The "Marble Man" Would Have Never Been

[War Horse]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

 

[RobertP]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

Fate didn't bring them together. Lee had a keen eye for talent and he built that team. It wasn't just an accident of chance.

 

[jgoodguy]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

Good points, but without the Virginia publicists there'd be little notoriety. Without the Lost Cause deification of Lee, they'd have little note.

 

[jgoodguy]

Fate didn't bring them together. Lee had a keen eye for talent and he built that team. It wasn't just an accident of chance.

Maybe, but they had to prove themselves first. After the passing of Jackson, Lee's eye for talent seems to have faded.

 

[War Horse]

Fate didn't bring them together. Lee had a keen eye for talent and he built that team. It wasn't just an accident of chance.

I'd say the cast was pretty much already assembled when Lee was thrown into command. True, Lee was quick to get rid of lesser officers.

 

[leftyhunter]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

Fo you mean " better then any" ( not and general) ?
We can never answer an unknowable such has " could any other Confederate officer made a better general then Lee?
That is what Donald Rumsfeld would say is a " known unknown"?
Can anyone argue that Lee and his fellow generals did not do the best they could with the resources that were available to them?
Has Rumsfeld also said " you go to war with the army you have".
A good portion of Lee's men did not want to cross the Potomac river into Maryland. Not Lee's fault but it is his problem.
By the same token didn't General Bragg and his fellow generals un the West do the best they could with whatever resources were at their disposal?
Also we have to factor in Union mistakes.
Arguably the West simply had better Union generals such has Curtis, Herron, Ormsby, Rosecrans and this guy.
Compare those generals to McCellan, Hooker, Burnside, and Pope.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I'd say the cast was pretty much already assembled when Lee was thrown into command. True, Lee was quick to get rid of lesser officers.

Which brings up the next question ; is leadership everything?
Winning a war is not just about leadership but also about logistics and morale.
If soldiers are not well fed and equipped they are going to be less efficient. If soldiers can't even get shoes they can only do so much.
If soldiers get letters begging them to desert especially soldiers from Georgia and South Carolina during Sherman's march thats going to be a game changer.
If the Confederacy can't maintain it's railroads that's a huge problem.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

Which brings up the next question ; is leadership everything?
Winning a war is not just about leadership but also about logistics and morale.
If soldiers are not well fed and equipped they are going to be less efficient. If soldiers can't even get shoes they can only do so much.
If soldiers get letters begging them to desert especially soldiers from Georgia and South Carolina during Sherman's march thats going to be a game changer.
If the Confederacy can't maintain it's railroads that's a huge problem.
Leftyhunter

IMHO Lee's leadership style is going to need a particular set of skills from his corps commanders. Was he lucky to get those at first.

 

[leftyhunter]

IMHO Lee's leadership style is going to need a particular set of skills from his corps commanders. Was he lucky to get those at first.

True although do you mean ; at first Lee had Corps Commanders who possesed the particular skills Lee demanded but over time he had to utilize new Corps Commanders with less success?
Leftyhunter

 

[jackt62]

Lee was of course one of the great commanders in history, but he was also fortunate in operating in the confederacy's most effective military environment. By that I mean that, compared to the other theaters of war, the Virginia seat of war was advantageous to the south because of its shortened communication and supply lines, its ability to conduct operations against northern government and civilian centers, and its proximity to Richmond which guaranteed first dibs at available resources. Moreover, the ANV and its officers were most effective in part because of origins in the Virginia State Militia, which had a strong tradition of military excellence. So Lee, notwithstanding his own abilities, had a lot of good material to work with.

 

[leftyhunter]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

We should keep in mind that has Alexander Porter pointed out in his memoirs Jackson was not always successful has an independent commander.
Longstreet does have the dubious distinction of being defeated by General Burnside at the battle of Knoxville.
We have at least dozens of pages on Stewarts controversial ride around Gettysburg.
I would argue no side had giants both sides had generals who sometimes made good decisions and sometimes not so good decisons.
In the long run the Union has mentioned in so many previous posts had far more advantages then did the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

For a long time I have kicked this thought around in my head (not a safe place to be) General Robert E. Lee "The Marble Man" was just a man. Don't get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but was he that much better than and other general?

