What if Davis, Lee, and others are hung for treason?

What exactly is supposed to surprise us? Black troops fighting hard or Fitz Lee exagerating the numbers against him?:confused:

Fitz Lee threatening "I cannot be responsible for the consequences (which we all know what they will be) if you don't surrender."

Given we're talking about USCT troops, those consequences range from officially authorized horrible to officially accepted horrible.

Should have been clearer, my bad.
 
Fitz Lee threatening "I cannot be responsible for the consequences (which we all know what they will be) if you don't surrender."

Given we're talking about USCT troops, those consequences range from officially authorized horrible to officially accepted horrible.

Should have been clearer, my bad.

Of course I am not. In fact I think if they surrendered he would have had them all killed anyways.
 
Of course not, he would probably ENCOURAGE it.

He did IOTL and he didn't punish anybody for the massacre in the Battle of the Crater, the largest massacre of USCT in the war, and refused to trade black POWs in Union Blue for white Confederate POWs. Lee the Marble Man should be dynamited into powder. :mad:
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
He did IOTL and he didn't punish anybody for the massacre in the Battle of the Crater, the largest massacre of USCT in the war, and refused to trade black POWs in Union Blue for white Confederate POWs. Lee the Marble Man should be dynamited into powder. :mad:
I agree. Quite frankly, I'm pretty disgusted that we've got a Confederate Mt. Rushmore.

That abomination should be demolished.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
No, replace that with the image of James Longstreet......;):D
OrsonWellesClap.gif
 
He did IOTL and he didn't punish anybody for the massacre in the Battle of the Crater, the largest massacre of USCT in the war, and refused to trade black POWs in Union Blue for white Confederate POWs. Lee the Marble Man should be dynamited into powder. :mad:

The thing I really don't get about that one (bolded) is that a nonideologue would have done it and treated the consequences as less undesirable than the consequences of standing firm on "no exchange".

Or at the very least, pressed (hard) on Congress to make that official.

Lee, to his shame, did neither.

And I'm looking at this purely in terms of Lee not being as reasonable-minded as he's said to be. Screw human concerns, Lee should have encouraged taking prisoners specifically to exchange his own captured men.

But noooooo. Bobby had to cling to all that made the planter class an abomination second only to the Junkers.
 
The thing I really don't get about that one (bolded) is that a nonideologue would have done it and treated the consequences as less undesirable than the consequences of standing firm on "no exchange".

Or at the very least, pressed (hard) on Congress to make that official.

Lee, to his shame, did neither.

And I'm looking at this purely in terms of Lee not being as reasonable-minded as he's said to be. Screw human concerns, Lee should have encouraged taking prisoners specifically to exchange his own captured men.

But noooooo. Bobby had to cling to all that made the planter class an abomination second only to the Junkers.

With the result I might note that Lee's actions ensured the butcher's bill would be bloated by people dying in overcrowded and filthy conditions on both side of Mason and Dixon's line, all because Confederate policy refused under any circumstances to treat blacks as humans, not beasts. Every single soldier who died at Andersonville and in the worst Northern prisons is on the hands of Marble Bob, Seddon, and Davis.

The idea that Grant was really doing that for numerical power is immediately disproven by how easily the logjam was broken when the Confederacy finally budged on the issue in 1865. :mad:
 
Top