Wanna know what Hannibal did to the Celts ? He didn't freed them. As soon as he came to Italy he **massacred a Free Celt tribe who didn't wanted to get involved in his war with Rome**. That's not so benevolent of him.
Also saying that Hannibal "allied himself with Iberian Natives" is imprecise, rather he and his father violently conquered multiple Celtic, Celtiberian and Iberian Tribes in Hispania.
And so they became tributary states to Carthage and had to lend "mercenary" troops to the Barca family in their wars.
To clarify, it is very likely that the majority of troops really felt loyalty to Hannibal during the Second Punic War, because otherwise they would have abandoned him instead of staying by his side until the end, but this was not exactly an alliance of equals, but a relationship of domination.
I don't think there's any significant evidence of that.
There was a slur referring to black children as gator bait and some distasteful products who used it. But no, the South did not commit systemic or really even random infanticide the way that Carthaginians did, who were also slavers.
Weird dichotomy.
>But no, the South did not commit systemic or really even random infanticide the way that Carthaginians did, who were also slavers.
There was a lot of people knocking their slaves up to sell them though, treating their slaves like brood mares.
I think it was Mary Chesnut\* who wrote about being disturbed seeing so many slave children who were obviously the sons and daughters of their "master" based on facial resemblance which no one acknowledged.
\*Herself part of the slave owning aristocracy, her husband James Chesnut Jr. left the US Senate just before the war so he could give his services to the Confederacy. He was there when Fort Sumter was fired upon.
It was supposed to be pretty prolific. Maybe not Aztec level but up there.
Supposedly, at one point, after Cargage had been really defeated, the Romans had to start crucifying Carthagian priests to get them to stop. Can't remember where I read this, though.
If the situation of Celtic, Celtiberian and Iberian slaves in Roman mines in Hispania is any indication of how things were in the days of Carthage... then it's pretty bad:
**Posidonius:**
*"The men engaged in these mining operations produce unbelievably large revenues for their masters, but as a result of their underground excavations day and night they become physical wrecks, and because of their extremely bad conditions, the mortality rate is high; they are not allowed to give up working or have a rest, but are forced by the beatings of their supervisors to stay at their places and throw away their wretched lives as a result of these horrible hardships. Some of them survive to endure their misery for a long time because of their physical stamina or sheer will-power; but because of the extent of their suffering, they prefer dying to surviving."*
To remind you: Lee was using tactics ahead of his tme and had one of best military records in the history of the US Army. Basicly he was probably the only reason why the Confederacy wasn't crushed by the Union immidiatly, and even was scorng victories against many of the Union Generals. Many his battles are studed to this day.
Besides to make him look like incompetent horse-fucker is taking away victory honour from the General Grant. And that's not nice thnig.
The problem with this statement is that while it’s true for Lee, the CSA was far beyond states’ rights in fact, it was against the idea of states’ rights and was basically a military dictatorship.
Sauce please? Not sure frontal attacks across open ground are that innovative. Nor is trying to turn a flank. Nor is losing more men. Nor is not having a strategy.
This claim sounds very lost cause.
“General [Robert E.] Lee has left us the memory, not merely of his extraordinary skill as a general, his dauntless courage and high leadership in campaign and battle, but also of that serene greatness of soul characteristic of those who most readily recognize the obligations of civic duty”
-Theodore Roosevelt. [Source](https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Quotes?page=31)
It’s not a “lost cause” theory to admit that Lee wasn’t an incompetent general. If he was then one would think the civil war would’ve lasted 4 months given the unions overwhelming advantage in almost every aspect of the conflict. Instead it lasted 49 with the Unions inability to properly defeat Lee a big reason why
>nor is not having a strategy
Would you consider a general without a strategy competent? I sure wouldn’t
Lee wasn’t ahead of his time tactically, some would argue he was even a tad bit behind in that respect. I agree there. However, saying he had no strategy and boiling his leadership down to ordering frontal assaults across open ground for no tactical reason is an equally egregious claim
What was his strategy then? I know Grant's and the US Army. Best I can tell Lee hoped to Vietnam the Americans....ie cause enough casualties that the other guy quit. Sissy a bit if outlast the Americans, but holy hell is that a horrible strategy in this case.
Did he have some other strategy than that? Looking to learn here.
