| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > General Jubal Early. |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > General Jubal Early. |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|||||||||||||
| General Jubal Early. | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 11:23 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
I ran into criticisms of Jub that he was called "lost cause " by a biased "Northern writer" and is a word used all the time by a poster here. So let get into this a little if there are those of you can keep it civil and post your sources. Lets find out why he is thought of as a lost causer and what he did to be charged with that. Last edited on Tue Jun 5th, 2012 11:23 am by Old Blu |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 12:29 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Mark Member
|
I'm not sure its an accusation as opposed to a statement of what Jubal Early believed. Despite being a reluctant secessionist, after the war Early's writings espoused the "Lost Cause," by which I mean the theory that the South could not have won the war against the superior resources of the North but that the cause of Southern honor was worth fighting for anyway. Whether this theory is true is a different discussion. I would start by reading Gary Gallagher's "The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History." Also worth reading is, David Blight's "Race and Reunion" (pp. 264-270) Mark
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 01:52 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Texas Defender Member 
|
Mark- I would certainly espouse one tenet of what is called: "Lost Cause Mythology." I certainly believe that: "The overwhelming U.S. manpower and materiel resources had been fundamental in bringing about the Confederate defeat." The Confederacy was clearly the weaker side, and was not able to achieve a total military victory. In order to achieve its objectives, it had to get the stronger side to stop fighting. Certainly, this has happened many times throughout history, such as the war of the American colonists against the British Empire, and more recently, the North Vietnamese against the Americans. The weaker side must retain the ability to continue the struggle long enough to induce the stronger side to give up the fight. In order to win, the stronger side must have the will to continue to fight until the weaker side can no longer resist. In the case of the Civil War, the stronger side in the end had the will to fight until the resources of the weaker side were exhausted. That, at least, is fact and not mythology. A summary on the topic of the: "Lost Cause," according to Gallagher and others: http://www.americancivilwar.asn.au/conf/2006/lost_cause.pdf Last edited on Tue Jun 5th, 2012 04:45 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 04:42 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Old Blu wrote:I ran into criticisms of Jub that he was called "lost cause " by a biased "Northern writer" and is a word used all the time by a poster here. The term “Lost Cause” was coined by Edward Pollard in the title of his 1866 book “The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates”. Jubal Early was an ardent defender of the myth. That’s all that was meant by that.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jun 5th, 2012 04:55 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Mark wrote:after the war Early's writings espoused the "Lost Cause," by which I mean the theory that the South could not have won the war against the superior resources of the North Well, I think some Lost Cause writers were inconsistent about this. On the one hand they argue exactly as you say: the South fought as gallantly as could be expected, but were inevitably worn down by superior numbers. In the service of this myth they manipulate figures and cherry-pick estimates that support their assumptions, always low-balling Confederate strength and ludicrously exaggerating Federal numbers. Early, for example, argues that at the outset of the 1864 campaign Lee had less than 50,000 men of all arms while Grant had 200,000. On the other hand, many of the Lost Causers argued—sometimes explicitly, sometimes only implicitly—that Southern defeat was not inevitable. They latched onto “missed opportunities” (like Pickett’s Charge) and then identified principle villains who were responsible for the defeat (Longstreet). One important element of the myth was that Lee was infallible and so failure had to be blamed on someone else. but that the cause of Southern honor was worth fighting for anyway. More than that, the standard version of the myth defends the antebellum southern “way of life” and devotes a lot of time attempting to prove that slavery was not the cause of the war. But for people who believe that, the Lost Cause writers spent an awful lot of time and energy defending the institution. As for that, they generally stick to the Positive Good interpretation of slavery, minimizing the violence and brutality associated with the institution.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 01:08 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352 
|
A few titles that might educate on the subject. The Mind of the South by Cash Ghosts of the Confederacy by Foster Pollard's The Lost Cause has already been mentioned. Baptized in Blood: the Religion of the Lost Cause by Wilson Origins of the New South by Woodward For Early start w/ these: Jubal A Early, the Lost Cause & Confederate History: a Persistant Legacy by Gallagher Jubal: the Life and Times of Jubal A Early by Osborne Post war Early was very bitter fleeing to Mexico then Canada before returning to the US after the amnesty. He tried his hand at law again (his prewar career) but couldn't make a go at it. He moved to Lousiana where he was a part of the State Lottery (not certain of his role other than he did a good job) but more importantly he was one of the founders of the Southern Historical Society. He had an undying hatred of any CS man who reconciled themselves to defeat or dared join the Republican party (he hated Longstreet & Mosby in particular). The man reveled in his role as one of the founders of the Lost Cause. While I'm no fan of Early I think he was a competent soldier and was poorly served by the CS govt who removed him from command just prior to the end of the War blaming him for the loss of the Valley. But IMO it was his vitriol filled pen that did more damage to the US than anything he did during the war.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 01:37 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: A few titles that might educate on the subject. What did Early write that was wrong?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 01:43 am |
|
8th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Here we go...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 09:59 am |
|
9th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
JG6789 wrote: Here we go............is not an answer! 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 11:02 am |
