Another Lee Thread...Talent/Skill - Lucky?

[CChartreux]

Hey everyone -

I've always been curious about something. Curious mostly because I haven't yet taken the time to study Lee directly...one of these days, I imagine I'll get there. [~sigh~ so many Civil War Generals...so little time ~sigh~]

So - my caveat is that you'll indulge me some ignorance here on Lee and take the question with the genuine sincerity that's intended. Additionally, I imagine this has been discussed before...but I don't see that it recently has. So I hope some of you veterans will be willing to set aside the 'been there/done that' stigma and regurgitate your opinions on this...as well as anyone else who wants to comment.

One of the things that seems to crop up here and there in Civil War literature (not that often, but sometimes)...is this notion that Lee's victories emanate from being able to take advantage of mistakes that the AoP made, their weaknesses, and so forth. This isn't a 'bad' thing (all's fair in love and war); and, by all means, any advantage one can gain over an opponent is valid and legitimate. Moreover, simply taking advantage of an opponent's weaknesses or mistakes is not without risk and does, indeed, take creativity, skill, and nerve. To that end, I don't want this to sound like taking advantage of weaknesses and mistakes is outside the realm of possibility as a warfare strategy nor a 'bad' thing nor a 'taking-the-easy-way-out' kind of thing either. As such, I guess I mean to say that I'm asking the question seriously.

Some people have proposed an argument that runs something like this: If Lee had all the resources he wanted, etc., and so forth, he would have won (by extrapolation...I think that means the Confederacy would have won...or something along those lines). But I've often wondered whether Lee would have functioned completely differently if he had all the resources he wanted. That is to say...Lee functioned the way he did because he really didn't have much of a choice (i.e., he had to make do with what he had...both circumstances and resources). What's to say his whole approach to warfighting wouldn't have been different if he had more choices presented to him. I'm not saying this would be true (ignorance caveat applies!)...I just wonder about it.

So...I guess I'm asking two questions:

(1) What say you all as regards Lee's victories vis-a-vis...were they truly 'brilliant' tactical/strategic achievements...or were they 'got-lucky-enemy-screwed-up'...or maybe a little of both. Or, even the innocuous (but always interesting) 'other'.

(2) Were Lee's skills/abilities driven, and therefore manifested, by necessity? Or, having been on the Union side, for example, and having (most likely) more choices in how to conduct tactical/strategic endeavors, along with the better supply/logistics infrastructure...might this have changed how he approached things? Would he have been required to be as clever as he was? Or, would he have had just a different set of headaches and responded to them differently? How would he have fared in the clique-ish AoP? [That last one (on the clique-ish AoP) is perhaps more of a rhetorical question; but, nevertheless, suggested as a means to emphasize the notion of just a different type of challenge/headache.]

I toy sometimes with the opinion that circumstance makes the general almost as much as raw talent. Sometimes, anyway (or, at least, it's a factor; maybe more, maybe less). By the same token, one could ask how much the political situation shaped McClellan, or environmental circumstances shaped Grant, Sherman, etc., and so forth (i.e., something beyond simply their innate talent and skill - the circumstance they find themselves in, how they respond, and the results that come from that side of the equation...if you will (contrasted to just their innate skill). For example, you could put a guy in one circumstance and he's amazingly successful; you could put him in a completely different one...and not so much maybe.

Anyway - thinking about Lee in this regard and curious about your all's opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Not really looking for a 'wrong/right' sort of answer...just your all's own thoughts on how you look at this.







Thanks!
CC

 

[Elennsar]

I tend to think that Lee would have done better with more at his disposal. It would mean successes that couldn't be exploited effectively for lack of reserves would have them to exploit.

But beyond that, I don't know myself.

 

[ole]

You do tend to ask difficult questions, CC.

Lee was (1) What say you all as regards Lee's victories vis-a-vis...were they truly 'brilliant' tactical/strategic achievements...or were they 'got-lucky-enemy-screwed-up'...or maybe a little of both. Or, even the innocuous (but always interesting) 'other'.

Lee did have the unique skill to read his opposition and figure out what what going to happen next. It didn't always work, but enough to give him an edge.