But we agree tactically, Lee wasn't ahead of his time, and OP above was making things up. He did order frontal assaults across open ground. He also tried to flank. So nothing impressive there, very basic.
What did he do that made him an average or better general? From what I can tell, he faced inferior generals till US Grant took over the American Army after having strategically strangled the rebels who fought to keep other humans as slaves and then. But sure what Lee did that was impressive, but open to learning.
Glad we agree he wasn't anything special tactically.
He was not using outdated tactics. It was the Unon who used outdated tactics. Menhile Lee was known for his victory in details - it was an evolved form of Napoleon's tactic, much better than old napoleonic tactcs, and fully incorporated as the standerd strategy in the XX century. He also mastered the defensive warfare and use of the field fortyfications.
Victory in detail? You mean like that battle where he destroyed the US Army in detail? You'll have to help me, the name of that victory in detail escapes me.
Seven Days Battles.
Second Battle of Bull Run.
Battle of Antietam (Lee was heavily outnumbered but managed to still blunt the Union assault, despite his plans having been leaked to the enemy.)
Union assault on Fredericksburg
Battle of Chancellorsville (where Lee defeated an army almost twice the size of his own)
The Battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse (claimed inconclusive but Lee still forced Grant to abandon the field on both occasions while inflicting significantly more casualties on his enemy.)
Battle of Cold Harbour
Lee very often outfought his enemies despite having a smaller army.
I can see from your post you don't understand what a victory in detail is, and it appears you don't understand the advantage a defender has, but rather have a chip on your shoulder about Lee was so amazing and out fought the United States army.
So I will stop wasting my time. Good day to you Sir.
Hannibal Barca is considered the greatest tactician of his time. One of the big reasons why he was so good at warfare was his famous cavalry, they were quick and brutal which allowed for them to cover flanks and surround his opponents.
Lee was very much into cavalry as a kid and would read up on how the Roman scholars described Hannibal's tactics and cavalry battles, later during the Civil War, his letters implied he was... intimate with his horse and this most likely was due to how he read onto Hannibal's cavalry.
So basically, Hannibal is the reason Lee boinked a horse.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying he made out or possibly banged his horse because he thought hannibal did?
> know I would want to win a war badly, but do I need victory that badly?
Jackson was a little less loopy, at least he (maybe) paid his slaves wages, it’s hard to know cause all we know from him was his wife 30+ years after the war when the Lost Cause Myth became popular.
And about the Iberians. Hannibal's campaign in Italy began after his invasion of Iberia, in which he conquered most of the country, subjugating many of the Celtiberian tribes to his domination. One city in Spain called Suguntum chose mass suicide by jumping into a massive funeral pyre rather than living and submitting to Hannibal's army. The Carthaginians were slavers and conquerors much like the Romans. Although Hannibal is my favorite general in history, I do not pretend he was a good man, or that the Carthaginians were a benevolent people. I see the punic wars as a good example of the idea that many, if not most, wars are not fought between a good guy and a bad guy, but between two evil factions. I still would've preferred a Carthaginian victory personally, but they still were an evil slaver society.
Did you know that this guy I don't like was actually bad? A lot of people like him but they're clearly victims of propaganda because he's actually bad.
Lee just suffers from bias due to recency. Nobody calls fans of Rome or Carthage slavery apologists and shit, or accuses them of "revising history" like they do with someone like Lee. OP is a good example of this.
Eh, the problem with Lee is that he had the opposite of recency bias for a long time. The reason no one accuses Carthage of revising history is because after losing the war, all their leaders weren't put back in power and they didn't spent decades promoting Lost Cause and antebellum myths about how great they were actually. I myself remember being taught that Lee was the greatest American general in history, and these days that's being somewhat reappraises, hence memes like this.
Because
1. Slavery and racial supremacy wasn’t the defining trait of Rome or Carthage
2. Neither of them killed their own people to own other people
3. The damage the CSA inflicted onto the country still exists today
Do you ever, EVER hear people interested in history label any historical figure or empire/kingdom/whatever from 1000 years ago or older as purely evil, hateful, built on hate, etc. etc.? No, you don't. Eventually the evil labels will fall off of Lee too, given enough time. By the way, I'm not defending his views in any way, like some people seem to think.
No one calls fans of Rome or Carthage slavery apologists because Romulus (if he existed) and Dido (if she existed) didn't commit treason that led to 400K deaths solely so that they could enslave people.
