- This topic has 10 voices and 29 replies.
-
Posts
-
Lee was an icon who commanded the worship of his men. Longstreet and Jackson were the brilliant tacticians who made Lee look good. Still Lee was able to inflict pyschological terrror into the Army of the Potomac until Gettysburg. Lee was a great general because he listened to his generals and when they argued, he kept them in line. He was a great administrator and very able to deal with Jefferson Davis whereas other generals struggled to have good relationships with the meddling Confederate President. Grant gave Lee the opportunity to inflict horrible casualties everytime he experimented with hackneyed strategies. He did the same thing during the Vicksburg campaigns before he just realized that attrition was the best way to defeat the Confederate armies. But as for Lee being overrated, I won't go that far since he was of the old school academy who did change his tactics to adapt to the new form of warfare…..although he did have lapses when he did stupid things like Pickett's Charge. By Petersburg, he was listening to Longstreet who understood trenches and parapets and pillbox style defenses were the way to holdout. The Siege of Petersburg really became a precursor to World War I style warfare.
I think in the end it comes down to the simple fact that Lee was a brilliant tactition while Grant was a brilliant strategist. Each had brilliant subordinates: Lee had Jackson and Longstreet while Grant had Sherman and McPherson. Each also had a coterie of solid but not brilliant subordinates such as Meade. Both were trapped in the training they received that emphasized short-range tactics that was designed to get a large mass of men with bayonets on top of the enemy positions, which worked fine for Napoleon when the firearms had a relatively short accurate range but were horribly ineffectual when faced with the rifled musket, much less the breechloader or repeating rifle. The result was Cold Harbor, Spottsylvania, Fredericksburg, Pickett's Charge, the attempt to take Vicksburg by storm, etc. In the end Grant won because of superior resources, i.e. more men, and a willingness to spend them when necessary. He was also willing to admit when he made mistakes such as those at Vicksburg and the Wilderness. Each man did what he had to do with what he had to work with. Lee kept the Confederacy alive far longer than most other generals would have BUT he is not the God-of-War that he is too often portrayed as while all the rest are several levels below him. He was a great general, so were Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Jackson, and others. All of them deserve equal recognition.
Lee was an icon who commanded the worship of his men.? Longstreet and Jackson were the brilliant tacticians who made Lee look good.? Still Lee was able to inflict pyschological terrror into the Army of the Potomac until Gettysburg.? Lee was a great general because he listened to his generals and when they argued, he kept them in line.? He was a great administrator and very able to deal with Jefferson Davis whereas other generals struggled to have good relationships with the meddling Confederate President.? Grant gave Lee the opportunity to inflict horrible casualties everytime he experimented with hackneyed strategies.? He did the same thing during the Vicksburg campaigns before he just realized that attrition was the best way to defeat the Confederate armies.? But as for Lee being overrated, I won't go that far since he was of the old school academy who did change his tactics to adapt to the new form of warfare.....although he did have lapses when he did stupid things like Pickett's Charge.? By Petersburg, he was listening to Longstreet who understood trenches and parapets and pillbox style defenses were the way to holdout.? The Siege of Petersburg really became a precursor to World War I style warfare.
I think you summed up Lee well. He ws not overrated but did have others who made him look good. Sometimes the Lee flag wavers forget to give credit to men like Longstreet and Jackson. I think a better case could be made for Grant then Lee, just because of the resources issue. I believe Lee did more with what he had then Grant could have put in a similer situation.
I would agree that Lee did more than Grant could have in a similar situation. I think Lee was more an intuitive tactician while Grant was a learner. Read his memoirs. It is an interesting trip as he learns lesson after lesson, starting with Belmont where he learns the first lesson in combat command 101 – your opponent is probably just as scared as you are. Grant also seemed to be more detached than Lee, never getting upset or excited. He was stolid while Lee was emotional. Grant would never have done what Lee did after Pickett's Charge and greet the returning survivors by asking their forgiveness and accepting all the blame. That may explain why Lee's subordinates seemed to either love or hate him (Pickett never spoke to him after the war if I remember correctly) while Grant's respected him.
