Lee Lee is overrated.

[Gene Green]

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.

This is a new point for me so I couldn't let it go. I think ther3 is general agreement that the confederacy got the cream of officers in the US army . If there was nobody better in the CSA to command and he lost, how good were those officers ? And Lee fought many of his battles at a virtual parity in numbers. At Gettysburg the numbers were about 1 and a fifth to 1 and closer still on day two. He is simply overrated, much of which is the result of lost cause propaganda. It would seem that perhaps there was more parity in senior officers in the US army before the war than we admit.

 

[cash]

Again, a missed opportunity. Despites Grant's set back at Fort Donelson, Grant adapted and won.

If we don't know what he should have done specifically, we don't know if it was a missed opportunity. What should he have done, specifically?

 

[U.S. Grant]

Welcome from the Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing Forum and North Mississippi!

Acumen? Lee certainly had many flaws but he did not lack the ability to make quick and accurate decisions as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. That being said, please continue with your posts and I look forward to you participating at the Shiloh Forum.
Regards
David

Making quick, some may argue implusive decisions do not make a great leader. A great general has the acumen to succeed. Yes, there will bet set backs. However, the great ones figure out a way to win. Please, besides his men loving him. What did he do that was remarkable?

 

[U.S. Grant]

If we don't know what he should have done specifically, we don't know if it was a missed opportunity. What should he have done, specifically?

No that is not the case. You and I could determine a reasonable reaction with hindsight. Meade responded at Gettysburg, Grant responded at Fort Donelson and Cold Harbor. Lee?

 

[diane]

How did he use everything that he learned at the USMA? He was responsible for all of the Rebel's Forces when Grant marached towards Appomattox.

When it came down to Appomattox, that's when Lee was really in command of all the rebel forces. UNTIL then, he commanded only the ANV. He can't be held responsible for what other generals did with their armies.

I am still not convinced. However, using your context for luck in this discussion, why didn't Lee capitalize at Cold Harbor.

Lee didn't have to capitalize on Cold Harbor. That was something Grant himself heartily regretted. All Lee could have done was add to the pile and he certainly wasn't going to do that. He had won.

Again, a missed opportunity. Despites Grant's set back at Fort Donelson, Grant adapted and won.

Again, Lee's only missed opportunity at Cold Harbor was to up the death toll - nothing gained at all there. Ft Donelson - Grant was great. And...here's our old friend Luck again! The rebel generals in command decided to throw in the towel before they even had it in their hands. Sure Grant's going to take the advantage of that - 'never interrupt the enemy too soon when he is making a mistake'.

 

[cash]

This is a new point for me so I couldn't let it go. I think ther3 is general agreement that the confederacy got the cream of officers in the US army . If there was nobody better in the CSA to command and he lost, how good were those officers ? And Lee fought many of his battles at a virtual parity in numbers. At Gettysburg the numbers were about 1 and a fifth to 1 and closer still on day two. He is simply overrated, much of which is the result of lost cause propaganda. It would seem that perhaps there was more parity in senior officers in the US army before the war than we admit.

I personally don't think the confederacy got the cream of officers, and if I'm not mistaken, I think that's what you're getting at. They got some good ones and they got some bad ones and they got a bunch in between. They only got one who demonstrated he could successfully command an army, which was probably the most difficult job an army officer could have. Where the US Army beat them was in bench strength. The US was able to develop officers who could successfully command armies. They all might not have been highly regarded at the beginning of the war, but they proved themselves during the war. Who, in 1861, thought Grant would amount to anything? He couldn't even get an audience with McClellan or anyone else in Washington. Fortunately, he was given the time to develop his abilities in the West because most of the eyes were on the East. Grant, after the war, speculated that McClellan would have been highly successful had he had time in the West to develop his abilities.

 

[diane]

Maybe. He was untested as a commander in battle. He was brave. However, what did he do that was great and worthy of the adulation?

What does he have to do to be great? What adulation? Certainly there are those who worship the man - I'm just unconvinced he was overrated.

 

[cash]

No that is not the case. You and I could determine a reasonable reaction with hindsight. Meade responded at Gettysburg, Grant responded at Fort Donelson and Cold Harbor. Lee?

Again, what should he have done, specifically? Without specificity, the criticism lacks validity. "He should have done something, we don't know what," is not convincing at all.

 

[cash]

What does he have to do to be great? What adulation? Certainly there are those who worship the man - I'm just unconvinced he was overrated.

I would argue many enthusiasts overrate him. One need only look at the accolades thrown his way every January 19.

 

[diane]

I would argue many enthusiasts overrate him. One need only look at the accolades thrown his way every January 19.

Well, yes...he does have his birthday cake up on the front page!

 

[U.S. Grant]

When it came down to Appomattox, that's when Lee was really in command of all the rebel forces. UNTIL then, he commanded only the ANV. He can't be held responsible for what other generals did with their armies.



Lee didn't have to capitalize on Cold Harbor. That was something Grant himself heartily regretted. All Lee could have done was add to the pile and he certainly wasn't going to do that. He had won.



Again, Lee's only missed opportunity at Cold Harbor was to up the death toll - nothing gained at all there. Ft Donelson - Grant was great. And...here's our old friend Luck again! The rebel generals in command decided to throw in the towel before they even had it in their hands. Sure Grant's going to take the advantage of that - 'never interrupt the enemy too soon when he is making a mistake'.

Grant did not benefit from luck at Donelson. He devised the US' first joint operation. Additionally, after the fierce battle and his leaders not excuting his plan, he developed a branch plan and used the troops arriving the next day to exploit success.

