Lee General RE Lee, CSA

[firefly177]

Why do you think Gen. RE Lee lionized by history and today? Is it for the battles he personally directed and won? According to some historians, wasn't the General was know as the King of Spades by the people of Richmond for his defensive stance around that city? Wasn't it at Malvern Hill where the General ordered repeated frontal assaults against well entrenched Union forces time and time again? Did defeat rest squarely in the lap of the General at Gettysburg where once again a frontal assault against prepared defenders almost carried the day but ended in failure and at great cost?

Please do not take my questions as being disrespectful of the General, I am just trying to understand if the myth did grow bigger than the man.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[cash]

It's because the losers wrote the history.

 

[brass napoleon]

Why do you think Gen. RE Lee lionized by history and today? Is it for the battles he personally directed and won? According to some historians, wasn't the General was know as the King of Spades by the people of Richmond for his defensive stance around that city? Wasn't it at Malvern Hill where the General ordered repeated frontal assaults against well entrenched Union forces time and time again? Did defeat rest squarely in the lap of the General at Gettysburg where once again a frontal assault against prepared defenders almost carried the day but ended in failure and at great cost?

Please do not take my questions as being disrespectful of the General, I am just trying to understand if the myth did grow bigger than the man.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Well, he was lionized during the time he was a general for the Confederacy - both by Southerners AND Northerners. He was only called the "King of Spades" early in the war. He didn't order repeated frontal assaults on Malvern Hill. (He gave discretionary orders for a single assault, but was not present when the discretion was poorly used). He did blunder at Gettysburg, but you have to balance that against brilliant successes at Second Mannassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

That said, the myth certainly did grow bigger than the man (as it did with Lincoln). But it didn't just sprout up out of nowhere.

 

[firefly177]

Well, he was lionized during the time he was a general for the Confederacy - both by Southerners AND Northerners. He was only called the "King of Spades" early in the war. He didn't order repeated frontal assaults on Malvern Hill. (He gave discretionary orders for a single assault, but was not present when the discretion was poorly used). He did blunder at Gettysburg, but you have to balance that against brilliant successes at Second Mannassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

That said, the myth certainly did grow bigger than the man (as it did with Lincoln). But it didn't just sprout up out of nowhere.

Could you expand on the victories you listed? This is an area of his leadership that I don't know about. Thanks

 

[Drew]

"Oh, I am heartily sick of hearing what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think that he is going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."
- U.S. Grant to his staff at the Battle of the Wilderness

 

[AndyHall]

Part of Lee's apotheosis (which would have happened to some extent, regardless) is that he died in 1870, relatively soon after the war, and during those last years led a relatively quiet and uncontroversial life, mostly out of the public eye, running Washington College in Lexington. So in the years following that, when southerners were fighting bitterly with each other over the legacy of the war (e.g., Longstreet and Early), Lee was no longer around and people could project whatever they wanted onto his image, and claim him as their own. I don't think that would have happened -- we would not have had the Marble Man -- if Lee had lived another 15 or 20 years, and (inevitably) gotten drawn into internecine battles for the legacy of the Confederacy (and recriminations for its defeat) that came after Reconstruction.

 

[rhp6033]

Lee's overall record was wasn't that impressive: 3-5-2. The details: Won Seven Days, Chancellorsville, 2nd Mannasas. Losses: West Virginia, Malvern Hill, (part of Seven Days), Gettysburg, Overland Campaign, Petersburg. Draws: Antetam, Wilderness. But in the details we see he was fighting against overwhelming numbers and until the very end avoided the enemies' objectives.

But most importantly Lee drew the admiration and respect of his staff and common soldier, something which was invaluable to the ANV.

 

[John Winn]

Just because you asked, I'll say that I do feel Lee has been sainted (dare I say in a similar way as Lincoln). However, I don't think his generalship is exactly a myth. To me, the greatest testimony is that he was admired and loved while he was living by those who served under him and that he was able to sustain an army in the field for four years against overwhelming odds. Perfect and saintly ? No. A good general and person ? Yes.

 

[Billy Yank]

Lee's overall record was wasn't that impressive: 3-5-2. The details: Won Seven Days, Chancellorsville, 2nd Mannasas. Losses: West Virginia, Malvern Hill, (part of Seven Days), Gettysburg, Overland Campaign, Petersburg. Draws: Antetam, Wilderness. But in the details we see he was fighting against overwhelming numbers and until the very end avoided the enemies' objectives.

But most importantly Lee drew the admiration and respect of his staff and common soldier, something which was invaluable to the ANV.

Despite the casualty figures, some say Antietam was a Union victory since Lee withdrew.

Lee represented the nobility/nobleness of the Old South. His manner and stature were both incomparable as befitting his position in the Confederacy.

Gettysburg & Malvern Hill...meh.