Pickett never spoke to him after the war if I remember correctly while Grant's respected him.
Pickett never fully recovered from that battle and it was Lee's arrogance that caused it.
Pickett never fully recovered from that battle and it was Lee's arrogance that caused it.
Lee suffered from battle fatigue during Gettysburg. Arrogance might be a little harsh. Longstreet begged him not to go up the center, but Lee was convinced that Meade would reinforce his flanks to prevent them from being overrun after Chamberlain's valiant defense of Little Round Top. Lee didn't understand that Meade's forces had retracted into a fishook formation to where they could easily shift troops to the center or the flanks in a moment's notice.
Okay, maybe arrogance is a bit harsh, and there is some speculation that he was also suffering symptoms of the heart problems that eventually killed him, but failure to fully recce your enemy's position before launching a major attack is a cardinal sin, and Stuart had arrived by then. And while his cavalry was not in the best of shape because of Stuart's ill-advised attempt to repeat his glorious ride on the Peninsula, it was still in better shape than the Union cavalry which had take the brunt of the fighting on the 1st. All things considered Gettysburg was a disaster for the Confederacy because it violated the basic premise of a force-in-being – it let itself get pinned down in a battle where numbers ruled instead of remaining a significant threat. All-in-all, it was not a good performance by Lee.
Lee is usually portrayed as the ?god of war.? He wasn?t. While Lee was a good general, I think he is overrated.Lee lived in a day when technology made it easier to defend a position than it was to attack one. Additionally, as long as he remained in Northern Virginia he didn?t have to worry about things like supplies lines, navigating unknown territory, and a lack of information about enemy movements.He achieved nothing in Western Virginia. Other than earning the name of Granny Lee.Unlike Grant and Sherman, Lee was never able to successfully launch an invasion. He failed at Antietam/Sharpsburg and at Gettysburg. Both Lee and Grant were supreme commanders. Grant moved his armies in such a way that their combined movements had strategic impact. Lee never attempted anything of the sort?he had no vision for the role of a supreme commander.
Lee is usually portrayed as the “god of war.” He wasn’t. While Lee was a good general, I think he is overrated.Lee lived in a day when technology made it easier to defend a position than it was to attack one. Additionally, as long as he remained in Northern Virginia he didn’t have to worry about things like supplies lines, navigating unknown territory, and a lack of information about enemy movements.He achieved nothing in Western Virginia. Other than earning the name of Granny Lee.Unlike Grant and Sherman, Lee was never able to successfully launch an invasion. He failed at Antietam/Sharpsburg and at Gettysburg. Both Lee and Grant were supreme commanders. Grant moved his armies in such a way that their combined movements had strategic impact. Lee never attempted anything of the sort—he had no vision for the role of a supreme commander.
There's so much here to debate I don't know where to begin.I'm not going to say Lee was a "god of war" by any stretch, but he was the best strategic general of the Civil War hands down. Grant was a tremendous general in his own right, but he got more of his men killed and wounded than ever was necessary. Lee took him to the woodshed at the Wilderness Campaign, Spotsylvania, and especially Cold Harbor. Grant only won in the end because he had more men to bludgeon than Lee did pure and simple. Even Grant admitted as much. Lee also made other Union generals like Halleck, Pope, Hooker, and Winfield Scott look like complete imbeciles. Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville were masterful victories that left Union soldiers believing Lee to be invincible. It literally took Gettysburg for the Army of the Potomac to regain confidence in its own fighting ability again, and also to shake off their total fear of Lee. Having said this, Lee was so effective because he had Jackson and Longstreet by his side. Those two geniuses knew exactly how to make Lee's plans work, and they knew how to get the most out of their men. Lee was smart enough to delegate much of the planning to them, but in the end, it was his vision that made it possible for the Army of Northern Virginia to rule the Shenandoah Valley until very late in the war.
