Lee All Lee Needed was a Tie for Victory...

The forays out of Virginia were a failure on more than one level. They abandoned the last scrap of claim to the moral high ground the Confederacy might have had in the eyes of the Union. Before that point there were people - potential voters! who felt that the Confederacy should be allowed to govern itself and mind its own business. After, there was no possible way that they were going to be allowed to invade Northern territory, burn Northern towns, and then just walk away. It was the best thing Lee could possibly have done for Northern morale.

I agree with you given the fact that Lee lost. It was another gamble on his part, in that if he won, the effect on Union morale could have been devastating. The flip side of that gamble was the effect a Confederate loss would have on BOTH Union and Confederate morale. And as you say, it could swing undecided folks in the North decidedly away from the Confederacy. There was a lot at stake, and Lee rarely gambled on small stakes.
 
I agree with you given the fact that Lee lost. It was another gamble on his part, in that if he won, the effect on Union morale could have been devastating. The flip side of that gamble was the effect a Confederate loss would have on BOTH Union and Confederate morale. And as you say, it could swing undecided folks in the North decidedly away from the Confederacy. There was a lot at stake, and Lee rarely gambled on small stakes.
Given how we reacted to Pearl Harbor, I don't think the reaction to a victory would have been much of an improvement from Lee's perspective.
 
Given how we reacted to Pearl Harbor, I don't think the reaction to a victory would have been much of an improvement from Lee's perspective.

Given the tenor of the anti war voices in the North at the time of the Civil War, I'm not sure that Pearl would be an apt comparison. But, I could be wrong.
 
Sadly Lee goes to the proper strategy of fighting from cover way to late in the war. The old man was slow to see the errors of his earlier strategies to late. He cost the south the war...

I want to note history bring up that during the Gettysburg campaign Longstreet believes he has an agreement that they will fight form a defensive position when they meet the Union army trying to repeat a Fredericksburg.

Longstreet was unenthusiastic about Lee’s planned invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863, believing that supplementing Confederate forces in the West was a more prudent option. He later wrote that he endorsed the strategy only after confirming that the campaign would be based around fighting from defensive positions—the same tactic that had been so effective at Fredericksburg.

It seems Lee ignored Longstreet wise advice at Gettysburg but with Grant he followed it well...


I found this site om Longstreet here is a snippet... Conceptualization: of the war...

• Conceptualization: his use of earthworks (especially the “traverse trench”, which is a trench with barriers at right angles to the main trench wall) showed his skill and his anticipation of modern warfare. He recognized that the Union could afford to lose battles – or win costly battles – while the Confederacy could not. He also recognized the importance of the Western Theater. For example, Tennessee and Kentucky were politically important, 2) the Mississippi River must not be lost and 3) interior lines must be exploited – men and supplies could be moved directly where they needed to be within southern territory.

Link...

http://telegraph.civilwar.org/educa...CWPT Gifted Curriculum - James Longstreet.pdf
 
You have to take Longstreet's memoirs with a grain of salt. Also Longstreet's wanting to reinforce the west was made totally out of his desire for personal advancement. he wanted command of the AoT and a transfer west with his corps was the first step in his plan.
 
You have to take Longstreet's memoirs with a grain of salt. Also Longstreet's wanting to reinforce the west was made totally out of his desire for personal advancement. he wanted command of the AoT and a transfer west with his corps was the first step in his plan.

I agree Longstreet's memoirs must be taken with a grain of salt but for Michael Shaara, it was his guiding light for his book Killer Angel's...
 
I do not know if it should be a separate thread but we must ask the question: Why did Lee change his fighting style after engaging Grant in the Wilderness? I read about the Overland campaign Grant and Lee are both whining about wanting meeting the other army in open field contest. Lee could have had this open field contest by letting Grant's army cross at a ford once across and moving challenge him with his army. He spends the whole Overland campaign contesting every ford Grant tries to cross at by building breastworks and fighting behind cover. Lee whines about open field contest but nevers allows it to happen.

Sadly Lee goes to the proper strategy of fighting from cover way to late in the war. The old man was slow to see the errors of his earlier strategies to late. He cost the south the war...

I wrote this earlier but it seems to have gotten lost. Lee changed his fighting style for Grant. I ask WHY? Lee changed styles for Grant. Would this not give weight to the argument that Grant was a better general then Lee? Grant was Grant even against Lee...
 
