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

The letter says-
"...military commission...with a provost marshal and guard to execute promptly its decisions"
and "...execution of orders" (see last two paragraphs).

It does not say executions.

Thanks for posting this 19th. I appreciate being able to read the actual text vs a second hand summary.
 
I am not at my desk, but any history of the Gettysburg Campaign will include the letter Davis sent with Lee. I am quite sure that if you google ‘text of Davis letter to be posted after fall of Washington’ will get you the text in it’s entirely. I believe that was what I did to get it a few days ago. I am curious, why didn’t you do that & post the text so everyone could red it & discuss it. I have to confess this habit of treating other folks like dogs that are supposed to go fetch that is common on the forum baffles me.
I have to admit I don't often agree with you but when I do, well, I do.
 
Particularly when these second hand summaries are apparently edited and interpreted to put forward a narrative that fits with someone's preconceived notions or revisionist bent.
That said, what casual novice or serious student of ANY military history would be surprised or astonished to learn that a commanding general had authorized executions to enforce military discipline for the gravest of offenses during war?
 
It is revealing that a letter from Lee about a lack of discipline among his soldiers was a problem & that executions would be used to enforce it was deliberately left out of The Wartime Letters of R. E. Lee. It is an example of the Lost Cause driven editing of Lee's papers that modern historians have revealed. This deliberate skewing of the historical record was done by the Virginia State Library archivist in 1962. It is this kind of pervasive distortion of the historical record that I often refer to in my posts. The Letter is in the National Archive & is from the Sharpsburg Campaign.
This is amazing. As was pointed out, the letter you offer as evidence of Lee recommending executions as punishment makes no mention of same. To borrow your term, just who is attempting to pervasively distort the historical record here?
 
Granted, Lee comported himself as a gentleman at all times. I have a very hard time reconciling that with going to war for slavery.

You don't have to reconcile it, because Lee did not go to war for slavery. He left his reasons for us to read.

Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none." - letter to his son Custis, Jan. 1861​
God alone can save us from our folly, selfishness and short sightedness. The last accounts seem to show that we have barely escaped anarchy to be plunged into civil war. What will be the result I cannot conjecture. I only see that a fearful calamity is upon us, and fear that the country will have to pass through for its sins a fiery ordeal. I am unable to realize that our people will destroy a government inaugerated by the blood and wisdom of our patriot fathers, that has given us peace and prosperity at home, power and security abroad, and under which we have acquired a colossal strength unequalled in the history of mankind. I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the 'Star spangled banner' and no other air than 'Hail Columbia.' I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will yet save it. - letter to Markie Williams, Jan. 1861​
 
That is all very gallant, for sure. It leaves out things like Lee's criticism of the large number of men who were straggling "the cowards" & his intention to use military executions to discourage the practice. It is the real man behind the glow of the polished bronze statues that I am interested in.
Seriously? Sooooo your idea of a good general is one who would praise stragglers and deserters? That's rather revealing you aren't on the same page as most military historians at all........
 
You don't have to reconcile it, because Lee did not go to war for slavery. He left his reasons for us to read.

Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none." - letter to his son Custis, Jan. 1861​
God alone can save us from our folly, selfishness and short sightedness. The last accounts seem to show that we have barely escaped anarchy to be plunged into civil war. What will be the result I cannot conjecture. I only see that a fearful calamity is upon us, and fear that the country will have to pass through for its sins a fiery ordeal. I am unable to realize that our people will destroy a government inaugerated by the blood and wisdom of our patriot fathers, that has given us peace and prosperity at home, power and security abroad, and under which we have acquired a colossal strength unequalled in the history of mankind. I wish to live under no other government, and there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honour. If a disruption takes place, I shall go back in sorrow to my people and share the misery of my native state, and save in her defence there will be one soldier less in the world than now. I wish for no other flag than the 'Star spangled banner' and no other air than 'Hail Columbia.' I still hope that the wisdom and patriotism of the nation will yet save it. - letter to Markie Williams, Jan. 1861​
This is 2020, lets be honest, shall we? the reason the Civil War was fought is not in question. Lee's first action was a failed attempt to impose the will of slave-holding Virginians over the mountain folk who wanted nothing to do with that. Lee knew good & well that the war was explicitly fought to "Guarantee the right to posses other human beings as property." just like everybody else did.
 
I don't exactly follow what you are trying to say, here. Lee's intentions in Pennsylvania are clearly spelled out in his letters to Davis & the Sec. of War. I am not sure what you are referring to in your last sentence, the Civil War General who achieved what you described was Grant.
My point was while Lee had the right idea on how to achieve a Confederate victory he doesn't have the resources to do so.
For example if Lee had at least a two to one manpower superiority ratio at Gettysburg then Confederacy chances of victory are higher. If Lee had a three to one manpower superiority ratio most likely the AnV would of won at Gettysburg plus Lee would of needed a substantial logistical effort.
If Lee had the support of a strong CSN then Lee could at least of launched an amphibious attack in late June to divert the Union Army to Philadelphia or Baltimore.
The above point of course is a Captain Obvious point but that's how wars are won. It's not that Lee didn't know how to win the ACW it's just a lack of resources. Brilliance is not enough to win a conventional war it takes a lot of resources.

