- This topic has 6 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
Lee had the advantage of more modern warfare techniques and technology. He also had an army led by veteran generals who fought in previous wars (primarily the Mexican War). Washington had military experience in the French and Indian War, but that war was mostly a collection of semi major skirmishes spread out over a vast area of land. The British primarily led that effort with the colonies participating in secondary support roles. Washington was a good general and had he the technology available to Lee, he could do some damage. However, in the end, Lee had more of a killer instinct whereas Washington was more cautious. Cautious generals never fared too well against Lee. The ones who did best were the “fighters” like McDowell, Hooker, Sheridan, and of course Grant.
A guy who fought in Mexico as a lieutenant was a veteran but he was not a veteran general. There is a world of difference between commanding a company or battalion and commanding a brigade, division, or corps.
A guy who fought in Mexico as a lieutenant was a veteran but he was not a veteran general. There is a world of difference between commanding a company or battalion and commanding a brigade, division, or corps.
True, but they were officers in the primary campaigns and they learned modern warfare techniques. They also became battle hardened while becoming accustomed to fighting a professional army. Washington didn't get to participate in that level of combat experience in the French and Indian War. It's really not that important of a point anyway.
i would have to go with Washington. First and foremost because he won, but also because he actually fought a more modern(learned from the Romans v Hannibal) style of warfare. He knew that to battle the British empire you would have to outlast them, to defeat them in fixed battles was not going to happen regularly. The best way for an outmatched army to win is to make it too costly ie lives, material and money for the superior side. Time, basically, is always on the side of the underdog. Prolong warfare, and your odds of winning increase exponentially. Washington knew this, and that is why he is on the dollar bill and has a big monument in D.C..Lee, and other top echelon Southerners failed to see this and were too attached to the Napoleonic concept of warfare. One big battle to end the war was not going to happen, as evidenced by the opinion at First Manassas that one fight with picnicers in attendance would end the conflict, it didnt quite work out that way. Especially after Gettysburg and Vicksburg in 1863, Lee knew the war for the South had in reality become a lost cause, and instead of resigning(which he did attempt) he continued to fight the same style, which led to the utter ruination of the South. Great generals have to have the ability to adapt, he did not. Though he was a superb battlefield general, he has to receive demerits for overall war conduct. Now Washington v Sherman...thats an interesting one...
Well Klausewitz, Lee suffered from a bad political situation that Washington didn't. Washington was more or less the government (think of martial law style of government here), while Lee had a President who micromanaged everything about the war and overruled many of his tactical decisions such as enlisting slaves into the army. Despite the mismanagement of Jefferson Davis, Lee still prolonged the conflict and abused many of Lincoln's incompetent generals….or at least made them look incompetent. Finally, Lee simply didn't have the industrial resources to keep pace with the North, and the Civil War was the first “modern war.” But I will agree that he was stuck in the Napoleonic era tactically (but Lee was an old man and still of that generation).
Washington went out of his way to defer to the Continental Congress during the Revolution. The last thing he wanted to be seen as or act like was some kind of Generalissimo.
Washington went out of his way to defer to the Continental Congress during the Revolution. The last thing he wanted to be seen as or act like was some kind of Generalissimo.
They weren't going to tell him how to run the war though.
Washington was actually a compromise choice at the beginning for the head of the Continental Army. John Hancock was also in the running. The New England contingent felt that by making Washington commander, they would tie Virginia, at that time the most populous state, to the cause of revolution. Many New Englanders felt that Washington was too slow, and contemplated replacing him with Horatio Gates. Not until the Battle of Monmouth(under Gates), which was disastrous, did Washington put the naysayers to rest. That is when he became the image on the dollar bill.Lee, while not being the first choice to lead the Army of Northern Virginia(Joe Johnson), tended to have great confidence with Jeff Davis. When Lee tendered his resignation after Gettysburg, Davis refused it. At this point Davis knew that any hope for the Confederacy resided with Lee, as is evidenced by the entire collapse of resistance after the surrender at Appomattox. It is my opinion that had Lee resigned after Gettysburg, the South would have surrendered far earlier(1864) and saved the South the utter destruction that followed. After Gettysburg, i believe that most of the army fought for Lee, the politics had gone by the wayside. And there is no doubt the army loved Lee.And while i believe Lee was a great general, as evidenced by his body of work, Washington, the General(not the myth) is an Immortal to me. He belongs with the Caesars and Alexanders.Then again, i could be wrong, it has happened before, many times.
That's like asking who is the better quarterback. The guy with the better stats or the guy who wins the supper bowl.I say Washington. Lee had better "stats," but Washington--while only winning three of nine major battles--won the war.Washington knew how to win the war. And did.I don't think Lee knew how to win the war because he was stuck in the Napoleonic era where single battles won wars. But even if Lee knew how to win, he lost. Antietam and Gettysburg were lost due to Lee's tactical errors, not Davis' micromanagement. Davis wanted to send Lee to reinforce Vicksburg, whereas Lee thought by invading the North that Grant would forced to lift the siege at Vicksburg. That didn't happen. Which is one of several reasons I think Lee, unlike Washington (and Grant), didn't see the big picture.
That's like asking who is the better quarterback. The guy with the better stats or the guy who wins the supper bowl.I say Washington. Lee had better "stats," but Washington--while only winning three of nine major battles--won the war.Washington knew how to win the war. And did.I don't think Lee knew how to win the war because he was stuck in the Napoleonic era where single battles won wars. But even if Lee knew how to win, he lost. Antietam and Gettysburg were lost due to Lee's tactical errors, not Davis' micromanagement. Davis wanted to send Lee to reinforce Vicksburg, whereas Lee thought by invading the North that Grant would forced to lift the siege at Vicksburg. That didn't happen. Which is one of several reasons I think Lee, unlike Washington (and Grant), didn't see the big picture.
I have to disagree here. I believe Lee already knew the war was a foregone conclusion even as early as 1863, but he hoped to strike a political blow in the North that would topple Lincoln and cause Northern support for the war to falter. It was a gambit with higher risk and greater reward. He took a chance and it failed. Besides if he diverted resources to Vicksburg, he would have left himself and the capital very vulnerable which would have caused them greater harm. Davis ultimately decided that Kirby Smith was the only hope of saving Vicksburg and Smith proved unable to do so despite the best efforts of his best general, Richard Taylor, who tried to get Trans-Mississippi forces across the Mississippi River. The North had a 9:1 advantage in manpower and industrial output. The South simply couldn't maintain forces across such a vast amount of territory like the North could. It was all they could do to win a few battles here and there to delay the inevitable. Washington would have fared no better, and probably worse, if he faced similar odds with the British...which he didn't.
I have to disagree here. I believe Lee already knew the war was a foregone conclusion even as early as 1863, but he hoped to strike a political blow in the North that would topple Lincoln and cause Northern support for the war to falter.
Hope is not a strategy as many people more famous than me have pointed out.
