Lee Lee is overrated.

Lee made his subordinate officers better. That is the mark of a great leader regardless of his tactical or strategic ability. He put people in situations where they could excel..

Did he? How did he make A. P. Hill better as a corps commander? How did he make Richard Ewell better as a corps commander?

.Longstreet and Jackson come to mind. When you can do that you are making the best of what you have. What more could you ask of him?

Longstreet and Jackson had developed their abilities before they came under Lee's command.
 
I like your post !
“No single war figure stands in greater need of reevaluation than Lee,” wrote Thomas L. Connelly, the late University of South Carolina professor. “One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee.”
 
What is the definition of "great?" After all, since he lost and had to surrender, it seems he has quite a mountain to climb if "great" means winning the war. Can one be a "great" commander without winning one's war? We have to wrestle with that question first and define what "great" means.

He was certainly the most successful confederate army commander. Of course, he was the only confederate army commander who enjoyed any success.


He was also probably the bloodiest commander. He caused more casualties than most anyone else.

So what would he have to do to be considered "great?"

The Great Generals in history had the ability to understand the nature of the war, the strength and weakness of both sides and developed a flexible strategy to win. Lee did not show this. Additionally, there is a theory that if he had more resources he would have been more successful. Lee could not beat anyone who actually stayed and fought.
 
Well, one of the people overrating Lee was Winfield Scott. Scott is the longest serving American general and reckoned to be the best soldier of his time, possibly the best American soldier to date. Scott, even though he knew what Lee's decision would be, was prepared to offer him a considerably higher command than that of a regimental commander if he would join the Union. He was prepared to offer him a number of things to prevent him fighting against the Union. If Lee was not all that, Scott would have encouraged him to go to the other side!
 
Welcome aboard @U.S. Grant !

I'm not the biggest Lee fan myself . . . but for reasons unrelated to his ability to command.

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."

That sounds like Sherman talking about Forrest.

:laugh:
 
Grant had his own thoughts about Robert E. Lee, and tried to convince his army that Lee was not that man everyone thought he was:

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."
One of the great pearls of wisdom from my sainted mother, “always act, don’t re-act”.
 
He was certainly the most successful confederate army commander.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to dEEraw my sword..." R. E. Lee Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Great Generals in history had the ability to understand the nature of the war, the strength and weakness of both sides and developed a flexible strategy to win. Lee did not show this.

I disagree. I think Lee showed an understanding of the nature of the war as well as a knowledge of the strength and weaknesses of both sides.

His strategy was designed to win the war. That it didn't work in and of itself doesn't mean it wasn't the right strategy.


Additionally, there is a theory that if he had more resources he would have been more successful. Lee could not beat anyone who actually stayed and fought.

We'll never know what Lee would or would not have done with more resources.
 
Well, one of the people overrating Lee was Winfield Scott. Scott is the longest serving American general and reckoned to be the best soldier of his time, possibly the best American soldier to date. Scott, even though he knew what Lee's decision would be, was prepared to offer him a considerably higher command than that of a regimental commander if he would join the Union. He was prepared to offer him a number of things to prevent him fighting against the Union. If Lee was not all that, Scott would have encouraged him to go to the other side!

Great points about Scott. However, hubris is an awful thing. Edited. Lee preformed with valor in the Mexican-American War. However, he never led Soldiers in combat he was untested and he did not raise to level needed of a great general.
 
Well, one of the people overrating Lee was Winfield Scott. Scott is the longest serving American general and reckoned to be the best soldier of his time, possibly the best American soldier to date. Scott, even though he knew what Lee's decision would be, was prepared to offer him a considerably higher command than that of a regimental commander if he would join the Union. He was prepared to offer him a number of things to prevent him fighting against the Union. If Lee was not all that, Scott would have encouraged him to go to the other side!

And then Scott encountered Grant. He considered Grant to be the greatest general.
 
About slavery, which way you look at it, the civil war was fought over the question of and to end slavery. And it did...ok, I'm not trying to defend nor accuse him. My question is, "what if".....General Lee stayed in the union and did not go with Virginia? Would the great and terrible american civil war have ended a lot sooner and with not so great a loss of lives? Oh well.....not trying to stir the pot!! Just a "what if"..?

I would say, Yes the Confederacy without Robert E Lee loses the war much quicker leading to less loss of life.

