Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.
Doesn't make much sense considering Lee was so reluctant to leave the Union...wait, I'm historically analyzing a t-shirt! I need to lie down.
You're right, it's ironic that a general who mourned the collapse of the Union but remained a patriot, to his state is on the shirt. Historically more accurate might be the phrase "least likely to secede," but that would be inconsistent with his battlefield victories (upon which they are, of course, playing). Outside of the South... and the ranks of civil war aficionados... most people would be hard-pressed to recognize any other Confederate general.
Well, that's enough t-shirt analysis for me too!
__________________ Chaplain Rob Stroud, USAF (Retired) Son of SgtMaj Chuck Stroud, USMC Grandson of Corporal Charles Stroud, USA Great-Grandson of Corporal Chauncey Stroud, Fifth Iowa Volunteer Cavalry
On another thread, Lee's ideas about secession are being extensively discussed, so I won't go into it here.
Despite his skill as a commander, Lee would eventually be forced to surrender. What could he have done personally as commander of the ANV, or urged the CSA as a whole that would have staved off defeat?
What could he have done differently in the battles he conducted? IMO, his one weakeness as a commander was ordering frontal assaults, which he did at the Seven Days, Gettysburg, and during the Wilderness, never successfully(but correct me). Union generals made similar mistakes at Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor and other, less famous sites.
I don't view examining Lee's faults as taking away from his rightfully earned place in history,quite the opposite. I see it as putting the man as opposed to the myth into that earned niche. I found as a student i related least to those who were presented as "legends". analyzing his mistakes simply shows his humanity.
Respectfully,
Matt
__________________ Great-Great Grand Nephew of George H. Pfau, 4th NJ Vol Infantry
The romance and flaws of the losing side. Historians did much, not to lay any blame on Lee and his Confederate army.
There are accounts that the ANV was not properly equipped to endure a long campaign in Pennsylvania.
By the time of Lee's move in Pennsylvania, Vicksburg was cut off and surely lost to a siege. An American general would have been seriously questioned in the late 20th Century, if they went into battle with so little fuel for their tanks, as Lee was going into battle with so little forage for his horses and mules.
Perhaps by not faulting Lee, one can retain Lee as a great general, ignore his shortage of supplies, and not conclude that Lee might have thought the Confederacy at the time of Gettysburg, was very capable of losing the war. If one studies the logistics of the Confederate move into Pennsylvania, one might, I think, correctly ask why the Confederacy thought it could win the war.
I think one can suspect that Lee attacked at Gettysburg because his time was running out, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Virginia and thoughout the Confederacy.
Perhaps Lee was thinking that his magnificent infantry could win one, late in the "fourth quarter" , as he truly may have known it was the "fourth quarter" of the war.
Lee fought to the virtual end. He never admitted the war was probably lost until near the very end. And even then, Lee seemed to have difficulties accepting defeat at Appomattox.
I think Lee's actions are absolutely connected to his vision of the war's progression. His actions at Gettysburg are so often treated with throw away statments about frontal assaults and such, but I think his decisions actually make sense when viewed in the light that Lee probably knew the South had no real chance. His actions were the last vain attempt to retrieve a desperate situation. Lee made mistakes, absolutely. But I think most criticisms of Lee focus on his bloody attacks and revolve around the idea that he bled the ANV dry. I personally think these criticisms often don't really take into account the idea that Lee knew that only an aggressive offensive victory could possibly redeem the situation. But I suppose much of the argument hinges on whether one belives the south should have been offensive or defensive in strategy. Lee should not be spared scrutiny, but sometimes I get the impression that some criticisms of Lee are based less on a desire to correct the historical record, but rather to delight in tarnishing Lee himself. I suppose the same could be said of many revisionist looks at historical figures. As in all cases, there is good revisionism and bad revisionism; it all depends on the author's intent and use of the facts.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
I personally think these criticisms often don't really take into account the idea that Lee knew that only an aggressive offensive victory could possibly redeem the situation. But I suppose much of the argument hinges on whether one belives the south should have been offensive or defensive in strategy. Lee should not be spared scrutiny, but sometimes I get the impression that some criticisms of Lee are based less on a desire to correct the historical record, but rather to delight in tarnishing Lee himself.
Agree with you that Lee didn't like the line that "all the south has to do is NOT lose. He did some serious butt-kicking and almost had the north close to folding -- until Gettysburg. He just didn't have what he needed -- and that includes the CSA government.
Have also noted that some people simply can't acknowledge that some darned good men walked the face of this country. The "heroes" must be made ordinary. Or lucky. Or evil. Lee had his failings, but he emerged from the unpleasantness deservedly honored. While I don't mind discussing his occasional faux pas, I recognize that he came through the war with his honor, dignity, and goodness intact -- with a couple of clay toes.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I think you've touched on both ways historical figures are re-examined. Some people just want to demolish heroes. That's not the same as the more responsible folks who are willing to point out flaws were deserved, but are guided only by the facts, not an emotional urge to destroy (or build up). I actually think that the analysis of Lee is pretty even handed within the serious ACW community. I seem to hear quite often accusations that people view Lee as incapable of wrong and that history has not judged him accurately. That may be true to some extent in the general public's conciousness. But I rarely hear people who criticize Lee in such a manner offer the proof that there is some vast conspiracy to protect Lee's image. Currently Lee is often criticized, but not attacked for his mistakes (at least among responsible authors).
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
I think nbforrest's post about Lee using aggressive action as his solution to the unequal numbers makes a lot of sense. Having the smaller force and resource base, he had to take longer chances in order to win.
About tearing down heroes, I think that's this weird cycle our society is currently in. First you build up and build up a character to an unrealistic level of perfection, and then you tear them down, because apparently anything less than perfection is unacceptable. People said they want heroes, but it seems like they can't tolerate them either.
In Victorian times, Lee's times, they had their heroes, and turned a blind eye to any flaws. I suppose that's not a good idea either. Why can't we have a more mature understanding of major historical figures? Instead of a gallery of heroes and villians, portraits of human beings who were capable of great things.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lee Irony 
Linear Mode