The question is not was Lee a great general. He was. The question is, ?Is Lee overrated.? I must respectfully disagree with the statement that ?[Lee] was the best strategic general of the Civil War hands down.? Without a doubt Lee was a master tactician. He was probably the best tactician in either army, but I wouldn?t call him the best strategic general of the Civil War.Lee?s victories remind me of those in Viet Nam in that strategically they didn?t accomplish a lot. When they were over little had changed and the South was really no closer to winning the war. In contrast, many of Grant?s victories had strategic meaning. Fort Donaldson moved the Union cause forward. Vicksburg split the South in half. Etc. I don?t see Lee?s victories having similar strategic impact.Lee was never able to launch a successful invasion of the North. Had Lee been able to accomplish something similar to Sherman?s March to the Sea or to have split the Union like Grant split the South at Vicksburg then the North would lost heart and forced Lincoln to have sued for peace. (Just think of what would have happened if Lee had forced Lincoln to evacuate Washinton D.C. or even seriously threatened it.) But Lee was unable to perform such feats even when he was up against such incompetent generals as McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker So, yes, I think Lee is overrated.
I don't think he was overrated. Most of the Confederate generals were handicaped by Jefferson Davis. Lee seemed to be able to handle him. When Jackson was alive Lee relied heavily on him. They thought very much alike and knew what to expect from each other. At Gettysburg without Jackson Lee told Ewell to take a hill on the first day and place artillery there if "practicable". Jackson would have taken that as an order rather than a suggestion.. Lack of CSA artillery and US artillery on the hill was a big factor. Also Lee probably had suffered a mild heart attack prior to Gettysbug. All in all, Lee was not a man I would play poker with.
When Jackson was alive Lee relied heavily on him. They thought very much alike and knew what to expect from each other. At Gettysburg without Jackson Lee told Ewell to take a hill on the first day and place artillery there if "practicable". Jackson would have taken that as an order rather than a suggestion.
To me this once again illustrates how Lee is overrated. If Lee had really been such a great a general then he?d have been able to give his orders in such a fashion that Ewell knew what actually expected of him.Lee gets all the credit for the battles he won; somebody else always gets the blame when he lost. The truth is that Lee didn?t lose Gettysburg because Jackson wasn?t there or because of Jefferson Davis. The same is true of Antietam and his failures in Western Virginia. Lee was unable to conduct offensive operations. Lee lost some battles (like Gettysburg and Antietam) against lousy generals that he should have/could have won?and that the South desperately needed to win. That?s part of why I think Lee is overrated.
A good general (or businessman for that matter) learns his subordinates strengths and uses them to the best advantage. The best managers do not micro manage but utilize the talents of others.When I was in business I trained my people and let them do their jobs. It worked.Lee had very good subordinates and used them to advantage except at Gettysburg.As for Antetium/Sharpsburg, remember that the battle plans had been lost and were in Federal hands so they knew in advance what the plan was. They still only fought him to a draw.In my opinion if the industrialized North had competent generals they would have whipped the agricultural South in 90 days. The South was outnumbered in manpower and lacking the factories and material to conduct a war.
H.H. – My history class just finished the Civil War and your opinion about the industrialized North versus the agricultural South is a question that I've had but an answer hasn't been provided until now. Competent generals, or the lack there of, is the most logical answer I've heard, so far. It took awhile for the North to get its “act together”, so to speak.
BensgalThe South had some very good generals but like all militaries there were ego conflicts and personality clashes. A.P. Hill was an excellent general(altho he was unable to function at times due to gonorrhea he had contracted while at West Point). Stonewall Jackson did not like Hill altho he relied heavily on Hill at times. Had Hill placed under arrest twice. Jefferson Davis detested Joe Johnson and loved the incompetent Braxton Bragg.The North also had the same problems but all in all the South had the cream of the crop in generals. This prolonged the war beyond what would be expected