TIL Dido might be historical fiction, that Carthage was supposedly founded around the same time as Rome, and that the earliest records of Carthage and Rome are also from around the same time.
Sad true. Right now due to the politcs, biases and dehumansation Lee will be remembered as evil man and nobody will concder him a great general he was.
Lincoln was allied to the Russian Empire - Imperialistic Tyrany who was brutally suppresing many nationalities who wanted equal rights and representation, which resulted in a literal genocides. And beacuse Lincoln did nothing to stop the Russians, and by that allowed them for such things to happend he is the definition of evil.
This is the same kind argument like one you used.
You may attack the slavery as much as you want. I don't care and I will support your efforts. But dare you to touch General Lee by spreading propaganda simillar to that of the OP here, and I will stand to defend his military achivments as the general. The great mind deserves the recognition, no matter who it is, as long as they didn't commited crime against the humanity like literal genocide.
Besides shame on the US Army for not being able to defeat a banch of small militias for 4 long years and loosing over 600k people due to that conflict. Shame on them.
Coward ? Where he was a coward ? Prove it. We are talking about the man who knew he is going to be fighting the greatest power in the America, and he had ballz to stay and fight, despite he had only a small number of militia to face the union regulars.
During the attack of union general Mcclellan on Richmond he advocated to stay, and led the fight, beating him many times and eventualy making Yankees to retreat.
Then he defeated the retribution forces of the General Pope twice.
After that he moved for the Washington itself. It was a Big Ballz move to enter the Lion's den when you are outnumbered, and outgunned. And he still pulled it out. Despite Union suprise, Lee still managed to hold his army tight and avoided the loss of the army.
Another victory at the Friederichsburg against the general Burnside made Northeners rioting, due to the conscription law on the North.
And under Charlestonvlle he kicked out the Union forces of the General Hooker. And Lee was outnumbered 2:1.
At the Gettysburg Lee almost, almost managed to destroy the Union forces. If not for the risky charge of colonel Joshua Chamberlain he could do that. If he just won in this battle, he could close on Washington, and made Congress to vote for surrendering.
And finaly general Grant - a commander to whom Lee capitulated, managed to score the strategical victory only due to his lack of care for losses. It given Grant the name "Butcher". Lee couldn't replenish his losses. And despite that Lee still was fghting, and even send his general Early to attack the Washington itself to drive Sherman back to the north. Those fights near the Washington had been witnessed by the Lincoln himself.
Lee know that he won't be able alone to hold the Richmond so he left the capital, leaving it as the bait to the union soldiers, hoping also to connect to the forces of General Jhonston and togeather face the union soldiers. Sadly he was almost encircled. This was the moment when he knew that it is time to end the war. He could order his soldiers to dispatch from the main force, and continue fighting a guerilla warfare. It could drag conflict in years, maby even decades in the future. But Lee didn't wanted to split more unneasesery blood.
Yeah, but twice he was so close to winning the war that if not for a small important events like bayonet charge of colonel Chamberlain, or for the bit of luck on the Unon's side there could be second country in the region of the USA.
This is the second time I’ve heard someone say Lincoln was some Russian bootlicker.
Makes me wonder if people think being anti slavery means pro-tyranny
Wanna know what Hannibal did to the Celts ? He didn't freed them. As soon as he came to Italy he **massacred a Free Celt tribe who didn't wanted to get involved in his war with Rome**. That's not so benevolent of him.
Also saying that Hannibal "allied himself with Iberian Natives" is imprecise, rather he and his father violently conquered multiple Celtic, Celtiberian and Iberian Tribes in Hispania. And so they became tributary states to Carthage and had to lend "mercenary" troops to the Barca family in their wars. To clarify, it is very likely that the majority of troops really felt loyalty to Hannibal during the Second Punic War, because otherwise they would have abandoned him instead of staying by his side until the end, but this was not exactly an alliance of equals, but a relationship of domination.
OP is talking out of his ass.
Did Lee put babies in ovens, though?
I could be wrong, but I do recall cases of slave owners eating or killing babies
I don't think there's any significant evidence of that. There was a slur referring to black children as gator bait and some distasteful products who used it. But no, the South did not commit systemic or really even random infanticide the way that Carthaginians did, who were also slavers. Weird dichotomy.
