Lee Lee is overrated.

[cash]

No. That is what any commander is supposed to do. The King of Spades titled was a running joke early in the war. Some Southern leaders did not think that Lee would. Which was partly the reason why he was relieved early in the war.

One could claim that any criterion one uses to determine if a commander is a good commander is what any commander is supposed to do. The fact is, Lee made crucial preparations in 1862 that paid off in 1864 and 1865. I would argue the set of commanders who did that is relatively small and limited to the better commanders. Lee's actions in West Virginia early in the war taught him lessons he never forgot about dealing with recalcitrant subordinates. He never tolerated such behavior again, and gripers like D. H. Hill found themselves exiled from his command.

 

[U.S. Grant]

One regiment in a army of 70,000 or 80,000 is like a grain of sand on the beach. If you don't understand that then your knowledge of the war is way too limited.

Here's my opposing argument
7 days
2nd manassas
Chancellorsville

Please, let's not make this personal. This is a discussion.

I am very aware of what a Regiment is. That is why I believe that Lee would have commanded one with distinction.

Concerning your counterpoints, Lee performed well when he faced the Unions half-hearted generals who where more concerned with their image than fighting.

 

[Jamieva]

Please, let's not make this personal. This is a discussion.

I am very aware of what a Regiment is. That is why I believe that Lee would have commanded one with distinction.

Concerning your counterpoints, Lee performed well when he faced the Unions half-hearted generals who where more concerned with their image than fighting.

I'm not making it personal at all. Making it personal is saying a general that won some of the most daring victories of the war as an army commander was better suited for regimental command. Not corps, not division, not brigade...a regiment. That's personal. That leads to a clear misunderstanding of his level of military knowledge and more about your personal distaste of the man

 

[Jimklag]

If the sole criteria for being a great general is that he developed a war-winning strategy in addition to his tactical victories, then neither Hannibal nor Napoleon were great generals. I think that puts the "war-winning" criteria in the dustbin. There have been many brilliant generals whose side lost the war. And there have been some bad generals who won wars. I think a real, measurable set of criteria needs to be put forward before starting a scrum about this or that general's greatness.

 

[U.S. Grant]

I'm not making it personal at all. Making it personal is saying a general that won some of the most daring victories of the war as an army commander was better suited for regimental command. Not corps, not division, not brigade...a regiment. That's personal. That leads to a clear misunderstanding of his level of military knowledge and more about your personal distaste of the man

I respect your opinion, but I am convinced. A great general synchronizes battles to achieve an a Strategic objectives. If their plan does not work, they develop a new plan. Lee did not show this ability. Additionally, a great general would fight battles to achieve operational goals. Lee fought battles to achieve tactical goals-like a Regimental Commander.

Because he won a few battles against low-rated Union generals does make him great general. When he fought Meade he lost. When he faces Grant he lost.

 

[U.S. Grant]

I respect your opinion, but I am convinced. A great general synchronizes battles to achieve an a Strategic objectives. If their plan does not work, they develop a new plan. Lee did not show this ability. Additionally, a great general would fight battles to achieve operational goals. Lee fought battles to achieve tactical goals-like a Regimental Commander.

Because he won a few battles against low-rated Union generals does make him great general. When he fought Meade he lost. When he faces Grant he lost.

Sorry, typo. I am not convinced.

 

[lurid]

War performance can't be accurately described by math, unless we are tallying victories, because that's the only measure that counts.

I don't argue Lee was great; nor do I argue he wasn't great. I don't find that subjective assessment to be all that useful. Lee was a very talented general. I don't think there's any controversy about that. He was indeed the most successful confederate commander. Again, I don't think there's any controversy about that.

Okay, but the OP is specifically attempting to debunk the theory of Lee's great generalship and reaffirm it's all mythology. Math most certainty does reveal he was inconsistent tactician. He did great at Chancellorsville but blew it at Gettysburg and that appears to be the pattern. Too hit & miss to be considered great, but I agree, he did enough to be considered talented.