Again, what should he have done, specifically? Without specificity, the criticism lacks validity. "He should have done something, we don't know what," is not convincing at all.

No, you are shifting the argument. I am not Lee. The point is a great general would have adapted and devised a plan. Lee, did not show this ability. Lee should have pursued and exploited the success. However, a reasonable person could argue that the fog of war prevented Lee from doing so. Again, Meade and Grant did not have the problem after they learned from their mistakes. Why was Lee great?

 

[cash]

No, you are shifting the argument. I am not Lee. The point is a great general would have adapted and devised a plan. Lee, did not show this ability. Lee should have pursued and exploited the success. However, a reasonable person could argue that the fog of war prevented Lee from doing so. Again, Meade and Grant did not have the problem after they learned from their mistakes. Why was Lee great?

I'm shifting nothing. You criticized Lee for not capitalizing on Cold Harbor, yet you seem to have no idea what he could have done to capitalize on Cold Harbor. How do you know he didn't take the best action any "great" general, whatever that is, would take? Since you haven't the foggiest notion of what he should have done, you can't say he didn't do the best possible response, which was to stay in his strong position and see what Grant would do. If you want to criticize him, then you need to know what he should have done instead of what he did.

 

[Gene Green]

I personally don't think the confederacy got the cream of officers

You are always an exception.

 

[diane]

Grant and Foote cooperated perfectly - the gun boats scared Forrest into praying and he didn't scare any better than Grant did. Nope, wouldn't take away anything from Grant on Ft Donelson. However...Forrest did have an escape plan for the army inside the fort, and with an amount of resolve and daring, it stood a good chance of working. Losing an entire army right off the bat was not the way to start things! Lucky for Grant he was facing Buckner, Pillow and Floyd. Pillow and Floyd left Buckner holding the bag and skedaddled, and so did Forrest out the back door. Pillow and Floyd weren't the Confederacy's best, that's for sure, and Grant had no problem taking advantage of this situation.

 

[U.S. Grant]

I'm shifting nothing. You criticized Lee for not capitalizing on Cold Harbor, yet you seem to have no idea what he could have done to capitalize on Cold Harbor. How do you know he didn't take the best action any "great" general, whatever that is, would take? Since you haven't the foggiest notion of what he should have done, you can't say he didn't do the best possible response, which was to stay in his strong position and see what Grant would do. If you want to criticize him, then you need to know what he should have done instead of what he did.

No you are not correct. If I were to provide a recommendation for what Lee should do, you would poke holes in my plan. If Lee was Great, he would have performed better at Cold Habor, Gettysburg, or earlier in the war. What would you have done, stay in the Defense? I thought Lee made quick and decisive decisions? As you refute my arguments, you have not definitively state why Lee is great or good.

 

[thomas aagaard]

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.

Good International diplomacy by the colonials resulted in Franch and spain joining the war against the Uk... and the UK lsot.

Bad international diplomacy and a very different international situation resulted in the CSA never getting the needed support from the great powers.

None of this was the result of the actions of Washington... or Lee.

 

[cash]

No you are not correct. If I were to provide a recommendation for what Lee should do, you would poke holes in my plan. If Lee was Great, he would have performed better at Cold Habor, Gettysburg, or earlier in the war. What would you have done, stay in the Defense? I thought Lee made quick and decisive decisions? As you refute my arguments, you have not definitively state why Lee is great or good.

I'm not interested in saying why Lee is great or good. I'm holding you to your attempted criticism. If you want to claim he didn't do the right thing at Cold Harbor, you've got to have a specific alternative. If you have nothing, then your criticism has no value.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Grant and Foote cooperated perfectly - the gun boats scared Forrest into praying and he didn't scare any better than Grant did. Nope, wouldn't take away anything from Grant on Ft Donelson. However...Forrest did have an escape plan for the army inside the fort, and with an amount of resolve and daring, it stood a good chance of working. Losing an entire army right off the bat was not the way to start things! Lucky for Grant he was facing Buckner, Pillow and Floyd. Pillow and Floyd left Buckner holding the bag and skedaddled, and so did Forrest out the back door. Pillow and Floyd weren't the Confederacy's best, that's for sure, and Grant had no problem taking advantage of this situation.

Hooker and Burnside was not the USA' best. However, Lee defeated them. Lee could not beat Meade or Grant. Additionally, Sheridan was leaps and bounds better than Forest.

 

[Gene Green]

I personally don't think the confederacy got the cream of officers, and if I'm not mistaken, I think that's what you're getting at. They got some good ones and they got some bad ones and they got a bunch in between. They only got one who demonstrated he could successfully command an army, which was probably the most difficult job an army officer could have. Where the US Army beat them was in bench strength. The US was able to develop officers who could successfully command armies. They all might not have been highly regarded at the beginning of the war, but they proved themselves during the war. Who, in 1861, thought Grant would amount to anything? He couldn't even get an audience with McClellan or anyone else in Washington. Fortunately, he was given the time to develop his abilities in the West because most of the eyes were on the East. Grant, after the war, speculated that McClellan would have been highly successful had he had time in the West to develop his abilities.

I actually agree with this and it is kinda my point. They were pretty even , good and bad on both sides, but the early union flubs stigmatized the union command.

 

[diane]

Hooker and Burnside was not the USA' best. However, Lee defeated them. Lee could not beat Meade or Grant. Additionally, Sheridan was leaps and bounds better than Forest.

Sheridan? Oh, don't get me started!

Back to Lee, though. I just want a little clarification - do you think whatever Lee won was due to facing lousy Union generals?