 

[damYankee]

Because in the last year and a half of the Civil War his men fought for him, he had become the symbol of their cause, and after the fall of Richmond, when Confederate leaders such and Jefferson and the rest of the political elites were hightailing it out of the country and taking all the loot they could, Lee stood by his men.
Sometimes it is how a leader handles defeat that makes them great. Grant and Lee had much in common in that regard.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

Because in the last year and a half of the Civil War his men fought for him, he had become the symbol of their cause, and after the fall of Richmond, when Confederate leaders such and Jefferson and the rest of the political elites were hightailing it out of the country and taking all the loot they could, Lee stood by his men.
Sometimes it is how a leader handles defeat that makes them great. Grant and Lee had much in common in that regard.

Very well said!!

I would also add two points that I think make Lee remarkable (and created his legacy -- or "myth" for those so inclined):
1. No other general in American history bonded so completely with his troops and inspired such total loyalty and confidence
2. No other American general has entered so many battles against such daunting odds and had the cojones to roll the dice and the confidence and brains to succeed so often. Without him, the CSA would have been toast by the end of 1862.

...and while I'm rambling....it took a general of unusual clarity of purpose and utter determination to finally bring Lee to heel. Nothing less would work and the Union was fortunate that it had Grant.

 

[diane]

Living longer was what happened to Grant. He should have been lionized as well but had an unfortunate presidency that made it easier to set Lee on top of him. Lee did represent what Southerners had lost, and in many ways he still does.

 

[Carronade]

Also he had the sense and the decency to recognize when it was over and tell his men to go home and get on with their lives in peace. Some of his officers urged him to disperse the army and start a guerilla war, which would have been a long drawn out disaster for all concerned. Lee was a force for reconciliation, a fine contribution to restoring our nation.

 

[Billy Yank]

Also he had the sense and the decency to recognize when it was over and tell his men to go home and get on with their lives in peace. Some of his officers urged him to disperse the army and start a guerilla war, which would have been a long drawn out disaster for all concerned. Lee was a force for reconciliation, a fine contribution to restoring our nation.

I agree. Gen. Grant also offered very generous terms at Appomattox Court House.

 

[brass napoleon]

Well, he was lionized during the time he was a general for the Confederacy - both by Southerners AND Northerners. He was only called the "King of Spades" early in the war. He didn't order repeated frontal assaults on Malvern Hill. (He gave discretionary orders for a single assault, but was not present when the discretion was poorly used). He did blunder at Gettysburg, but you have to balance that against brilliant successes at Second Mannassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

That said, the myth certainly did grow bigger than the man (as it did with Lincoln). But it didn't just sprout up out of nowhere.

Chancellorsville and Second Manassas are generally considered his "masterpieces". In both cases he was overwhelmingly outnumbered in theater, and yet he read his opponent brilliantly, defied military convention, and drove him out of the theater demoralized and defeated. You can learn more about these battles here:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/5-most-brilliant-campaigns.99284/

Fredericksburg was an even more demoralizing defeat for his opponent, and one of the most lopsided victories of the war, although in this case his opponent probably deserves most of the credit for that.

Putting all of that together, plus his success in the Seven Days, and you get the quote that Drew posted in Post #5.

 

[Rebel from Finland]

Because in the last year and a half of the Civil War his men fought for him, he had become the symbol of their cause, and after the fall of Richmond, when Confederate leaders such and Jefferson and the rest of the political elites were hightailing it out of the country and taking all the loot they could, Lee stood by his men.
Sometimes it is how a leader handles defeat that makes them great. Grant and Lee had much in common in that regard.

What strikes me is that when all was over, at Appomattox 65, Lee had the humility to plead for his men, that they had food and could keep their horses for the spring planting. He really did care for "his boys" and that was the story that his boys took home with them.

 

[suzenatale]

It's because the losers wrote the history.

Part of it is the lost cause myth for sure, but I do wonder if at times people studying military history were simply more interested in the strategy of wars rather than their causes. Much the same as how people admire an athlete for his skill without worrying about the athlete's beliefs.

 

[cash]

Part of it is the lost cause myth for sure, but I do wonder if at times people studying military history were simply more interested in the strategy of wars rather than their causes. Much the same as how people admire an athlete for his skill without worrying about the athlete's beliefs.

Yes ... that comes from the influence of the lost cause.

 

[Rebel from Finland]

Yes ... that comes from the influence of the lost cause.

You just can´t help yourself.

 

[James N.]

Part of it is the lost cause myth for sure, but I do wonder if at times people studying military history were simply more interested in the strategy of wars rather than their causes. Much the same as how people admire an athlete for his skill without worrying about the athlete's beliefs.

That's the reason that the usual list of Great Captains includes such divergent figures as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Wellington, and Rommel ( and usually Lee and Jackson and often Grant as well ) - they're considered by their achievements like the aforementioned Second Manassas and Chancellorsville and not political, social, or moral aspects of their careers. Alexander in particular appears to have been a psychopath I wouldn't want to have been anywhere near, but he conquered the known world!