Civil War History - Gettysburg ForumGettysburg! It's not just a National Park. It's a Civil War Battlefield. For some it's historic and storied past are almost an obsession! All related discussions are welcome here!
The so called "best" general is/was much more than just a general. He (yes He) must be a diplomat too. He must have an outstanding supporting staff as well. The people who shields him from the problkems that come with command.
There is much more than just giving orders. It is a debate with different sides and views. Does he lead out of loyalty or fear? Maybe respect and confidence? In other words what does it take to motivate men to go above and beyond? To risk everything to follow his orders?
I think it takes different things to motivate different people and the general has to know this and use this to his advantage. He must know his men.
Hondo
__________________ To my ancestors in the
51st Virginia Infantry Co. D
50th Virginia Infantry Co. K
We will not forget!
Best general is the right man at the right place at the right time. I give Lee a lot of credit not because of his victories but because the war probably would have been lost much earlier had he remained just an advisor to Jefferson.
Well too much emphasis was placed on Lincoln's thinking that the AoP could do more. It was still fighting R.E. Lee and Lee was in a defensive situation after July 3rd rather than an offensive one. Lee could make mistakes on the offense; he was excellent on the defensive.
Lincoln in his probable war weariness thought that defeating the Confederate army was the same, and as easy, as destroying Lee's army. Rather overstating the case.
It took a siege by Grant nearly a year to defeat Lee. And Grant was the Union army's resident expert on siege warfare.
Halleck thought Meade the best the AoP had to that time.
When Meade heard of Lincoln's displeasure, he offered his resignation. It was more like -"stick it in his ear." Meade, in turn, got rid of a lot of what he considered "dead wood." Sickles never came back to the Army of the Potomac, despite his political connections. He got rid of Howard and Shurtz. Few historians seem to note the changes in the Army of the Potomac, made by Meade, prior to Grant's arrival in the east.
Whitworth:
With the exception of Gettysburg, history generally ignores George Gordon Meade, which is a shame. I'd rank him well above most generals of either side -- not brilliant, but certainly solid and capable.
One characteristic shared by the "great" generals was the tendency to eliminate troublesome subordinates. Grant, Sherman, Lee and others did not tolerate fractious lieutenants. They were not recalled to duty or posted where they could fester without infecting others. Today, we'd call that team-building.
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
Lee lost the battle at Gettysburg and later, lost the war. Meade Won at Gettysburg and later, was with the AoP (as it's commanding General) when the AoNV and it's commanding general surrendered.
Meade was good enough to 'Command' the AoP and probably defeat the AoNV, But he was just not confident 'enough' to beat Bobby Lee in a war.
But he was just not confident 'enough' to beat Bobby Lee in a war.
An interesting observation. Thanks.
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
Lee lost the battle at Gettysburg and later, lost the war.
Lee lost the war? I would rather say Bragg (KY&TN) and Pemberton with J.Johnston (Mississippi) and Davis has lost the war in the west in 1862-1863. Lee could probably hold Grant at Petersburg for entire war just what he needed were reinforcments and supplies, which were coming from.....west and Carolinas. But there was no Confederacy in west and in Carolinas at all in 1865.
Despite all the disasters in the West, Objectively, the war did not end until Lee surrendered.
Lee could have cut loose from Petersberg (and Richmond) and retreated to link up with the remnants of other Confederate armies (including those of the AoT) but he did not, because Grant did not let him.
Right, but even if Lee had linked with Johnston, even if half of soldiers had not deserted he would have maybe about 40+ thousend effective troops. Combined forces of Sherman & Grant had more then twice this number and both Lee & Johnston had no room to move, no place to retreat, no supplies to get from - it was dead end. War was lost for surly with loss of Atlanta. After that time, they were fighting only for honor/cause/becuase of sense of duty (don`t know how to express it in English, sorry ).
No argument here Nico, I was referring to the implications of the title of this thread, which seems to infer that at Gettysburg, Meade really lost and Lee really won. I was pointing out that IMO there is no doubt who won at Gettysburg and more importantly, who lost.
Others have noted that starting with Gettysburg, Lee never won another offensive campaign. That Lee did not 'Just' decide to surrender to Grant and the AoP, he was 'forced' to captitulate.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
).
Linear Mode