|
10th Post |
|
BHR62 Member 
|
My view of Early is that he was a bitter guy that just refused to reconcile with the US Government. Anybody that did was a traitor. Longstreet buried the hatchet with the North....joined the Republican party and dared to bash Lee in some of his decisions. Longstreet stated that nothing would make him prouder than to see Yank and Reb vets marching side by side down Pennsylvania Avenue celebrating the end of the war. After Early's death in the 1890's Longstreet met with Wheeler. Wheeler rode up to Longstreet in his Spanish-American War blue uniform. Wheeler was a general in the US Army then. Longstreet commented that he hoped he dies before Wheeler so that he can hear Early screaming traitor at Wheeler from hell.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 11:34 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
BHR62 wrote: My view of Early is that he was a bitter guy that just refused to reconcile with the US Government. Anybody that did was a traitor. I've always liked that quote never knew if it was legit or not though.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 11:41 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
Old Blu wrote: Johan Steele wrote:A few titles that might educate on the subject. In the defence of Early, at least he was there. I suggest you start reading him and reading about him, if you can't figure out he was a vitriolic, lieing bastard... it's pretty clear you've never read him w/ an actual history book at hand. He waited to go after Longstreet & Mosby until after Lee was dead. I think Lee would have dressed him down, likely in a public response.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 03:01 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Johan Steele wrote: Old Blu wrote:Johan Steele wrote:A few titles that might educate on the subject. OK. So go ahead and make personal attacks on me. I don't care. Your failure to address the question shows you haven't read much about him either if you can't tell me 'what did he write that was wrong'? Are you going to avoid my question based on the fact you do not like him?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 03:03 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
BHR62 wrote: My view of Early is that he was a bitter guy that just refused to reconcile with the US Government. Anybody that did was a traitor. I take this to be an opinion only because he was forgiven as all the other Confederate Soldiers and was a good American after that. He went to Mexico because he didn't know what was going to happen. Then went to Canada for the same reason. Last edited on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 03:05 pm by Old Blu |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 04:30 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
JG6789 Member
|
Old Blu wrote: He went to Mexico because he didn't know what was going to happen. Then went to Canada for the same reason. No, he fled because he was an unreconstructed rebel: “I have come into exile rather than submit to the yoke of the oppressors of my country…could my life secure the redemption of that country, as it has been often risked, so now it would be as freely given for that object” (Early 1867).
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 04:54 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
Early's identification with the 'lost cause' is an unintended consequence of his veneration of Robert E. Lee. In his mind, Lee could do no wrong, hence those with differing opinions (Longstreet, Mosby, et al) were beyond the pale and unredeemable. To Early, and 'Lost Causers' in general, military prowess (or lack therof) played no part in Confederate defeat - it was strictly 'overwhelming numbers and resources'...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 06:16 pm |
|
17th Post |
|
Texas Defender Member
|
Hank C- The position I took agreeing with the: "Lost Cause" tenet in the source linked to in my posting above stated that: "Overwhelming U.S. manpower and materiel resources had been FUNDAMENTAL (my caps) in bringing about the Confederate defeat." You have apparently chosen to substitute the word: "Strictly" for the word: "Fundamental." Are you taking the position that the fundamental (ie: primary) cause of the Confederate defeat was not a disparity of manpower and resources, but that it was actually due to superior Union military prowess or inferior Confederate military prowess? Last edited on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 06:34 pm by Texas Defender |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 06:52 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
JG6789 wrote: Old Blu wrote:He went to Mexico because he didn't know what was going to happen. Then went to Canada for the same reason. I respect your opinion. Keep in mind he was against secession. And once again, not knowing what was going to happen would even cause you and me to haul *** to some place. He was a standup American before the war and a standup American after the war. It don't get no better than that. That can't be denied. Perhaps you know enough about General Early to answer the question, ' What did Early write that was wrong?'? Last edited on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 07:00 pm by Old Blu |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 07:52 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Johan Steele Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352
|
personal attack? Ok get a thicker skin. I provided an ample reading list on the subject. Read on the man and make up your own mind; though it seems to be already made up. He was not a good American after the war, he never reconciled himself w/ defeat among other things. As tio his creative recollections, read some of his hateful assaults upon Longstreet in particular.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2012 09:10 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
Old Blu wrote:
Off the top of my head (you'll have to forgive my lack of sourcing as my books are packed away in the attic) one of his major fabrications was his insistence in writing and speeches that Longstreet failed to obey an order fom General Lee to attack at dawn on the second day at Gettysburg. The claim was manufactured out of whole cloth to help place blame for the defeat squarely on Longstreet on is disproven by letters given to Longstreet by Lee's own staff saying they had no knowledge of any such order. Early also had a tendency to "remember" conversations critical of Longstreet where the other witnesses to hat was said were conveniently deceased at the time Early is recounting what happened. Early was a good soldier, but not a very nice person at all, as even his friends would attest. Johan's list of reading is a pretty good. Place to start. Gallagher has done much work on Early and the Lost Cause and would be a good One, as well.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:57 am | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > General Jubal Early. | Top |