And yes the Civil War ended slavery but in your 'what if' it might not of; consider this, a quick mostly bloodless Union victory means there is no need for an Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore a quick Union may have persevered the Union while keeping slavery legal.
 
"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to dEEraw my sword..." R. E. Lee Edited

I fail to see what that has to do with the quoted part of my post.
 
I understand and respect your points. However, Washington was under manned and resourced. Despite his Army's deficiencies, we developed a strategy to win. Lee did not.

That's quite true - both commanders did a great deal with a little bit of nothing. However, Trenton may have been Washington's Gettysburg if random factors had not operated in his favor! As Bruce Catton remarked, "The stars in their courses fought against Lee". Every general, admiral or plain private has to have a certain element of luck involved with their skills. Which brings us to Lee's winning strategy - he had one. But, no plan is certain, least of all a military one. One evidence of personal greatness is how your enemies regard you - Grant had nothing but respect for Lee. Very few who fought him did not.
 
Let's look at the pros and cons of Robert E. Lee as a military commander:

Pros:
He was a great tactician
He inspired and was loved, even idolized by his soliders in many cases
He could read his opponents well and was hard to take by surprise
He was never afraid to take risks when they were needed
He worked well with most of his subordinate commanders


Cons:
He often expected too much from his men and subordinate commanders
He was often too aggressive and would fight a battle when one was not practical
He often issued orders that were unclear or vague to his subordinate commanders
His health was an issue at times during the Civil War

These are what come to mind at the moment. I pcersonally think it would be hard to find another commander on the Confederate roster who could have done better with what he had but like all mortal men, he was not without faults. After the Civil War, he did try to set a good example for Southerners to emulate during the Reconstruction period.
 
That's quite true - both commanders did a great deal with a little bit of nothing. However, Trenton may have been Washington's Gettysburg if random factors had not operated in his favor! As Bruce Catton remarked, "The stars in their courses fought against Lee". Every general, admiral or plain private has to have a certain element of luck involved with their skills. Which brings us to Lee's winning strategy - he had one. But, no plan is certain, least of all a military one. One evidence of personal greatness is how your enemies regard you - Grant had nothing but respect for Lee. Very few who fought him did not.


What was his winning strategy? To my understanding he thought a decisive battle would win the war. A strategy involves a methodical approach (Setting the conditions) to attacking the opponents center of gravity (what will make the opponent capitulate). Lee did not have a strategy for attacking the center of gravity nor did he synchronize the Rebel's efforts in an unified effort.
 
Let's look at the pros and cons of Robert E. Lee as a military commander:

Pros:
He was a great tactician
He inspired and was loved, even idolized by his soliders in many cases
He could read his opponents well and was hard to take by surprise
He was never afraid to take risks when they were needed
He worked well with most of his subordinate commanders


Cons:
He often expected too much from his men and subordinate commanders
He was often too aggressive and would fight a battle when one was not practical
He often issued orders that were unclear or vague to his subordinate commanders
His health was an issue at times during the Civil War

These are what come to mind at the moment. I pcersonally think it would be hard to find another commander on the Confederate roster who could have done better with what he had but like all mortal men, he was not without faults. After the Civil War, he did try to set a good example for Southerners to emulate during the Reconstruction period.


Your points are valid, but the cons are things expected of a good general.
 
What was his winning strategy? To my understanding he thought a decisive battle would win the war. A strategy involves a methodical approach (Setting the conditions) to attacking the opponents center of gravity (what will make the opponent capitulate). Lee did not have a strategy for attacking the center of gravity nor did he synchronize the Rebel's efforts in an unified effort.

He didn't? Seems to me he did everything he learned at West Point - being a professional does not guarantee winning. I'm not sure what you mean by 'synchronizing the rebel's efforts'. He would have to be in command of all the rebel armies - he only commanded the ANV.
 
That's quite true - both commanders did a great deal with a little bit of nothing. However, Trenton may have been Washington's Gettysburg if random factors had not operated in his favor! As Bruce Catton remarked, "The stars in their courses fought against Lee". Every general, admiral or plain private has to have a certain element of luck involved with their skills. Which brings us to Lee's winning strategy - he had one. But, no plan is certain, least of all a military one. One evidence of personal greatness is how your enemies regard you - Grant had nothing but respect for Lee. Very few who fought him did not.

I am not certain that luck should be a factor for a successful general. Luck is simply an opponent's mistake or missed opportunity. Great Generals adapt and over come. Lee did not.
 
Back
Top