Lee's Last Stand... Gun in Hand...

[Jim Klag]

Yes it is because Lee surrendered there not die in some Great Thermopylae like Last Stand...

This is a good debate would the union still claim it as a Union Shrine or would the south have claimed it as a Confederate shrine had Lle died there. Maybe, both would claim it for their shrines and a place of pilgrimages...

Had Lee and his men died there, it would have still been the place where the Union won the war. Besides, your whole premise is a fallacy. Lee's mythical last stand requires an opponent. There is no way Grant engages his army in destroying Lee's. Lincoln made it plain he didn't want martyrs and Grant agreed. Grant would just have maintained the stranglehold on Lee - allowing no great final suicidal battle. Grant had 100% control of events. Short of the rebels soldiers sneaking out of the Union grip one guy at a time, Lee had zero options other than surrender. This is why what-ifs are stupid. Way too many things have to happen differently for pie in the sky scenarios to happen.

 

[diane]

That's why none of the leaders of the rebellion were hanged - no martyrs! But it happened anyway. As soon as they could legally do it, the leaders were all but deified. So, as things turned out, would it have been better to have gone ahead and hanged them? Nope! Jefferson Davis was positively salivating at the thought of a trial!

As I mentioned earlier, the thought of suicide by enemy crossed Lee's mind but the better course was what he did. Stayin' alive was the theme of the day for his army! He had generals like Gordon who were perfectly willing to go down to the last man with cannons roaring. Shooting fish in a barrel wouldn't have been easier for Grant's army.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

This is why what-ifs are stupid.

Not, always. They can become interesting if one has one has the couriousity to engage, which some here and "over there" seem to lack.

 

[Jim Klag]

Not, always. They can become interesting if one has one has the couriousity to engage, which some here and "over there" seem to lack.

They're not interesting if one has to suspend disbelief completely. If a million things have to change for a scenario to be believable, it then becomes alternate universe stuff instead of interesting what-if.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

They're not interesting if one has to suspend disbelief completely. If a million things have to change for a scenario to be believable, it then becomes alternate universe stuff instead of interesting what-if.

Then disengage, and go watch more fütbol.

 

[Jim Klag]

Then disengage, and go watch more fütbol.

Are you ever going to stop trying to tell me what to do?

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Are you ever going to stop trying to tell me what to do?

Nope. And back.

Now, let this stop and take it to our pm, like a proper mod should.

 

[Jim Klag]

Nope. And back.

Now, let this stop and take it to our pm, like a proper mod should.

Nope

 

[jgoodguy]

IMHO. The fight was for a slave republic, not an ideology. An irregular war would have been difficult.

'La garde meurt mais ne se rend pas’ (the guard dies but does not surrender)

 

[diane]

Considering how the war got in some areas, like west Tennessee and Missouri, it did take some doing to make angry young men settle themselves. Several of the partisan outfits went renegade and plain outlaw, taking advantage of all the mayhem and anarchy. That's why Forrest was gunning for his half-brother, Matt Luxton. He was a hotheaded teenager and got into all the eye for an eye business after his father (Forrest's step father) was killed by Union soldiers, basically for being home. Another partisan group Forrest worked with went renegade on him and he ordered them shot on sight - he didn't get them and it was some three or four years after the war when Tennessee marshals finished them up in a really wild fire fight at somebody's farm.That's the sort of thing Lee did not want to see!

 

[jgoodguy]

Considering how the war got in some areas, like west Tennessee and Missouri, it did take some doing to make angry young men settle themselves. Several of the partisan outfits went renegade and plain outlaw, taking advantage of all the mayhem and anarchy. That's why Forrest was gunning for his half-brother, Matt Luxton. He was a hotheaded teenager and got into all the eye for an eye business after his father (Forrest's step father) was killed by Union soldiers, basically for being home. Another partisan group Forrest worked with went renegade on him and he ordered them shot on sight - he didn't get them and it was some three or four years after the war when Tennessee marshals finished them up in a really wild fire fight at somebody's farm.That's the sort of thing Lee did not want to see!