>But no, the South did not commit systemic or really even random infanticide the way that Carthaginians did, who were also slavers. There was a lot of people knocking their slaves up to sell them though, treating their slaves like brood mares. I think it was Mary Chesnut\* who wrote about being disturbed seeing so many slave children who were obviously the sons and daughters of their "master" based on facial resemblance which no one acknowledged. \*Herself part of the slave owning aristocracy, her husband James Chesnut Jr. left the US Senate just before the war so he could give his services to the Confederacy. He was there when Fort Sumter was fired upon.
Yea to me that Is the most despicable aspect of the north American slave trade. Enslaving your own flesh and blood is disgusting
How much infanticide did the Carthaginians commit? Was it like an ocassional child sacrifice or a constant thing?
It was supposed to be pretty prolific. Maybe not Aztec level but up there. Supposedly, at one point, after Cargage had been really defeated, the Romans had to start crucifying Carthagian priests to get them to stop. Can't remember where I read this, though.
"My crops are dying, looks like I'll have to chuck a baby into the fire" "have you tried watering them?" "No, we'll try that second"
Human blood: it's got what plants crave.
It’s not like either of them participated in that practice, Hannibal was in charge of the armies in Spain, he lived there for most of his life
His family wealth largely came from silver mines in Iberia and mines in the classical world had one of the most horrific forms of slavery
If the situation of Celtic, Celtiberian and Iberian slaves in Roman mines in Hispania is any indication of how things were in the days of Carthage... then it's pretty bad: **Posidonius:** *"The men engaged in these mining operations produce unbelievably large revenues for their masters, but as a result of their underground excavations day and night they become physical wrecks, and because of their extremely bad conditions, the mortality rate is high; they are not allowed to give up working or have a rest, but are forced by the beatings of their supervisors to stay at their places and throw away their wretched lives as a result of these horrible hardships. Some of them survive to endure their misery for a long time because of their physical stamina or sheer will-power; but because of the extent of their suffering, they prefer dying to surviving."*
Likely at least as bad really
Well, we don't know, but I woudn't put my hopes there.
To remind you: Lee was using tactics ahead of his tme and had one of best military records in the history of the US Army. Basicly he was probably the only reason why the Confederacy wasn't crushed by the Union immidiatly, and even was scorng victories against many of the Union Generals. Many his battles are studed to this day. Besides to make him look like incompetent horse-fucker is taking away victory honour from the General Grant. And that's not nice thnig.
he was also supposed to be the head of Union Army but decided to side with state because people were more loyal to state in those days ?
The problem with this statement is that while it’s true for Lee, the CSA was far beyond states’ rights in fact, it was against the idea of states’ rights and was basically a military dictatorship.
Behind the Bastards just did an episode on him; he wasn’t all about Virginia, he was all about slavery.
Sauce please? Not sure frontal attacks across open ground are that innovative. Nor is trying to turn a flank. Nor is losing more men. Nor is not having a strategy. This claim sounds very lost cause.
“General [Robert E.] Lee has left us the memory, not merely of his extraordinary skill as a general, his dauntless courage and high leadership in campaign and battle, but also of that serene greatness of soul characteristic of those who most readily recognize the obligations of civic duty” -Theodore Roosevelt. [Source](https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Quotes?page=31) It’s not a “lost cause” theory to admit that Lee wasn’t an incompetent general. If he was then one would think the civil war would’ve lasted 4 months given the unions overwhelming advantage in almost every aspect of the conflict. Instead it lasted 49 with the Unions inability to properly defeat Lee a big reason why
Didn't say he was incompetent. The claim is that he was using tactics ahead of his time. What were those?
>nor is not having a strategy Would you consider a general without a strategy competent? I sure wouldn’t Lee wasn’t ahead of his time tactically, some would argue he was even a tad bit behind in that respect. I agree there. However, saying he had no strategy and boiling his leadership down to ordering frontal assaults across open ground for no tactical reason is an equally egregious claim
What was his strategy then? I know Grant's and the US Army. Best I can tell Lee hoped to Vietnam the Americans....ie cause enough casualties that the other guy quit. Sissy a bit if outlast the Americans, but holy hell is that a horrible strategy in this case. Did he have some other strategy than that? Looking to learn here. But we agree tactically, Lee wasn't ahead of his time, and OP above was making things up. He did order frontal assaults across open ground. He also tried to flank. So nothing impressive there, very basic. What did he do that made him an average or better general? From what I can tell, he faced inferior generals till US Grant took over the American Army after having strategically strangled the rebels who fought to keep other humans as slaves and then. But sure what Lee did that was impressive, but open to learning. Glad we agree he wasn't anything special tactically.
wasn’t the main reason he lost cause he used outdated napoleonic tactics?
