Shelby Foote Quote on Lee and Gettysburg

NH Civil War Gal · Jul 5, 2023

Shelby Foote famously said that "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Robert E. Lee as commander."

What does that even mean?

JineArtillery · Jul 5, 2023

Well, Lee is known for having pushed for a northern campaign instead of sending assistance to Pemberton at Vicksburg (believing Johnston would be a better reinforcement) and Gettysburg was the result of that.

GwilymT · Jul 5, 2023

I've always taken it to mean that the defeat at Gettysburg and disastrous casualties suffered was the price paid for having such an audacious and aggressive commander who sometimes (like Gettysburg) bordered on recklessness. One can only draw an inside straight so many times playing rashly before the cards don't come out your way and you end up giving it all back to the house. While you have the hot hand it's great but the cards ALWAYS cool off at some point and when they do you better not be all in.

Nathan Stuart · Jul 5, 2023

Thought Foote's quoted statement is a little unfair to Lee, when it's considered in isolation.

Interpreted it to be meant as a criticism of Lee's mindset and command style demonstrated at Gettysburg, which culminated in the disastrous consequences of 'Pickett's Charge'. Thought the statement was a somewhat subtle attempt to assign the blame in the wake of the magnitude of Southern losses suffered there. (Interestingly, suspect this quote would not have even been conceived if Lee had won at Gettysburg, regardless of the casualties).

If one considers this quote in the context of Lee's leadership performance throughout the entire war, then personally believe it lessens the impact of any negative inferences that could be read into it.

Stryker65 · Jul 5, 2023

I tend not to really put much weight on Foote's quotes.
He once said, "There were two great men in the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest."
-Stryker

damYankee · Jul 6, 2023

As a general rule, generals are overrated.
Or, as Iron Mike once said, "everyone has a great plan till you punch them in the nose."

Nathan Stuart · Jul 6, 2023

NH Civil War Gal said:
Shelby Foote famously said that "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Robert E. Lee as commander."

If the above statement is accepted at face value, then thought Gettysburg was a small price for the South to pay for Lee's effective and unifying field leadership over the entire course of the war.

Applying any cost/benefit analysis to Lee's overall field command performances in the wartime period, thought the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

If Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Lee in command, then it was a price the Confederacy was willing to pay.

EHParks · Jul 6, 2023

Nathan Stuart said:
If the above statement is accepted at face value, then thought Gettysburg was a small price for the South to pay for Lee's effective and unifying field leadership over the entire course of the war.

Applying any cost/benefit analysis to Lee's overall field command performances in the wartime period, thought the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

Except Lee didn't "effectively" unify the Armies of the South. He barely unified the Army of Northern Virginia at times.

Nathan Stuart · Jul 6, 2023

EHParks said:
Except Lee didn't "effectively" unify the Armies of the South. He barely unified the Army of Northern Virginia at times.

Lee's performance record of successful Army leadership on the battlefields in Virginia is indisputable - he was effective as a field commander. Was also separately referring to his ability to unify (hold together) throughout most of the war period such a diverse group of senior commanders (some of whom might be regarded as eccentric), within the A of NV. In my view, there was no other individual who could have managed this outcome. (He wasn't made General-in-chief of all Confederate Armies in the field until 1865).

jackt62 · Jul 6, 2023

Leave it to Shelby Foote to come up with some very clever aphorisms!

east_beast · Jul 6, 2023

Lee had to be aggressive to the point of near recklessness. The Union had the far better war machine. Larger population, far superior manufacturing capacity, more money. The longer the war went the more it favored the superior war machine. The Confederates had to achieve some monumental victories to convince the Union the juice wasn't worth the squeeze and to negotiate a peace that honored the existence of an independent Confederacy. So yeah, Lee was in a situation where he had to be borderline recklessly aggressive.

East Tennessee Roots · Jul 6, 2023

NH Civil War Gal said:
Shelby Foote famously said that "Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Robert E. Lee as commander."

What does that even mean?

Lee believed he won on the first day. He believed he nearly won the second and would have had their attacks been "better coordinated" He truly believed his Army would do whatever he ordered them to do on day three.

rpkennedy · Jul 6, 2023

I take it to mean that Lee was aggressive and a gambler and, while generally successful, these tactics also led to heavy casualties which the CSA simply could not afford for long. At Gettysburg, the gambler rolled snake-eyes but still suffered the losses for little appreciable gain (except for supplies which would keep the army fed into the winter).

Ryan

121st PA Vols · Jul 6, 2023

Nathan Stuart said:
If the above statement is accepted at face value, then thought Gettysburg was a small price for the South to pay for Lee's effective and unifying field leadership over the entire course of the war.

Applying any cost/benefit analysis to Lee's overall field command performances in the wartime period, thought the benefits would far outweigh the costs.

If Gettysburg was the price the South paid for having Lee in command, then it was a price the Confederacy was willing to pay.

Well said. There's always a 'price to pay' whatever you do. But I wonder what critics feel the man was supposed to do? Sit idly by in Virginia while the Union army swelled to 200,000....300,000?
Given the peace movements, overall political/military situation, combined with the northern command structure run by the greatest collection of incompetent commanders Lee could ever hope for (McClellan, Burnside, Hooker) to know he or any number of commanders would likely be audacious confronted by realities that promised such great rewards if well exploited.

MRB1863 · Jul 6, 2023

It partly means..."Hey! As a Monday morning quarterback, I can make a buck off this unfortunate carnage and get famous..."

Coonewah Creek · Jul 6, 2023

At Gettysburg when Lee rolled the dice, he just happened to come up "snake eyes."

jackt62 · Jul 6, 2023

It wasn't only Gettysburg that the south paid the price for. The heavy casualty lists that resulted from Lee's aggressive tactics from the Seven Days onward failed to accomplish their purpose of attaining southern independence.

EHParks · Jul 6, 2023

Nathan Stuart said:
Lee's performance record of successful Army leadership on the battlefields in Virginia is indisputable - he was effective as a field commander. Was also separately referring to his ability to unify (hold together) throughout most of the war period such a diverse group of senior commanders (some of whom might be regarded as eccentric), within the A of NV. In my view, there was no other individual who could have managed this outcome. (He wasn't made General-in-chief of all Confederate Armies in the field until 1865).

Lee wasn't the "indispensable" man history has made him out to be. He had shortcomings as a leader, among them the difficulty he had effectively managing logistics (admittedly exacerbated by an incompetent Confederate government) on a large scale. I think if he had shown the same audacity in managing his quartermasters and the bureaucrats early on his men would have fared better at times. His victories are, as you say, "indisputable", but so are the losses and missed opportunities.

bankerpapaw · Jul 6, 2023

JineArtillery said:
Well, Lee is known for having pushed for a northern campaign instead of sending assistance to Pemberton at Vicksburg (believing Johnston would be a better reinforcement) and Gettysburg was the result of that.

Lee was way to focused on Virginia, not Vicksburg.

bankerpapaw · Jul 6, 2023

Coonewah Creek said:
At Gettysburg when Lee rolled the dice, he just happened to come up "snake eyes."

I've always thought about Gettysburg: What was Lee thinking?

Shelby Foote Quote on Lee and Gettysburg

Major

Private

1st Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Captain

Captain

1st Lieutenant

Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Major

Corporal

Major

Colonel

First Sergeant

Lt. Colonel

Sergeant Major

Major

Sergeant

Captain

Captain

Similar threads

Similar threads