Lee did ask for more troops near New Berne, North Carolina but Davis feared if he sent the troops to Lee then General Burnside could break out of New Berne and seize the vital railroad junction at Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Leftyhunter
 
Seriously? Sooooo your idea of a good general is one who would praise stragglers and deserters? That's rather revealing you aren't on the same page as most military historians at all........
This is a letter that the Virginia archivist censored in 1962 because it didn't fit with the Lost Cause depiction of Lee & his army. In this case, I am not on the page with any military historian, I am on the same page as General Lee. His letters are a complete rejection of McPherson's depiction of the Gettysburg Campaign as a grand foray. Lee's letters make it clear that they were no such thing. Because Davis had not brought up forces from the Carolinas, Lee was forced to cut off his communication with Virginia. No competent military leader would do that willingly. That is the kind of thing that modern military historians are taking into account in their analysis of Lee's generalship & in my modest way, me too.
 
Last edited:
My point was while Lee had the right idea on how to achieve a Confederate victory he doesn't have the resources to do so.
For example if Lee had at least a two to one manpower superiority ratio at Gettysburg then Confederacy chances of victory are higher. If Lee had a three to one manpower superiority ratio most likely the AnV would of won at Gettysburg plus Lee would of needed a substantial logistical effort.
If Lee had the support of a strong CSN then Lee could at least of launched an amphibious attack in late June to divert the Union Army to Philadelphia or Baltimore.
The above point of course is a Captain Obvious point but that's how wars are won. It's not that Lee didn't know how to win the ACW it's just a lack of resources. Brilliance is not enough to win a conventional war it takes a lot of resources.

Lee did ask for more troops near New Berne, North Carolina but Davis feared if he sent the troops to Lee then General Burnside could break out of New Berne and seize the vital railroad junction at Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Leftyhunter
Recently, I have been reading Lee's letters. I have discovered that Lee was very explicit about what he believed about the chances for victory & how to achieve it. Instead of military forays that the ever shrinking manpower resources of the Confederacy that he knew all too well, he committed to sending peace proposals north that would split the electorate. Lee's letters to Davis showed Lee had a very realistic grasp of how dismal the military situation was & how dire it would become.
 
This is a letter that the Virginia archivist censored in 1962 because it didn't fit with the Lost Cause depiction of Lee & his army. I am not on the page with any military historian, I am on the same page as General Lee.
Evidently not, as anyone knows in the military, straggling or desertion is something to be condemned and prevented......

That a general is critical of either, is hardly a negative, it's what is expected
 
Evidently not, as anyone knows in the military, straggling or desertion is something to be condemned and prevented......

That a general is critical of either, is hardly a negative, it's what is expected
The point here is that the letter about straggling, ill discipline & military executions was deliberately left out of the compilation of Lee's wartime letters was deliberately left out because it didn't fit the Lost Cause counterfactual depiction of Lee & the AoNV. The point is that the truth is being told at this time & the false narrative of former times is debunked.
 
This is 2020, lets be honest, shall we? the reason the Civil War was fought is not in question.

Please do not patronize me. I can read source documents from the time period as well as you can, and when I do, I see multiple reasons given for secession and for war. Individuals certainly give reasons other than slavery for going to war. That Lee, not wanting either a war or a dissolution of the Union, would nevertheless go to war to defend his "native state" is certainly not in question by any serious scholar of the time period.

Lee's first action was a failed attempt to impose the will of slave-holding Virginians over the mountain folk who wanted nothing to do with that.

Lee sent himself to western Virginia? News to me. And those "mountain folk" were within the borders of the state of Virginia and thus subject to the state laws and the state Constitution, just like every other Virginian.
 
Last edited:
The point here is that the letter about straggling, ill discipline & military executions was deliberately left out of the compilation of Lee's wartime letters was deliberately left out because it didn't fit the Lost Cause counterfactual depiction of Lee & the AoNV. The point is that the truth is being told at this time & the false narrative of former times is debunked.
So your point was the truth is Lee was indeed a good general and did what any good general would do in regards to military law, I would agree. Not sure I would claim it was left out, not all minutia is included in anyone's bio
 
The point here is that the letter about straggling, ill discipline & military executions was deliberately left out of the compilation of Lee's wartime letters was deliberately left out because it didn't fit the Lost Cause counterfactual depiction of Lee & the AoNV. The point is that the truth is being told at this time & the false narrative of former times is debunked.
Are you just going to ignore what has been pointed out to you that the letter you offered in support of "military executions" makes no mention of them but does in fact mention "execution of orders"?
 
This is 2020, lets be honest, shall we? the reason the Civil War was fought is not in question. Lee's first action was a failed attempt to impose the will of slave-holding Virginians over the mountain folk who wanted nothing to do with that. Lee knew good & well that the war was explicitly fought to "Guarantee the right to posses other human beings as property." just like everybody else did.
Try as you might, you are not going to convince most of us here that Lee was in support of secession or dissolution of the Union whether for slavery or any other ideal. We are not a group of sun burned tourists on their way to DollyWood, gawking at some cannons in a NMP in TN.

That he struggled with the decision to resign his commission in the US army is well documented. Once made, did he commit fully to his decision and the ramifications that followed it? I have no doubt, to do any less would have been out of character.
 
Last edited:
This is 2020, lets be honest, shall we? the reason the Civil War was fought is not in question. Lee's first action was a failed attempt to impose the will of slave-holding Virginians over the mountain folk who wanted nothing to do with that. Lee knew good & well that the war was explicitly fought to "Guarantee the right to posses other human beings as property." just like everybody else did.
And what does any of that have to do with Lee's decision? This is the problem; it IS 2020 and not 1861, these men were living in complex and volatile times and were swept up in events beyond their control, they did not have the luxury you have of sitting in judgement 150 years later. They had precious little time to come to their decisions.
 
Back
Top