(2) Were Lee's skills/abilities driven, and therefore manifested, by necessity? Or, having been on the Union side, for example, and having (most likely) more choices in how to conduct tactical/strategic endeavors, along with the better supply/logistics infrastructure...might this have changed how he approached things? Would he have been required to be as clever as he was? Or, would he have had just a different set of headaches and responded to them differently? How would he have fared in the clique-ish AoP? [That last one (on the clique-ish AoP) is perhaps more of a rhetorical question; but, nevertheless, suggested as a means to emphasize the notion of just a different type of challenge/headache.]

Way to complex. Lee simply figured out what his opposition ought do do and accommodated. He did that often up until Appomattox ... with only a few slip-ups.

I suspect that Bobby Lee was probably the last, best hope of the Confederacy. It might appear that his best was not good enough. But that wasn't his problem. He was working off a "Hail, Virginia," when there was a hollow shell supporting him.

I suppose that, were I a Virginian in 1861, I'd have gone with the secesh. It seemed like a good idea. Didn't want no dang Yankees stepping foot on my turf. (Sound like today's ********ers? My turf?) The more things change, the more they remain the same. There is a lesson here. If we can't see it, then we'll have to repeat it.

Ole

 

[Elijah]

I tend to believe that taking advantage of enemy mistakes and making good tactical decisions is really the same thing. I believe Lee was a great leader of men and, for the most part, his intelligence and aggressiveness combined to provide the South with much to be proud of. I don't think luck is the answer. When Lee made mistakes, he got burned just like the opposition. In fact, for all his wonderful qualities as a general, I believe it was Lee's mistake in invading the North and fighting at Gettyburg that lost the war for the South. So, I'm gonna leave the lucky part out and stick with an opinion that Robert E. Lee was a great general on a losing side.

So, on the resources observation, I think the answer has to be yes. If Lee had more (or lets say equal) resources, I believe the South wins the war.

 

[Elennsar]

In fact, for all his wonderful qualities as a general, I believe it was Lee's mistake in invading the North and fighting at Gettyburg that lost the war for the South.

Not to drag this into a Gettysburg campaign discussion, but was it choosing to fight a major campaign there, or the consequences of his defeat?
So, on the resources observation, I think the answer has to be yes. If Lee had more (or lets say equal) resources, I believe the South wins the war. Today 12:41 AM

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lee did several different things as commander. He fought stubborn defensive battles at Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. He made attacks at Gettysburg, Seven Days, 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville. He performed as the circumstances dictated.

His signature "aggressive" style was his solution to the relative size of the armies and the generally poor coordination and sluggishness the AoP often displayed.

 

[matthew mckeon]

His solution worked.

Having written this, however, Lee's training and combat experience in Mexico reinforced one lesson, a well balanced, nimble, hard htting force could defeat a slower, less coordinated foe, despite the relative numbers.

If Lee had the command of the AoP, it would have been a more responsive, faster moving organization because that was the culture Lee would have fostered. Lee might have pulled a bonehead play like Fredericksburg(the head on attack, but not the pontoon screw up), but he never would have been caught up at Chancellorsville, or panicked if he had. With the positions reversed, Chancellorsville would have been Lee's Shiloh. He would have held the line, and counterattacked.

 

[ole]

All good responses. With adequate resources, a big what if (like, what if Lee had Kalashnikovs and tanks), the war would have been longer, but the Confederacy still loses.

The only reason the war went on for the four years it did was because of Lee's abilities as a general. With Elijah, I think luck had nothing to do with it. Somebody always screws up ... Lee made his share of boo-boos ... but Lee maintained the kind of flexibility in his forces that permitted him to swiftly jump on the errors of his opponents.

Just good generalship. No luck involved.

Ole

 

[Elijah]

Not to drag this into a Gettysburg campaign discussion, but was it choosing to fight a major campaign there, or the consequences of his defeat?
So, on the resources observation, I think the answer has to be yes. If Lee had more (or lets say equal) resources, I believe the South wins the war. Today 12:41 AM

I think they are both mistakes in judgment. first, to invade the North is a loser in my opinion. I have heard Lee's reasons for doing so but I still think it was a mistake to give the North any feeling that the war was a defensive struggle.

I also believe Lee's decisions on day 2 and day 3 were bigtime losers. Direct assault on a position of such strength just wasn't necessary. Even had the ridge been taken, I believe the cost would have far exceeded the gains. But, then of course, I don't think he should have been there at all.