True. Enough irregulars, bandits, terrorists and so one can destroy a civilization that gets weak. All the good stuff of Rome was destroyed by such as that after it more or less destroyed itself with secession fights.
A common story. Youtube videos Fall of Civilizations is a good series, although the viewer will be on antidepressants by the last one.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

What if Stonewall had been at Gettysburg?

Answer: He woulda been dirty and smelled like...

 

[rittmeister]

I don't think Lee doing a dead man's stand would have helped any at all. In fact, he might have had a generals' mutiny! By the time he was cornered at Appomattox, Lee's army was destroyed. He thought it had dissolved at Saylor's Creek. That was Grant's objective - kill the ANV. Lee's army would have been as much use to Johnston as the AoT was - tiny groups of die-hards coming in to make a last stand with their Uncle Joe.

could have been fun - there's an analogon

Kiel mutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rittmeister]

Yes, Lee was over-all commander of CSA forces by then. I believe Sherman's army was around 60,000 at that point, moving as two prongs - one under O O Howard and the other under Slocum. Lee could have - if he successfully evaded Grant - landed on one of those two prongs and had a fairly equal contest. There was a wide separation between the two. Neither Howard or Slocum was a general to handle Lee. Of course, Grant wouldn't have just sat there wondering where Lee had gone! Getting caught between the two was not in Lee's best interest certainly. So, his best bet was to combine with Johnston. Hardee showed up in South Carolina, too, after the surrender of Savannah but his force was small. After Sherman completed his South Carolina campaign, he did combine with Grant as Johnston's army was disposed of after Bentonville. Lee was definitely toast then.

but he would have needed those airports burned in the war of independence to acchieve that

 

[rittmeister]

Well, I have to agree, 5fish - if Lee had died covered in glory making a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid charge into oblivion, I'm quite sure there would have been a monument to it!

We can't forget the very strange ancestor worship called Confederate Catechism, either. I honestly never heard of that and thought it was a joke when I did hear of it...but, by golly, it is (maybe by now was) a real thing!

at least stone mountain would have him sabre to the fore charging into the enemy with traveller shot under him (by canister, obviously) - those other dudes wouldn't even be there

 

[rittmeister]

Had Lee and his men died there, it would have still been the place where the Union won the war. Besides, your whole premise is a fallacy. Lee's mythical last stand requires an opponent. There is no way Grant engages his army in destroying Lee's. Lincoln made it plain he didn't want martyrs and Grant agreed. Grant would just have maintained the stranglehold on Lee - allowing no great final suicidal battle. Grant had 100% control of events. Short of the rebels soldiers sneaking out of the Union grip one guy at a time, Lee had zero options other than surrender. This is why what-ifs are stupid. Way too many things have to happen differently for pie in the sky scenarios to happen.

they could have charged into them - the only way to not engage them is to allow a breakout

 

[Jim Klag]

they could have charged into them - the only way to not engage them is to allow a breakout

If they breakout and become guerilla fighters, it ruins the heroic last stand scenario. Like the Spartans or the Texans at the Alamo or the British in the Zulu wars, they needed a nasty opponent who would give no quarter. Grant was determined to "let 'em up easy."

 

[rittmeister]

If they breakout and become guerilla fighters, it ruins the heroic last stand scenario. Like the Spartans or the Texans at the Alamo or the British in the Zulu wars, they needed a nasty opponent who would give no quarter. Grant was determined to "let 'em up easy."

but they are still at the loose - don't think grant would have liked that

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

but they are still at the loose - don't think grant would have liked that

getting shot in the back while running doesn't make martyrs (what Lee did know)

 

[Jim Klag]

getting shot in the back while running doesn't make martyrs (what Lee did know)

In the Civil War, getting shot in the back at any time was considered bad form. That's why, even when running away, the soldiers turned to face their pursuers.