Lee Just What Kind of General Was Robert E. Lee?

You cited Eisenhower's opinion of Lee but if we're going to look at one opinion of Lee's then we need to look at his overall view of topics relating to the ACW.
It's a bit much to say that because a man who whipped his slaves is a great American then we should all accept that viewpoint.
Leftyhunter
I suggest rereading the post I replied to. It was relevant. All the other stuff your referencing isn't relevant to this thread. This thread is about Lee's generalship. Maybe start at the beginning & you'll clearly see the intent of the thread. Its repeated a few times in the thread.

Nobody is asking you to accept any viewpoint. Though, I AM asking you to stay on the topic of the thread, & to not derail the thread with all the irrelevant stuff.
 
No. None of that is relevant to this thread at all. I was specifically responding to this post (& another):



I presented a letter penned by Eisenhower, specifically discussing Lee. I believe Ike is certainly considered one of the best military minds of the 20th century, anyways. He's certainly accomplished as a General, Commander, & CIC.
You wont get an argument from me on that !
 
You cited Eisenhower's opinion of Lee but if we're going to look at one opinion of Lee's then we need to look at his overall view of topics relating to the ACW.
It's a bit much to say that because a man who whipped his slaves is a great American then we should all accept that viewpoint.
Leftyhunter
Who are we talking about now, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lee? or?
 
I suggest rereading the post I replied to. It was relevant. All the other stuff your referencing isn't relevant to this thread. This thread is about Lee's generalship. Maybe start at the beginning & you'll clearly see the intent of the thread. Its repeated a few times in the thread.

Nobody is asking you to accept any viewpoint. Though, I AM asking you to stay on the topic of the thread, & to not derail the thread with all the irrelevant stuff.
Just trying to show the context of who Eisenhower was. Not understanding why we have to just accept Eisenhower's worship of Lee at face value.
Leftyhunter
 
You don't survive for 3 years as outgunned, outmanned etc. as Lee was without being darn good at your job. He suffered losses of men, materiel, and officers (some of which can be directed back to his style or the style he thought was necessary to win/survive long enough to make the war unpopular up north) that might have done other generals in. Again, still took 3 years to defeat him.
 
No proof there, Lee denied it (in private) and refused to comment or defend himself when the story appeared. Not so sure about the ex Presidents and whether or not they whipped their slaves.
We have had prior threads on this issue where is former slaves testified that Lee whipped his slaves.
Plenty of proof.
Leftyhunter
 
We have had prior threads on this issue where is former slaves testified that Lee whipped his slaves.
Plenty of proof.
Leftyhunter
It is hard to argue with Lee's reputation as a West Point cadet or an officer in the US army. Scott recommended him to Lincoln on the eve of the war. A man that would lie would not have had this reputation among his contemporaries.
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen, the topic of the thread is Robert E Lee's Generalship. Off-topic comments that tend to derail the thread from its intended purpose will be deleted and warnings will be issued. If you'd like to prevent the accumulation of points, it would be wise to quickly edit your off-topic posts before I return to read them. Thank you in advance.
 
It is hard to argue with Lee's reputation as a West Point cadet or an officer in the US army. Scott recommended him to Lincoln on the eve of the war. A man that would lie would not have had this reputation among his contemporaries.
Of course.Lee was a competent commander but not necessarily a great moral person.
George Pickett did not think highly of Lee not the Pickett was a nice guy either.
Leftyhunter
 
I'd recommend Youngs book. Or Gordon Rhea. But the strength of both sides varied.
Gordon Rea;
Wilderness AOP 118,000 casualties 18,000 ANV 67,000 casualties 11,000
Spotsyvania AOP 100,000 casualties 18,000 ANV 57,000 casualties 12,500
North Anna 115,000 2,600 63,900 1,600
Cold Harbor 130,000 13,000 75,700 5,000
 
Gordon Rea;
Wilderness AOP 118,000 casualties 18,000 ANV 67,000 casualties 11,000
Spotsyvania AOP 100,000 casualties 18,000 ANV 57,000 casualties 12,500
North Anna 115,000 2,600 63,900 1,600
Cold Harbor 130,000 13,000 75,700 5,000
An army on the offensive will take more casualties then an army on the defensive. Not seeing how that makes Lee a military genius or Grant doing anything wrong other the Cold Harbor.
Leftyhunter
 
The USCT casualties were equal to those of the states of Virginia or North Carolina, 30,000 +. (American Battlefield Trust)

But unlike the casualty rate for white troops from either the CS or the US the death from disease casualty rate was much, much higher than from battle-related causes.
 
An army on the offensive will take more casualties then an army on the defensive. Not seeing how that makes Lee a military genius or Grant doing anything wrong other the Cold Harbor.
Leftyhunter
Words are yours. I just posted the numbers from Gordon Rea.
 
Back
Top