Could Robert E Lee have lost on purpose?

[krvaldovinos]

It is easy to speculate on such possibilities, but often impossible to "disprove" them. However, spectacular claims require spectacular evidence. The burden does not lie upon others to "prove you wrong," but upon you to give others cause to take your suggestion seriously.

You're right; I should have been more clear as to why I posted this. Please refer to my comment #44 in this thread if you're still interested.

 

[krvaldovinos]

That time when you click on the What if section and you got a blinding headache and wondered what you had been drinking that day and remembered you had not.

I'm a cadet and it was just a thought. You don't have to make fun of me. But I should have explained more in my original question, which I expanded on in comment #44 in this thread.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Poor R.E. . Such is his legacy you wonder if anyone has the definitive word on the guy. You know- stuck forever riding that loop on Traveler between 1861 and 1865, after which he never did anything- just headed back to 1861. Or Harper's Ferry. Children and the wife make brief appearances in the sidecar, gosh, even 2 enslaved at Arlington have a place in History because they were connected to Lee-heck even Arlington magically became Lee's ancestral home. It's blasphemy to suggest otherwise. R.E. tried mightily to wean Mary from Arlington, her ancestral home, feeling she spent far too much time and had too much loyalty there. Place drove him crazy. Point being while this particular question is a no-brainer there's an awful lot of myth on Lee. Easy myth too, not anything you can't see laying right out there in the open.

He is a very cute dog! You never know with those awful tumors. Our ancient Shepherd mix has had them for years, still not causing him pain. Vet said you just can't tell- no point in doing anything, make sure he's happy. Still raiding the garbage can and chasing cats.

Great observation and thanks for the heads up about the myths. I just wish to actually believe he had a choice, knew what was right, knew that there was definitely going to be a war, and used a (strange) strategy to accomplish the right thing to do. You may say I'm a dreamer (but I'm not the only one).

And yes!!! That dog is wonderful. I hope that at the end of my days I will age graceful like her; walk a little slower, sleep in the sun longer, enjoy time with the people I love, and stop to smell the roses.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Lee was not attempting to lose on purpose. He had way too much integrity to do that, however I will add this to your speculation.....................Lee knew the South could not match the North in manpower but yet he threw his forces at them whenever possible.....(Malvern Hill, Pickett's Charge...ect..ect.)...in costly attacks.....Even his victories were costly to the manpower of the South,...........That was his tactics, offensive/defensive, and not due to him trying to lose.


View attachment 76896
Respectfully,
William

That comment includes some of the reasons that I posted this question! Thank you for commenting.

 

[FZ11]

I'm not saying I think Lee did this, but what if all along he didn't want the south to secede, and when Virginia seceded he used "I'm going with my state" to side with the union and then he put up a good fight but eventually surrendered because that's what he felt should happen? Just prove me wrong in this thread please.

Lee didn't have to lose on purpose.....Lee was gonna lose,anyway. Population and resources.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Lee didn't have to lose on purpose.....Lee was gonna lose,anyway. Population and resources.

Did he not know that or did he just not want to believe it?

 

[millerpsc]

I can see the logic in this OP's question. In the seven days battle Lee attacked aggressively and in some ways too aggressively. 2nd Manassas he sends arguably his best corps commander behind enemy lines by itself to hold off an entire army until the rest of Lee's forces came up. Then at Antietam he had his army split again with its back against the Potomac and it was nothing short of a miracle that his army survived. Then at Fredricksburg his army was split yet again when Burnside arrived who decided to wait to cross the river until all the pontoons came up. At chancellorsville he Split his Army Again against superior numbers. At Gettysburg instead of ordering a tactical withdrawal to ground better suited to his use he attacks the enemy on high ground across large open fields and formation destroying obstacles. He definitely had a tendency to risk it all and it seems he did that on nearly every field. But no I don't think he lost on purpose either. Really it was the economy and infrastructure that lost the war, the Lee.

 

[HLKelley]

I don't suspect that you can get many honest answers to your question. Seem as though many here had some sort of personal relationship with ole Robert E. Lee. There are quite a few questions that I had about Mr. Lee and his military mishaps. Such as having cannon and rifles being shot less than a mile away ... yet not intervening ... allowing massive casualties ... and ultimately costing the entire war.

 

[HLKelley]

Unless of course ... Lee played his part as an inferior general ... and when he had drug the war out for as long as needed ... the European banksters stopped the funding? Just a logical thought.

 

[HLKelley]

I guess the question would be ... "Is there anyway possible that external influences could have desired ... insighted ... financed ... and controlled the civil war ... from ... say ... Europe? For the purpose of destroying Constitutional Rights?" Ha! No way that could happen ... Right?

 

[dlofting]

I guess the question would be ... "Is there anyway possible that external influences could have desired ... insighted ... financed ... and controlled the civil war ... from ... say ... Europe? For the purpose of destroying Constitutional Rights?" Ha! No way that could happen ... Right?

I really don't understand what you're saying.....can you elaborate and clarify ?