confederate President and VP stated so clearly that Blacks were meant to be nothing but slaves and "our new government" was to be based on their enslavement, I don't think there's any place in the Confederacy where you can say slavery was "irrelevant."

So thanks for a bunch of information that wasn't needed and had no bearing on the discussion

I'm not sure how to tell you this but am I supposed to care what you think? I mean, I hope you have a nice Christmas and all but who are you? You're not my professor, my boss or my friend. I seriously doubt I've changed your mind and you certainly haven't changed mine.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Adept34501 10 years ago

Watch out night, we got a bad ass over here.

[–] irishtom29 10 years ago

The rebellion was hopeless after Chattanooga, where the two finest Federal armies were united (The armies of the Cumberland and the Tennessee) , the Army of Tennessee routed and several lines of operations opened into the southeast. No matter what the easterners of the Army of the Potomac did (or didn't do) the Midwesterners of Sherman's army group were going to pound a stake in the rebellion's heart. After Chattanooga the war in Virginia was a sideshow. Actually it was a sideshow from the very beginning.

As they retreated from Chattanooga one rebel remarked to an officer that if they couldn't hold the Federals at Chattanooga they couldn't hold them anywhere. He was proven right.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brian-btapple 10 years ago

Congratulations, you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[–] RvaBread22 10 years ago

Your statement is very ironic. You compare the Confederacy (which was logistically on the defensive side during the War, I may add) to the Nazis. That is apples and oranges. I would hate to make the same comparison to the other side, but The Federal Army was much more like the Nazis than the Confederacy ever was. That is a ridiculous comparison. Abraham Lincoln was more like Hitler in that situation! Protecting their land from invasion, I would say it was more like Austria against the Nazis (Federals)

[–] TheFlatulist 10 years ago

They were waiting for England to intervene...as futile as that was. They hoped to hold out against the will of the Northern populace and almost succeeded in that. The picture of defeat was never clear, especially to men so far removed from the conditions back home. The Southern Army worshipped Robert E. Lee and trusted him. When it was apparent, Lee honorably surrendered. Rather than continue a guerrilla war, Lee's men again trusted his judgement and went home. These men, mostly honorable, helped to build, heal and defend this great nation once more.

The Union Army pretty much continued genocide against the natives....even while the war raged. They fought to end slavery, which was the backbone of the Southern economy, all the while eradicating another race. The Border States still had slaves and blacks were still treated horribly in the North.

The history of the Civil War is far more complex than simple moral assertions made over a hundred years in hindsight.