Lee was still a good general. He kept an army twice his size at bay for 4 years and with less supplies and manpower than his adversary. That alone speaks for his ability as a general. Despite rumors of not being aggressive enough, he did invade the North twice at Antietam and Gettysburg. Although his plan of attack was good he only failed due to the 'fog of war' which included (a) lack of coordination and/or (b) lack of supplies or (c) poor intelligence. Lee, like many people who lived during that time period, had an individual view of what 'Union' was. To many Southerners, the Union was an agreement of sovereign states. In a nutshell, there was more loyalty to state or region than to the federal government. So, his ultimate decision to forgo his oath of office to the US Government to protect his home, his state, is not surprising. Lee's slaves were not his; they were his father in laws and were left to Lee's wife. According to Emory Thomas, Lee was always uncomfortable around the slaves and did not like having to give them orders. He freed them as he was obligated to do by his father in law's will. Lee was no more a 'butcher' than Grant. Remember that for the most part the Civil War was fought with Napoleonic tactics. It wasn't until late in the war that either side adapted their tactics to overcome the more efficient range and killing ability of the weapons being used. Despite what historians may say about Lee, I've read enough about him to say openly that I respect him thoroughly.  | 
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
