Lee Lee is overrated.

[Gene Green]

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.

If I remember correctly the approach from my grandparents house brought you to the front left corner of the grave site. I think my grandparents lived in an apartment building (something totally foreign to me) and my grandfather taught a the college there.

 

[Scott1967]

.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.

You can only fight what's put in front of you, If Lee was overrated how did he manage to prolong the war by nearly 3 years any other general I think it would have been all over by mid 1862.

The man that fired the shot that hit Johnston has a lot to answer for if Johnston hadn't been hit I doubt the South would have survived another few months.

Lee was the last true Napoleonic General give him an open space and equal footing and he would whip anyone imo.

 

[E_just_E]

Folks,
Let's keep the discussion in the Western Hemisphere, the American Civil War, and General Lee.

Posted as a moderator

 

[jackt62]

So ? Ole Jube was at the entrance to Washington and McCook successfully relieved the threat to that city. Was McCook great ? He was courtmarshalled I think.
There are many possibilities

Early's raid on Washington is in no ways comparable to the AOTP's Penninsula offensive. Early, commanding no more than 10,000 troops, himself understood that he lacked the resources to actually take, let alone hold, Washington City. In contrast, McClellan's army of over 100,000 was poised to siege Richmond and represented a real threat to the Confederacy.

PS, McCook was relieved after Chickamauga but was later given command of the Washington defenses. He remained in the regular army after the war.

 

[Gene Green]

Early's raid on Washington is in no ways comparable to the AOTP's Penninsula offensive. Early, commanding no more than 10,000 troops, himself understood that he lacked the resources to actually take, let alone hold, Washington City. In contrast, McClellan's army of over 100,000 was poised to siege Richmond and represented a real threat to the Confederacy.

PS, McCook was relieved after Chickamauga but was later given command of the Washington defenses. He remained in the regular army after the war.

I was simply pointing out your error in determining greatness.

 

[jackt62]

Don't see how anyone can compare McCook to Lee or put them in the same category.

 

[Gene Green]

Early's raid on Washington is in no ways comparable to the AOTP's Penninsula offensive. Early, commanding no more than 10,000 troops, himself understood that he lacked the resources to actually take, let alone hold, Washington City. In contrast, McClellan's army of over 100,000 was poised to siege Richmond and represented a real threat to the Confederacy.

PS, McCook was relieved after Chickamauga but was later given command of the Washington defenses. He remained in the regular army after the war.

And you failed to acknowledge that Johnston actually halted the union advance.

 

[Paul Yancey]

.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.

 

[jackt62]

Joe Johnston is actually a favorite of mine, and I give him due credit for many of his command decisions, not least of which was the initial moves to stop the AOTP in the Peninsula and the brilliantly planned, but flawed execution at Seven Pines. Nevertheless, once Johnston was out of commission, Lee's actions stood on their own and he should be judged on that basis.

 

[Gene Green]

Don't see how anyone can compare McCook to Lee or put them in the same category.

I don't. I am saying your standard for greatness is flawed as evidenced by McCook's case.

 

[U.S. Grant]

You can only fight what's put in front of you, If Lee was overrated how did he manage to prolong the war by nearly 3 years any other general I think it would have been all over by mid 1862.

The man that fired the shot that hit Johnston has a lot to answer for if Johnston hadn't been hit I doubt the South would have survived another few months.

Lee was the last true Napoleonic General give him an open space and equal footing and he would whip anyone imo.

You are correct. Lee was the last Napoleonic General. That is partly why he lost. Great Generals adapt and devise winning strategies.

You arguement for Lee is he prolonged the war? He attempted to invade the north and failed. He was in the defense on his ground. Delaying the the enemy until you can counter attack is the point of defense. He got part of it right.

I do not see his delaying actions being deserving of his iconic status. If anything, needless blood was shed.

Lee is overrated.

 

[Gene Green]

Lee was overrated how did he manage to prolong the war by nearly 3 years any other general I think it would have been all over by mid 1862.

Minus almost a year holed up in Petersburg.

 

[diane]

I always have a major problem with this one - he prolonged the war and is therefore an overrated general. That's quite true - if a general does not fight the war, thereby prolonging the conflict, he can't be overrated!

 

[Paul Yancey]

.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.

I very much disagree with your view that the war was all about slavery. As to the ability of General Lee, I can refer you to some good books authored by some very well thought of historians who would prove you wrong.

 

[lurid]

.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.

Agreed. Lee was not a great general, he was a purported great general. All the adoration Lee get's for being a great general is purely subjective. Math doesn't lie. Do some analytical work: take an average general in history as your median. Construct a linear model and factor in number of battles, tally wins/losses, tactician success/failures, numerical advantages/disadvantages, etc. You can factor more stuff but time would fail me. You'll see no matter how you spin it Lee never makes the cut to be considered an average general. Below average general that's been propagated to greatness.

 

[cash]

Who constructed the fortifications around Richmond that were to become so important to its defense in 1864 and 1865, and was thus derisively called "The King of Spades" by his own troops?

 

[cash]

Math doesn't lie.

It does when it's misused.

Do some analytical work: take an average general in history as your median. Construct a linear model and factor in number of battles, tally wins/losses, tactician success/failures, numerical advantages/disadvantages, etc. You can factor more stuff but time would fail me. You'll see no matter how you spin it Lee never makes the cut to be considered an average general. Below average general that's been propagated to greatness.

War cannot be reduced to mathematical formulae. It's perhaps the most human of things, and as such cannot be accurately described by math. What matters is victories, and though Lee ultimately was not victorious, he was victorious in quite a few battles, making him the most successful confederate commander.

 

[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.

Sometimes the stars don't align right to win battles. Bragg might of done the best could with the subordinates , manpower and logistical support available. Or again he might not. Point being he won a battle so no Lee was not the only successful general. Lee had the most success of any Confederate general.
Leftyhunter

 

[lurid]

It does when it's misused.



War cannot be reduced to mathematical formulae. It's perhaps the most human of things, and as such cannot be accurately described by math. What matters is victories, and though Lee ultimately was not victorious, he was victorious in quite a few battles, making him the most successful confederate commander.

Okay, but does being a successful Confederate commander warrant greatness? I didn't reduce war to a mathematical formula, I reduced war "performance" to a formula. Sure math can narrow things down, the entire universe is under mathematical laws.

 

[cash]

Okay, but does being a successful Confederate commander warrant greatness? I didn't reduce war to a mathematical formula, I reduced war "performance" to a formula. Sure math can narrow things down, the entire universe is under mathematical laws.

War performance can't be accurately described by math, unless we are tallying victories, because that's the only measure that counts.

I don't argue Lee was great; nor do I argue he wasn't great. I don't find that subjective assessment to be all that useful. Lee was a very talented general. I don't think there's any controversy about that. He was indeed the most successful confederate commander. Again, I don't think there's any controversy about that.