Lee is overrated.

Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
70
#1
.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,569
Location
los angeles ca
#3
Has someone who is not deeply loved by the pro Confederate posters I would argue that while your latter points about segregation are correct your criticism of Lee is a bit harsh.
As former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said "You go to war with the army you have". Lee achieved the greatest results of any Confederate general by far. Lee was certainly loved by his troops. Off all the US Army offices General Scott chose Lee without hesitation to lead the US Army in the event of a Civil War.
Not sure given the inherent deficiencies of manpower and logistical support any general could of done better then Lee.
Leftyhunter
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
6,203
#4
.. Lee was overrated. The USA is lucky that Lee did not accept the command offered by Lincoln. Lee's heart would not have been in winning, and he did not have the acumen to succeed. He beat half-hearted Union Generals who where more concerned with their image vs fighting. When he fought generals that would stay and fought -he lost everytime. Remember, he was relieved of his command early in the war. He should have commanded a Regiment where his tactical skills could be utilized. He was not a strategist, nor did he possessed the ability to synchronize the entire Rebel Army like a general should. He only commanded the Army of NOVA. Longstreet or J.E.B should have commanded the losing effort. Lee was a loser who enjoys the iconic status of revisionist historians with a "lost cause" sympathy. The same revisionists who say that war was not about slavery, but states' right. Yeah, the Southern States' right to enslave people, and the same states' right to segregate people to ensure a white dominated society. Don't take my word for it, take the actual States' words for it...https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states. Sooner rather than later, we need to discuss facts and not rely on hand-me-down-tells or opinions that make us feel good.
This is about the 3rd or 4th time this exact same content has been posted - Basta! We get your point, already.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
70
#5
I understand and respect your points. However, Washington was under manned and resourced. Despite his Army's deficiencies, we developed a strategy to win. Lee did not.
 

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,852
#6
Welcome from the Ulysses S. Grant forum :grant:

Grant had his own thoughts about Robert E. Lee, and tried to convince his army that Lee was not that man everyone thought he was:

"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly 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 are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."

At this point, though, I shall stand back and let you do your thing :smile:
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Avondale Estates, Georgia
#8
I disagree Lee was overrated. He was a strong tactician and leader, men(and many women) followed him and continued to do so right up to appomattox court house and continued to revere and love him. Even today he is still so honored. Says a lot about a man gone for how long now? 149 years? About slavery, which way you look at it, the civil war was fought over the question of and to end slavery. And it did...ok, I'm not trying to defend nor accuse him. My question is, "what if".....General Lee stayed in the union and did not go with Virginia? Would the great and terrible american civil war have ended a lot sooner and with not so great a loss of lives? Oh well.....not trying to stir the pot!! Just a "what if"..?
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
70
#12
I agree that his team loved him, and that he was a great tactician. I am not convinced that he is a great general. Besides his men and revisionists historians loving him, what did he do that was great?
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,911
Location
Chicagoland
#13
Understood. I did not know the rules. My posts were being deleted, and did not understand why. I got it know.
A helpful hint. If you use the Reply tool in the lower righthand corner of a post to which you wish to respond, members will be better able to understand to whom you are responding.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
70
#15
I disagree Lee was overrated. He was a strong tactician and leader, men(and many women) followed him and continued to do so right up to appomattox court house and continued to revere and love him. Even today he is still so honored. Says a lot about a man gone for how long now? 149 years? About slavery, which way you look at it, the civil war was fought over the question of and to end slavery. And it did...ok, I'm not trying to defend nor accuse him. My question is, "what if".....General Lee stayed in the union and did not go with Virginia? Would the great and terrible american civil war have ended a lot sooner and with not so great a loss of lives? Oh well.....not trying to stir the pot!! Just a "what if"..?
agree that his team loved him, and that he was a great tactician. I am not convinced that he is a great general. Besides his men and revisionists historians loving him, what did he do that was great?
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,569
Location
los angeles ca
#16
I understand and respect your points. However, Washington was under manned and resourced. Despite his Army's deficiencies, we developed a strategy to win. Lee did not.
To be fair to Lee , Washington had the support of the French Army and Navy plus the Spanish Navy. The Colonial Rebels had the financial support of the Netherlands. Also to be fair the British were fighting a two front war in North America and the Indian Subcontinent.
Also the American Revolutionary War was not at all popular in the UK and the British had to outsource troops from the Germanic Principalities.
I love to compare an contrast war's. I do have a thread in the moderated forum "Compare and Contrast the American Civil War with the Vietnam War of 1957 to 1975.
It is very difficult to compare one war to another.
Leftyhunter
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
1,246
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
#17
Lee made his subordinate officers better. That is the mark of a great leader regardless of his tactical or strategic ability. He put people in situations where they could excel..
.Longstreet and Jackson come to mind. When you can do that you are making the best of what you have. What more could you ask of him?
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
552
Location
Tucson, Arizona
#18
Welcome from Arizona where it's always Sunny... though I disagree with much of your position, I respect your opinion. Like Grant, Lee was forced to coordinate an army with a great variety of field level Ieadership.

He managed to operate quite well, usually against superior numbers, and always against a better equipped adversary. Wonder if Grant could muster similar success given those limitations.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#19
agree that his team loved him, and that he was a great tactician. I am not convinced that he is a great general. Besides his men and revisionists historians loving him, what did he do that was great?
What is the definition of "great?" After all, since he lost and had to surrender, it seems he has quite a mountain to climb if "great" means winning the war. Can one be a "great" commander without winning one's war? We have to wrestle with that question first and define what "great" means.

He was certainly the most successful confederate army commander. Of course, he was the only confederate army commander who enjoyed any success.

He was also probably the bloodiest commander. He caused more casualties than most anyone else.

So what would he have to do to be considered "great?"
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
70
#20
To be fair to Lee , Washington had the support of the French Army and Navy plus the Spanish Navy. The Colonial Rebels had the financial support of the Netherlands. Also to be fair the British were fighting a two front war in North America and the Indian Subcontinent.
Also the American Revolutionary War was not at all popular in the UK and the British had to outsource troops from the Germanic Principalities.
I love to compare an contrast war's. I do have a thread in the moderated forum "Compare and Contrast the American Civil War with the Vietnam War of 1957 to 1975.
It is very difficult to compare one war to another.
Leftyhunter
Too your point. The Brits were also distracted with fighting for control from France in the West Indies. When Lee faced Grant, Lee was in the Defense. Historically he had 3 to 1 oddss. In addition, he had time to emplace obstacles using his engineering back ground. However, he was unable to develop a cohesive strategy to defeat Grant. Grant beat Lee and the Rebels by devising a strategy that attacked the Rebels weakness. Lee was focused on a decisive battle. Again, a great skill for Regimental Commander.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top