As I continue my studies of the CW I can't help but ponder this question. It seems to me fate had brought together a cast of men. I refer to these men as "The Four Giants" Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and Stewart. All were good soldiers and all were very capable men. Together these ordinary men would accomplish extraordinary things. They seemed to have the rare ability to know what to do and when to do it. Lee's vague orders were not as much of a problem with these individuals. Together four common men would make the history we love to study and debate today. Would any one of these men have achieved the notoriety they achieved without the others? Including Robert E. Lee.

Think about it. It's rare that fate brings such men together, but when it does, truly remarkable things happen.

What do you think?

Also we have to keep in mind conventional wars are always won on the offense not the defense. Lee fought two major offensive battles ; Antietam and Gettysburg and lost both.
Lee could ultimately destroy the Union Army. Nor could Lee capture and hold Union territory.
Leftyhunter

 

[War Horse]

IMHO Lee's leadership style is going to need a particular set of skills from his corps commanders. Was he lucky to get those at first.

Exactly. Let's not forget the Lee of Western Virginia. Excellent point.

 

[War Horse]

Also we have to keep in mind conventional wars are always won on the offense not the defense. Lee fought two major offensive battles ; Antietam and Gettysburg and lost both.
Lee could ultimately destroy the Union Army. Nor could Lee capture and hold Union territory.
Leftyhunter

Neither army could destroy the other. It was a mistaken belief that that could happen, especially in one major battle.

 

[rpkennedy]

Maybe, but they had to prove themselves first. After the passing of Jackson, Lee's eye for talent seems to have faded.

Lee didn't have a very deep bench by 1863. Many of the best regimental and brigade commanders who could have replaced fallen corps and division commanders later on died at the head of their units in 1862 and 1863. The nearly catastrophic losses amongst officers was a result of Lee's aggressive tactics and strategy.

Ryan

 

[leftyhunter]

Exactly. Let's not forget the Lee of Western Virginia. Excellent point.

Per McPherson in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom" Lee was per Davis's orders bot the commander of Confederate forces in West Virginia but the advisor in chief. To make matters worse Confederate command was divided between three Confederate generals. Which turned out to be a recipe of disaster.
I am a bit hazy if McCellan and Rosecrans were in command of seperate forces or one w a in charge of the other. Perhaps @16thVA can sort this out.
Arguably we could blame Davis has the buck has to stop somewhere.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Neither army could destroy the other. It was a mistaken belief that that could happen, especially in one major battle.

On the other hand the AnV was surrendered to the AoP. Absolutely few wars if any wars ate decided in one battle.
Leftyhunter

 

[jgoodguy]

Per McPherson in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom" Lee was per Davis's orders bot the commander of Confederate forces in West Virginia but the advisor in chief. To make matters worse Confederate command was divided between three Confederate generals. Which turned out to be a recipe of disaster.
I am a bit hazy if McCellan and Rosecrans were in command of seperate forces or one w a in charge of the other. Perhaps @16thVA can sort this out.
Arguably we could blame Davis has the buck has to stop somewhere.
Leftyhunter

Davis was the effective general in chief also.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lee didn't have a very deep bench by 1863. Many of the best regimental and brigade commanders who could have replaced fallen corps and division commanders later on died at the head of their units in 1862 and 1863. The nearly catastrophic losses amongst officers was a result of Lee's aggressive tactics and strategy.

Ryan

True but could that of been helped?
There were maybe just under a thousand or so West Point graduates and at least half fought for the Union. Yes both sides had officers who had graduated from foreign military academies but just a handful and most fought for the Union.
Leftyhunter

 

[Eleanor Rose]

Without the Lost Cause deification of Lee, they'd have little note.

I think that's especially true for General Longstreet. Turns out bad press worked in his favor. It just took 120 years. Modern day celebrities enjoy any press (even negative) they get and use it to their advantage. Come to think of it kids do too. Some will act out in class just to get the attention they crave. This I know from experience.

I would argue no side had giants both sides had generals who sometimes made good decisions and sometimes not so good decisons.

In other words, they were human. Sometimes that's easy for folks (including myself) to forget.