 

[leftyhunter]

Too many what ifs there. Track record speaks for itself

Lee's track record is as Commander of the AnV and military advisor in what became West Virginia plus work on costal fortifications. We can't know if he would be more successful then Bragg as Commander of the AoT.
Leftyhunter

 

[E_just_E]

To rate (or overrate or underrate) a list of entities (in this example ACW Generals) one needs criteria. And usually because people are using their own subjective criteria to rate Generals, since there is not a standardized set of objective and overwhelmingly accepted criteria, they can be overrated or underrated in the eyes of others who don't agree with that criteria.

Yes, Lee was and is overrated by some and underrated by others.

Not to confuse his rating (i.e. his place in an order of a series of Generals from best to worst) with his "deification" and "martydom" by the Lost Cause. Unrelated.

 

[Ole Miss]

Thank you for the invite. I will check out your Forum. I wonder if there is a forum for Vicksburg?

Yes there is and we are discussing the possibility of having a member meeting in October. I hope you may be able to join us.
Regards
David

 

[jackt62]

I don't. I am saying your standard for greatness is flawed as evidenced by McCook's case.

I gave a single example of Lee's military achievements. I'm not sure what the subjective criteria for "greatness" in a military commander would be, but my characterization of Lee as a "great" commander is based on his lengthy record of leadership of the ANV. Sure, he failed in his successive raids north to demoralize that population and diminish its will to continue the war, but that was always a long shot attempt. At the same time, he parried federal attempts for almost 3 years to defeat confederate forces in the east.

 

[Gene Green]

Maybe instead of treating him as Great General we consider him a great tactician.

This might be where we diverge. He was not a great tactician. He was lucky and when he pushed his luck at Gettysburg he got burned. When ever a player risks long odds and wins he is a genius but when burned he is an idiot. I do not believe either of these are true. He was good, not great, lucky for having Jackson, and possibly self deluded.

 

[U.S. Grant]

This might be where we diverge. He was not a great tactician. He was lucky and when he pushed his luck at Gettysburg he got burned. When ever a player risks long odds and wins he is a genius but when burned he is an idiot. I do not believe either of these are true. He was good, not great, lucky for having Jackson, and possibly self deluded.

Fair point. I agree.

 

[Gene Green]

Sure, he failed in his successive raids north to demoralize that population and diminish its will to continue the war, but that was always a long shot attempt.

Exactly, a gamble against the odds. Win genius, lose idiot.

 

[U.S. Grant]

You are correct about Jackson. I do not think that he gets enough credit. The South's would have been better with Stone Wall at the helm.

 

[Jimklag]

You are correct about Jackson. I do not think that he gets enough credit. The South's would have been better with Stone Wall at the helm.

I think Jackson would have been a disaster in overall command. All of his "solo" successes came with a very small army against very inferior Union generals and all his other success as a corps commander came under Lee's supervision. Jackson would have been as bad as Hood as an Army commander - for almost exactly the same reasons. He was a bold fighter but not a logician or a coordinator.

 

[U.S. Grant]

I think Jackson would have been a disaster in overall command. All of his "solo" successes came with a very small army against very inferior Union generals and all his other success as a corps commander came under Lee's supervision. Jackson would have been as bad as Hood as an Army commander - for almost exactly the same reasons. He was a bold fighter but not a logician or a coordinator.

I like Jackson for his grit. I believe that he would have been a good general, because I think that he thought more Strategically than Lee. I believe that he would being able to adapt the challenge.

I never paid attention to his logistical record. Thank you, I have something to search now.

 

[Gene Green]

You are correct about Jackson. I do not think that he gets enough credit. The South's would have been better with Stone Wall at the helm.

IMO here is the problem. If there was a winning strategy, a big if, Longstreet had it before Gettysburg. I have recently re-evaluated my opinion of Longstreet and wonder if he had the heart for leading and winning.
Jackson was a superior field tactician and his intuitions and instincts are what gave lee his edge. With his lose and lee's failure to adjust his tactics an strategy, he lost this edge and we see him in his true light.

 

[Gene Green]

he thought more Strategically than Lee.

I do not remember him having much to do with strategy. He basicly just accomplished his assignments with on the fly tactics, but I have not really read much about Jackson.

 

[Gene Green]

Jackson was not the head but the right arm.