Lee Lee is overrated.

[leftyhunter]

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?"

To be fair other Confederate Generals did enjoy success I.e General Richard Taylor in the Red River Campaign, General Forrest , General McCullough at Wilson's Creek and even General Bragg at Chickumungua, General Beaugaurd and Johnston at 1st Bull Run and no doubt missing a bunch of other successful Confederate Generals.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

There are many factors besides military leadership skills that determine who win and who looses a war. To fairly access the assertion about how " great general's win wars we need to know the name of what general and what war and evaluate all the other factors of that particular war.
Leftyhunter

 

[Jamieva]

You are incorrect. I have not moved the goalposts. I responded to various comments. You are responding to one of my refutes. Maybe you can clearly articulate why Lee should be revered? It is clear that he was not a great general.

The problem is back to your original post you claim he never should have been above a regimental commander. When you start your argument with this basis, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Where did I say he should be revered? I will wait

It is not clear he was not a great general. That is your conclusion based on whatever vague criteria you want to establish.

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

Grant was critical of Lee's s conduct during Reconstruction. @cash has posted about that.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

General Lee represented the idea that the planter class of people knew what they were doing and would lead the south to preservation of the existing order. Deportment, honor and determination were all necessary for a struggle in which the Confederates were at a very severe disadvantage with respect to naval forces, finance, and logistics.
The only thing the Confederates had was their determination to fight. He maintained that will to carry on.
The belief was erroneous but it existed.
General Lee did what the Confederacy required.
Oddly, by keeping the army together until its surrender as a unit, he greatly decreased, though he did not eliminate, the post war insurgency that fought to maintain the old order.

 

[leftyhunter]

I respectfully disagree. Success on the battlefield breeds external aid. Washington, a great general, understood this Strategic point. The win at Saratoga was the convincing win that solidified France's support. Lee hope that Gettysburg would do the same for the Rebels, but he failed.

Great Britain was fighting a world war with Spain and France . The old Middle East saying " the enemy if my enemy is my friend " factors into why the Colonial Rebels received foreign military assistance. Totally different Geo Political situation in the 1860s vs the 1780s. In 1854 France and the UK had fought a war together against Russia.
Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

Not taking sides either way but many times in warfare, an average idea / violently executed / right now, is better than an almost perfect plan / carefully implemented / next week. Something about "...keeping up the skeer..."

The ability to improvise, trust your subordinates, and have confidence in your abilities are qualities of a great leader.
894

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

The problem is back to your original post you claim he never should have been above a regimental commander. When you start your argument with this basis, it is nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Where did I say he should be revered? I will wait

It is not clear he was not a great general. That is your conclusion based on whatever vague criteria you want to establish.

It is very clear that he was not great-he lost to ever Union General that stood and fought.

It is not impossible to have a rational discussion. I believe that with Lee's ability, he would have been a great Regimental Commander.

I concede that you did not say he should be revered. However, why is he held in high esteem, and why do some revere him as one of the greatest generals of all time? No one has answered that question.

The answer to my question is typically his men loved him, and he did not have the resources to compete. What other losers do we defend like that?

 

[U.S. Grant]

Great Britain was fighting a world war with Spain and France . The old Middle East saying " the enemy if my enemy is my friend " factors into why the Colonial Rebels received foreign military assistance. Totally different Geo Political situation in the 1860s vs the 1780s. In 1854 France and the UK had fought a war together against Russia.
Leftyhunter

Ok? Why is Lee good?

 

[U.S. Grant]

There are many factors besides military leadership skills that determine who win and who looses a war. To fairly access the assertion about how " great general's win wars we need to know the name of what general and what war and evaluate all the other factors of that particular war.
Leftyhunter

I agree. The greats understand those factors and devise a winning strategy.

 

[leftyhunter]

Ok? Why is Lee good?

Edited; modern references

With limited resources Lee was able to inflict heavy casualties on his enemies and retake Territory I.e. the Peninsula Campaign. Lee defeated several large Union offensive campaign's. Lee had the most success of any Confederate Army General.
Neither I or any poster has yet claimed Lee walked on water and was perfect. Myself and others are only arguing that based on Lee's shortcomings on manpower and logistical support Less did the best he could with what he had.
Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

It took the Federals to cross the river was Point I had wanted to make. Holding the AOTP 2 years was essential to the hoped for success of the Confederacy.

You are so busy with all of your new friends so I will say good bye for now. Perhaps you could come over to the Shiloh Forum and we can the perfromace of generals in that battle?
Regards
David

Thank you for the invite. I will check out your Forum. I wonder if there is a forum for Vicksburg?

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree. The greats understand those factors and devise a winning strategy.

Yes but actually having superior demographics and material resources makes the great well great.

Leftyhunter

 

[Copperhead-mi]

The answer to my question is typically his men loved him, and he did not have the resources to compete. What other losers do we defend like that?

John Brown?

 

[cash]

I do not recall. It was almost 50 years ago and I cannot now remember much of that trip. Two things that my dad made sure impressed me were pickets charge and the fight at little round top. I still remember viewing the scenes from the top. So I did not walk the walk but I did talk the talk with my dad and witnessed the scene [site] from the yankee perspective in the center.

Come back to Gettysburg and walk it as an adult. The Virginians formed in a swale near the George Spangler Farm. They weren't visible to the Federals until they were almost halfway across, at the Emmitsburg Road. Along the way there are dips in the ground where troops are sheltered from fire. There are buildings along the way to shield troops as well.

Wright's brigade made it to Cemetery Ridge on July 2, and they actually broke the Union line before they were forced to retreat. Wright himself said it was easy to get there, but staying there was the problem. If one brigade could get there, a larger force could get there.

We're handicapped today because we know what happened. We know the cannonade before the charge didn't succeed in driving off the Union artillery and it didn't succeed in demoralizing the Federal troops. But before the cannonade, no one knew that it wouldn't succeed.

 

[cash]

To be fair other Confederate Generals did enjoy success I.e General Richard Taylor in the Red River Campaign, General Forrest , General McCullough at Wilson's Creek and even General Bragg at Chickumungua, General Beaugaurd and Johnston at 1st Bull Run and no doubt missing a bunch of other successful Confederate Generals.
Leftyhunter

Temporary success in one battle is not the same as being a successful army commander.

 

[cash]

And when I think on it , this year may be the fiftieth anniversary of my visit.

On a side note: my grandparents lived in Carlisle pa and directly behind their house was a cemetery with the grave site of molly pitcher.

I've been to that cemetery and visited that grave site, in addition to other Rev War grave sites in that cemetery, quite a few times. I've also taught in that elementary school right next to it.

 

[leftyhunter]

Temporary success in one battle is not the same as being a successful army commander.

It's good enough. Every general in the ACW with the arguable exception of Thomas had a win some lose some record.
Leftyhunter

 

[USS ALASKA]

I wonder if there is a forum for Vicksburg?

Here you go, sir - https://civilwartalk.com/categories/civil-war-history-battle-forums.95/
1123

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[cash]

It's good enough. Every general in the ACW with the arguable exception of Thomas had a win some lose some record.
Leftyhunter

No, it's not good enough. An army commander, to be successful, has a tenure of more than one battle. I don't know of anyone who considers Braxton Bragg to be a successful army commander.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Here you go, sir - https://civilwartalk.com/categories/civil-war-history-battle-forums.95/
1123

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Thank you