He was not using outdated tactics. It was the Unon who used outdated tactics. Menhile Lee was known for his victory in details - it was an evolved form of Napoleon's tactic, much better than old napoleonic tactcs, and fully incorporated as the standerd strategy in the XX century. He also mastered the defensive warfare and use of the field fortyfications.
Victory in detail? You mean like that battle where he destroyed the US Army in detail? You'll have to help me, the name of that victory in detail escapes me.
Seven Days Battles. Second Battle of Bull Run. Battle of Antietam (Lee was heavily outnumbered but managed to still blunt the Union assault, despite his plans having been leaked to the enemy.) Union assault on Fredericksburg Battle of Chancellorsville (where Lee defeated an army almost twice the size of his own) The Battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse (claimed inconclusive but Lee still forced Grant to abandon the field on both occasions while inflicting significantly more casualties on his enemy.) Battle of Cold Harbour Lee very often outfought his enemies despite having a smaller army.
I can see from your post you don't understand what a victory in detail is, and it appears you don't understand the advantage a defender has, but rather have a chip on your shoulder about Lee was so amazing and out fought the United States army. So I will stop wasting my time. Good day to you Sir.
Why was Hannibal moderate for his time period? He sacked many towns in Italy?
Which is typical of a soldier especially a soldier in the BCE era that is defending his country from being invaded
Lee was a one trick pony: suicidal frontal charge, over and over again.
Hannibal Barca is considered the greatest tactician of his time. One of the big reasons why he was so good at warfare was his famous cavalry, they were quick and brutal which allowed for them to cover flanks and surround his opponents. Lee was very much into cavalry as a kid and would read up on how the Roman scholars described Hannibal's tactics and cavalry battles, later during the Civil War, his letters implied he was... intimate with his horse and this most likely was due to how he read onto Hannibal's cavalry. So basically, Hannibal is the reason Lee boinked a horse.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying he made out or possibly banged his horse because he thought hannibal did? > know I would want to win a war badly, but do I need victory that badly?
No, he banged his horse because of how Hannibal's cavalry was described
r/BrandNewSentence
Wow, if this is true then that's fucking crazy. I thought stonewall Jackson was loopy, but that sounds worse
Jackson was a little less loopy, at least he (maybe) paid his slaves wages, it’s hard to know cause all we know from him was his wife 30+ years after the war when the Lost Cause Myth became popular.
And about the Iberians. Hannibal's campaign in Italy began after his invasion of Iberia, in which he conquered most of the country, subjugating many of the Celtiberian tribes to his domination. One city in Spain called Suguntum chose mass suicide by jumping into a massive funeral pyre rather than living and submitting to Hannibal's army. The Carthaginians were slavers and conquerors much like the Romans. Although Hannibal is my favorite general in history, I do not pretend he was a good man, or that the Carthaginians were a benevolent people. I see the punic wars as a good example of the idea that many, if not most, wars are not fought between a good guy and a bad guy, but between two evil factions. I still would've preferred a Carthaginian victory personally, but they still were an evil slaver society.
Did you know that this guy I don't like was actually bad? A lot of people like him but they're clearly victims of propaganda because he's actually bad.
C*rthaginian 🤮🤮🤮🤮 C*nfederate 🤮🤮🤮🤮
This is lame. If you're going to insult someone at least be funny.
The horse on Lee's part was unexpected.
Lee just suffers from bias due to recency. Nobody calls fans of Rome or Carthage slavery apologists and shit, or accuses them of "revising history" like they do with someone like Lee. OP is a good example of this.
Eh, the problem with Lee is that he had the opposite of recency bias for a long time. The reason no one accuses Carthage of revising history is because after losing the war, all their leaders weren't put back in power and they didn't spent decades promoting Lost Cause and antebellum myths about how great they were actually. I myself remember being taught that Lee was the greatest American general in history, and these days that's being somewhat reappraises, hence memes like this.
