Lee Colonel Lee

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

I don't understand the controversy and discussion on the matter, What's so hard to accept about a "mere" Colonel being offered a higher position?The rank of colonel is not a lowly position, It happened, accept it.

If it wasn't a problem the Union quite probably might have ended the war in the first year. The internecine squabbling between McClelland, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade had more to do with the failures of the AoP than anything Lee did.

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

So we all know that Colonel Robert E. Lee USA was offered command of the Union armies by General Scott. Find it somewhat interesting that it was offered to a colonel.

So was Lee really that much of a "boy genius" that Scott favored him above any of the other standing regular army generals? Or were there no regular army generals who didn't go South at that point? Or were the ones that were around, clearly not respected by Scott?

You may not know but Albert Sidney Johnson at the time of Ft Sumpter was stationed in California. It took him several months to manage the return trip to his native south. I came across one assertion that had he been in eastern US it is quite possible that it would have been a toss up as to whether he or Lee would have been offered the command. It seems that he was held in as high esteem by the military community as Lee was.

Secondly your point that command was offered to a mere colonel. First you have to remember that at the time the of brevet command was much more pervasive. Today if a campaign requires an officer to command a force requiring a 3 star general, then you pick among existing 3 stars. Same for 2 stars...1 star... Col...etc. A prime example was Custer. He was nominally a 1 or 2 star general but his permanent rank was only Lt or Capt.

If the idea of a mere colonel being offered the position of C in C boggles your mind, please do not read anything about WWII. Almost immediately after war was declared against Germany, George Marchall dispatched a "mere" Lt Col to go to Europe and in Nov '42 and assess the situation. Almost he became Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary force (essentially a Field Marshall position). A necessary fiction given that he would have to deal with officers in foreign armies with much greater nominal ranks. Ditto with Lee. I am of course referring to Ike.

 

[thomas aagaard]

If it wasn't a problem the Union quite probably might have ended the war in the first year. The internecine squabbling between McClelland, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade had more to do with the failures of the AoP than anything Lee did.

??
Meade did not even make corp command until spring of 1863.
For the firt year of the war he was at most a brigade commander.
And for most of the 2nd year he was a division commander.

So I fail to se why he should carry any of the blame for the command failures of the first year of the war...

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

??
Meade did not even make corp command until spring of 1863.
For the firt year of the war he was at most a brigade commander.
And for most of the 2nd year he was a division commander.

So I fail to se why he should carry any of the blame for the command failures of the first year of the war...

My point is not to place blame on Meade, but he was a part of the system of factions that impeded Union prosecution of the war. Part of Grant's genius may have been his decision to retain Meade of CinC of the AoP while hovering over his shoulder all the way to Richmond. By leaving him in command he reinforced his authority over the various corps commanders, while insulating himself from political machinations by the subordinates.

Lest you doubt my appreciation of Meade. I have often said that the ONLY Union general who could look God in the eye and assert "I whupped Bobby Lee" was George Meade.