I wrote this earlier but it seems to have gotten lost. Lee changed his fighting style for Grant. I ask WHY? Lee changed styles for Grant. Would this not give weight to the argument that Grant was a better general then Lee? Grant was Grant even against Lee...

That's not hard! Grant was a horse of a different color and Lee adapted. He was old, not stupid, and it would have been stupid to fight Grant the way he'd fought, say, Joe Hooker. That of itself actually makes Lee the better general as he demonstrated flexibility and innovation. But Grant did the same thing - this wasn't Pemberton. Looking at it from a chess game sort of view, I wouldn't be surprised if both generals were inwardly pleased to have the challenge. Neither had met his match before, both had to use all his skill, experience and knowledge to beat the other.
 
I wrote this earlier but it seems to have gotten lost. Lee changed his fighting style for Grant. I ask WHY? Lee changed styles for Grant. Would this not give weight to the argument that Grant was a better general then Lee? Grant was Grant even against Lee...


Please give more specifics about how Lee changed his style against Grant, because I just don't see how he did. Lee was always looking to land that big haymaker counter attack at every battle in the overland campaign just as he did in 62
 
Please give more specifics about how Lee changed his style against Grant, because I just don't see how he did. Lee was always looking to land that big haymaker counter attack at every battle in the overland campaign just as he did in 62

Lee never before except it Fredericksburg fought from behind cover but Fredericksburg was like a siege. He never before the Overland campaign never tried to stop or block the union army from fording the rivers. He met ever other general in open field combat but with Grant he ran ahead and built cover and waited for Grant to come. He never ever built cover a waited with any other general he fought before.

This style of fighting describe above was never pursued by Lee until to met Grant...
 
Lee got the nickname the "ace of spades" in 1864? no he got that in 1862 when he took over command of the ANV and the first thing he did was dig in in front of McClellan.

Mine Run?

He didn't run ahead and dig in. He barely won a foot race to Spotsylvania and dug like mad once they got there. He was not in a prepared position there. It was prepared as the 2 armies came together there.
 
I wrote this earlier but it seems to have gotten lost. Lee changed his fighting style for Grant. I ask WHY? Lee changed styles for Grant. Would this not give weight to the argument that Grant was a better general then Lee? Grant was Grant even against Lee...

Did he?

The ANV used heavy fortifications and entrenchments at Yorktown, Williamsburg and in front of Richmond. They found a strong position with natural entrenchments along the rock shelf at Antietam and used them. They dug heavy entrenchments covering the Potomac river crossings in NVa and along the Rappahanock. They entrenched heavily at Falling Waters, at Mine Run etc.

In fact Lee was a heavy user of entrenchments, which confused the hell out of Grant - no commander he'd previously faced had entrenched in the field and he didn't understand it, taking it as a sign of weakness.
 
The ANV used heavy fortifications and entrenchments at Yorktown, Williamsburg and in front of Richmond. They found a strong position with natural entrenchments along the rock shelf at Antietam and used them. They dug heavy entrenchments covering the Potomac river crossings in NVa and along the Rappahanock. They entrenched heavily at Falling Waters, at Mine Run etc.

All these places you mention were early in the war before Lee took command. Its known that Lee was in charge of Richmond's defensive and dug crazy around the city. Once Lee took command to did not fight from behind cover in the Seven Days, 2nd Bull Run, Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg or Wilderness(Day1). The only exception is Fredericksburg and it resembles more of a siege than open battle. But once he met Grant he went to racing ahead of Grant to dig in and fight from cover.

My second point if you read the Overland Campaign Lee's bemoan he wants to get Grant in open combat but it is he who is not allowing open combat. He contesting every ford along the rivers... My only commit is: This is the style of warfare he should have conducted throughout the war to conserve his army. He only needed to shed union blood and play for the tie until the Northern populace tried of the war... but he fought or gamble the army away with over aggressive tactics...
 
Lee got the nickname the "ace of spades" in 1864? no he got that in 1862 when he took over command of the ANV and the first thing he did was dig in in front of McClellan.

Mine Run?

He didn't run ahead and dig in. He barely won a foot race to Spotsylvania and dug like mad once they got there. He was not in a prepared position there. It was prepared as the 2 armies came together there.

I know he got the aces of spades nickname for his digging enforcements around Richmond in 1862. He may have dug in in front of McClellan but he did not fight from behind them. He did not wait for McClellan he took the fight to him, losing loads of men. He dug in at Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor and fought form behind them...

Mine Run, he was dug in but learned of an open flank and was trying to another Chancellorsville but Meade pulled back before the plan could happen.
 
Back
Top