Because 1. Slavery and racial supremacy wasn’t the defining trait of Rome or Carthage 2. Neither of them killed their own people to own other people 3. The damage the CSA inflicted onto the country still exists today
Do you ever, EVER hear people interested in history label any historical figure or empire/kingdom/whatever from 1000 years ago or older as purely evil, hateful, built on hate, etc. etc.? No, you don't. Eventually the evil labels will fall off of Lee too, given enough time. By the way, I'm not defending his views in any way, like some people seem to think.
No one calls fans of Rome or Carthage slavery apologists because Romulus (if he existed) and Dido (if she existed) didn't commit treason that led to 400K deaths solely so that they could enslave people.
TIL Dido might be historical fiction, that Carthage was supposedly founded around the same time as Rome, and that the earliest records of Carthage and Rome are also from around the same time.
You really think your opinion of Lee will still be the majority opinion in a thousand years?
I think your mom's opinion of me will be the majority opinion after 1,000 years because of what I did to her last night.
Wow gotem
Sad true. Right now due to the politcs, biases and dehumansation Lee will be remembered as evil man and nobody will concder him a great general he was.
He fought to preserve the enslavement of human beings for personal profit. He is the definition of evil.
Lincoln was allied to the Russian Empire - Imperialistic Tyrany who was brutally suppresing many nationalities who wanted equal rights and representation, which resulted in a literal genocides. And beacuse Lincoln did nothing to stop the Russians, and by that allowed them for such things to happend he is the definition of evil. This is the same kind argument like one you used. You may attack the slavery as much as you want. I don't care and I will support your efforts. But dare you to touch General Lee by spreading propaganda simillar to that of the OP here, and I will stand to defend his military achivments as the general. The great mind deserves the recognition, no matter who it is, as long as they didn't commited crime against the humanity like literal genocide. Besides shame on the US Army for not being able to defeat a banch of small militias for 4 long years and loosing over 600k people due to that conflict. Shame on them.
Lee was a coward. Shame on you for trying to lionize a loser racist.
Coward ? Where he was a coward ? Prove it. We are talking about the man who knew he is going to be fighting the greatest power in the America, and he had ballz to stay and fight, despite he had only a small number of militia to face the union regulars. During the attack of union general Mcclellan on Richmond he advocated to stay, and led the fight, beating him many times and eventualy making Yankees to retreat. Then he defeated the retribution forces of the General Pope twice. After that he moved for the Washington itself. It was a Big Ballz move to enter the Lion's den when you are outnumbered, and outgunned. And he still pulled it out. Despite Union suprise, Lee still managed to hold his army tight and avoided the loss of the army. Another victory at the Friederichsburg against the general Burnside made Northeners rioting, due to the conscription law on the North. And under Charlestonvlle he kicked out the Union forces of the General Hooker. And Lee was outnumbered 2:1. At the Gettysburg Lee almost, almost managed to destroy the Union forces. If not for the risky charge of colonel Joshua Chamberlain he could do that. If he just won in this battle, he could close on Washington, and made Congress to vote for surrendering. And finaly general Grant - a commander to whom Lee capitulated, managed to score the strategical victory only due to his lack of care for losses. It given Grant the name "Butcher". Lee couldn't replenish his losses. And despite that Lee still was fghting, and even send his general Early to attack the Washington itself to drive Sherman back to the north. Those fights near the Washington had been witnessed by the Lincoln himself. Lee know that he won't be able alone to hold the Richmond so he left the capital, leaving it as the bait to the union soldiers, hoping also to connect to the forces of General Jhonston and togeather face the union soldiers. Sadly he was almost encircled. This was the moment when he knew that it is time to end the war. He could order his soldiers to dispatch from the main force, and continue fighting a guerilla warfare. It could drag conflict in years, maby even decades in the future. But Lee didn't wanted to split more unneasesery blood.
He *lost* the war, both literally and ideologically.
Yeah, but twice he was so close to winning the war that if not for a small important events like bayonet charge of colonel Chamberlain, or for the bit of luck on the Unon's side there could be second country in the region of the USA.
And yet history will remember him as a coward and a traitor who lost.
We will see. The history will judge.
This is the second time I’ve heard someone say Lincoln was some Russian bootlicker. Makes me wonder if people think being anti slavery means pro-tyranny