Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of Lee's character as well as a lack of understanding of what it takes to run governments and armies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5fish
How would you(cash) have solved Lee's dilemma? Now think, Lee's army is becoming ramshackle and is slowly losing it viability as a fighting force and the prospects of winning the war are fading too all under Pres. Davis's war policies.
Policies of which Lee approved. Why is there such a need to blame others for Lee's shortcomings and mistakes?
I assume you would keep Lee as commander of the ANV as well? How is he, who was already sick in 1863, going to handle the multitude of details of running a government along with the multitude of details of running an army?
Well 5Fish, since the chance of saving the csa rests outside a military solution. Then looking to Lee to rescue the south from itself is irrational.
Lee had neither the authority nor inclination to save either the south or the csa.
From the written record, Lee's political perceptions and beliefs, such as they were, leave little encouragement that he possessed any political skills or intellect of any particular depth that would make one confident that he could, even if he wanted, to save the south Or the CSA, outside of Va.
Well 5Fish, since the chance of saving the csa rests outside a military solution. Then looking to Lee to rescue the south from itself is irrational.
Lee had neither the authority nor inclination to save either the south or the csa.
From the written record, Lee's political perceptions and beliefs, such as they were, leave little encouragement that he possessed any political skills or intellect of any particular depth that would make one confident that he could, even if he wanted, to save the south Or the CSA, outside of Va.
I understand everything one reads about Lee is that he dislike politics and beleive the military should obey and follow it's civilian leaders. He would most likely be the last person to lead a coup.
The summer of 1863 it was obvious the civilian government of the Pres. Davis was mismanaging the war effort and their war strategies were not working. It was also obvious that Pres. Davis was incapable or unwilling to chance or redirect the south's war policies and strategies.
If you read about the weeks leading up to Gettysburg, Lee knew the war policies of Pres. Davis were not working and he tried to encourage Pres. Davis to chance his management of the war. He knew well before he before he lead his army north that Pres. Davis was unwilling to follow a knew course for the war.
The questions become: What should Lee do to prevent the collapse of his army and the rebellion?
The answer is Pres. Davis needed to go and a new leader put in charge. Lee has the creditability and the army to lead a coup or support someone else like John C. Breckenridge in a coup.
I bet if Lee wanted. He could have just force Pres. Davis out of office and put the V.P. Stephens in as President.
Bottom Line: Lee knew the present path the rebellion was on was failing and would end in the death of the southern cause. What was he to do or should do?
"Move Longstreet and his Corps by rapid rail movement to Johnston"
It's easy to say that Longstreet could move from Virginia and arrive quickly in Mississippi. In fact it is a rather an oxymoron, that the Confederacy ever did much quickly, by rail. Even Longstreet's move to Georgia, was slow and much slower than the later move of the Union 11th and 12th Corps from Virginia to southern Tennessee.
Too many rail switching to get to Mississippi. Plus there was no available rail, all the way, from Richmond to Jackson. And where would they find the supplies for an entire corps, all along the rail route.
The one thing the Confederacy did not have was efficient movements of supplies. In fact, there was a high level of incompetency by 1863, when it came to rail shipments by the Confederacy.
Even in Virginia, the Confederate railroad system shipped horseshoes to the wrong location, before Lee left for Pennsylvania in June, 1863. His army was severely short of horseshoes, and his horses/mules suffered greatly on the round-trip trek. But then for many historians, horseshoes were never as "exciting and important" as battles.
Lee was every inch a soldier. A McClellan or a Beaureguard might have had the ego to lead a coup, but not a Lee. I do think, however, that he ought to have used his considerable influence to persuade Davis to sue for a negotiated end to the war--preferably, immediately after Chancellorsville.
Just a thought.
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
Too many rail switching to get to Mississippi. Plus there was no available rail, all the way, from Richmond to Jackson. And where would they find the supplies for an entire corps, all along the rail route.
Totally agree! I'm still amazed that Longstreet was able to get his troops to Georgia -- even partially and just barely on time. Just reading about that trek wears me out.
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
Saving Vicksburg would not have given new life or viability to the southern cause. Only, a radical change in the policies of Pres. Davis could have given the southern cause a chance at viability.
No, saving Vicksburg wouldn't sustain the viability of the Confederate cause. However, it would show Grant to be another failed general and may have led to his possible removal. Saving Vicksburg would also deny the waters of the Mississippi to the Union.
The Confederacy would not only have to defeat Grant and save Vicksburg, but to sustain itself afterawards and wear out the Union resolve to win, keep its armies intact-much like Washington did during the Revolution. If it really wanted to bolsters its manpower, it would have to emancipate its slaves and arm them. This is something many slaveowners refused to do even at the very end.
IF one is interested in a 'radical' solution to the southern military AND poltical impasse in 1863, that 'might' have actually changed the course of the war. Then the assassination of Lincoln is probably the only 'viable' option. Although, I have stated my belief on other boards that the odds against the csa were so hight that even without Lincoln, a confederate success was hightly improbable.
There was a direct rail link between Va. via Knoxville to at least Chattanooga, available until Burnside took Knoxville just after Gettysburg. There were no 'good' solutions to the south strategic problems, so choosing the most 'likely' to achieve success should be the criteria.
Traveling through Chattanooga, armed with an order (or even a strong urging) from Davis and Lee might also, have pried some more men from Bragg.
Admittedly, the thought of Johnston actually successfully using his reinforced army to any lasting advantage is hard to contemplate, but the presence of a revitalized army on the Mississippi, would certainly disrupt Union plans in the West, Grant would have difficulty in taking Vicksburg and keeping Johnston at a safe distance at the same time. It almost certainly would have delayed the loss of Vicksburg.
Neither Hooker nor Meade were really up to keeping pressure on Lee and any other senior officer in the East were worse than those two. Roscrans was determined not advance his army until After Vicksburg was taken and successfully fended off all orders and entreaties of both Halleck And Lincoln to advance.
I have stated before that the above scenario, would in all liklihood have failed to save the confederacy or even prolong the war much. But nothing is written in stone as to future events and a lucky stroke or blunder 'might' have changed the balance of power in the West. We certainly know that not doing it and allowing Lee to have his way, set the stage for the south's ultimate defeat.
IMO, everyone is underestimating the depths of Davis' obstinatcy and stubborness. As to surrender, Davis would have been as impervious to Lee's blandishment's as he was to all others who thought the unthinkable.
If Lee pressed the matter to the end, he would have had to resign or be relieved. No One, not even Lee would change Davis' mind on this particular matter.
So maybe it is preposterous to think of Lee leading of supporting a coup that topples Pres. Davis.; but would if someone else lead a coup that topples Pres. Davis? Would Lee follow the knew leaders in Richmond?
Does anyone on this board truly think that Johnston and Longstreet could defeat Grant and Sherman? I putting my money on Grant and company.
In the summer of 1863, had the south broken up its armies into smaller independent forces working alone or together much like the Afghan's did to the Russian's in the 1980's, would this have prolong the war long enough to weaken the north's resolve.
Think smaller units could live off the land easier and off what they take from the union forces. Blockade runner would have the whole coast to drop supplies off instead of the need for ports. Think of the possibilities.
I know the civilian government would have to become mobile or even go into exile. It would force back on the union the care of civilians in the south.
Larry the confederate army would have to behave like your buddy Forrest.
So maybe it is preposterous to think of Lee leading of supporting a coup that topples Pres. Davis.; but would if someone else lead a coup that topples Pres. Davis? Would Lee follow the knew leaders in Richmond?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
