Lee Lee is overrated.

[U.S. Grant]

He didn't? Seems to me he did everything he learned at West Point - being a professional does not guarantee winning. I'm not sure what you mean by 'synchronizing the rebel's efforts'. He would have to be in command of all the rebel armies - he only commanded the ANV.

How did he use everything that he learned at the USMA? He was responsible for all of the Rebel's Forces when Grant marached towards Appomattox.

 

[cash]

What was his winning strategy? To my understanding he thought a decisive battle would win the war. A strategy involves a methodical approach (Setting the conditions) to attacking the opponents center of gravity (what will make the opponent capitulate). Lee did not have a strategy for attacking the center of gravity nor did he synchronize the Rebel's efforts in an unified effort.

I know a lot of historians in the past have claimed Lee was searching for a single decisive battle, but they didn't know what they were talking about.

Lee identified the Federal center of gravity correctly as the will of the populace to continue the war. His strategy was designed to weaken and destroy that will. He reasoned the Federal advantages were so large that in a protracted war those advantages would be brought to bear over time and would overwhelm the confederacy. He believed he needed to create an aura of invincibility by winning victory after victory in order to depress morale in the loyal states. This would lead to a repudiation of Lincoln and the Republicans and the return of the Democrats to power, followed by a negotiated peace on the basis of separation.

 

[cash]

I am not certain that luck should be a factor for a successful general. Luck is simply an opponent's mistake or missed opportunity. Great Generals adapt and over come. Lee did not.

Napoleon thought luck was essential in a general. The question he always asked of a prospective general was, "Is he lucky?"

 

[U.S. Grant]

I know a lot of historians in the past have claimed Lee was searching for a single decisive battle, but they didn't know what they were talking about.

Lee identified the Federal center of gravity correctly as the will of the populace to continue the war. His strategy was designed to weaken and destroy that will. He reasoned the Federal advantages were so large that in a protracted war those advantages would be brought to bear over time and would overwhelm the confederacy. He believed he needed to create an aura of invincibility by winning victory after victory in order to depress morale in the loyal states. This would lead to a repudiation of Lincoln and the Republicans and the return of the Democrats to power, followed by a negotiated peace on the basis of separation.

You are correct that Lee wanted to depress morale and make the war appear too costly. Which is partly way he invaded PA. However, there were many Unionists who supported the war. I am not convinced that the people were the center of gravity in the North. If Lee was more able he would have adapted his strategy to meet his Strategic objectives. He did not

 

[cash]

He didn't? Seems to me he did everything he learned at West Point - being a professional does not guarantee winning. I'm not sure what you mean by 'synchronizing the rebel's efforts'. He would have to be in command of all the rebel armies - he only commanded the ANV.

West Point was not a school geared to producing generals. It was a school that produced engineers and lieutenants.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Napoleon thought luck was essential in a general. The question he always asked of a prospective general was, "Is he lucky?"

I am still not convinced. However, using your context for luck in this discussion, why didn't Lee capitalize at Cold Harbor.

 

[cash]

You are correct that Lee wanted to depress morale and make the war appear too costly. Which is partly way he invaded PA. However, there were many Unionists who supported the war. I am not convinced that the people were the center of gravity in the North. If Lee was more able he would have adapted his strategy to meet his Strategic objectives. He did not

The United States was [and is] a republic, and the support of the people is necessary for the government to continue its policies. The people are always a center of gravity of a republic.

 

[cash]

I am still not convinced. However, using your context for luck in this discussion, why didn't Lee capitalize at Cold Harbor.

What, specifically, would you have him do? Attack a fortified Federal position and reverse the results?

 

[U.S. Grant]

West Point was not a school geared to producing generals. It was a school that produced engineers and lieutenants.

I agree. However, thought you used USMA as evidence for Lee's greatest. I missed your point.

 

[cash]

I agree. However, thought you used USMA as evidence for Lee's greatest. I missed your point.

No, I didn't use it. That was Diane.

 

[U.S. Grant]

What, specifically, would you have him do? Attack a fortified Federal position and reverse the results?

I'm not the one arguing on his behalf. Grant discovered a way to win
Lee did not.

 

[cash]

I agree. However, thought you used USMA as evidence for Lee's greatest. I missed your point.

To be clear, I'm not sure we get anywhere with saying Lee was a "great general" until we decide what that means. I don't necessarily argue he was, and I don't necessarily argue he wasn't. He was the most successful confederate commander and he displayed skill and leadership in a number of battles. He made mistakes, just like any other human being.

 

[diane]

West Point was not a school geared to producing generals. It was a school that produced engineers and lieutenants.

That's true - that's why Lee had some less constrictive ideas about education when he became president of a college. But that's another thread!

 

[cash]

I'm not the one arguing on his behalf. Grant discovered a way to win
Lee did not.

You asked why he didn't capitalize on Cold Harbor. What would he have done to capitalize on Cold Harbor, specifically?

 

[U.S. Grant]

To be clear, I'm not sure we get anywhere with saying Lee was a "great general" until we decide what that means. I don't necessarily argue he was, and I don't necessarily argue he wasn't. He was the most successful confederate commander and he displayed skill and leadership in a number of battles. He made mistakes, just like any other human being.

I agree. However, I don't understand the fascination that people have with him. I am trying hard to understand.

 

[cash]

I agree. However, I don't understand the fascination that people have with him. I am trying hard to understand.

It's a legacy of the lost cause mythology that held sway for so many years.

 

[U.S. Grant]

You asked why he didn't capitalize on Cold Harbor. What would he have done to capitalize on Cold Harbor, specifically?

Again, a missed opportunity. Despites Grant's set back at Fort Donelson, Grant adapted and won.

 

[diane]

I am not certain that luck should be a factor for a successful general. Luck is simply an opponent's mistake or missed opportunity. Great Generals adapt and over come. Lee did not.

Luck is quite a factor in every military enterprise. Heth running into Buford was an exceptionally piece of bad luck!

That was me about West Point. Lee was also very experienced from the Mexican War and other commands, such as his last post in Texas. He was an engineer, yes, but he was also a career soldier. He knew his business.

 

[Ole Miss]

Welcome from the Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing Forum and North Mississippi!

Acumen? Lee certainly had many flaws but he did not lack the ability to make quick and accurate decisions as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. That being said, please continue with your posts and I look forward to you participating at the Shiloh Forum.
Regards
David

 

[U.S. Grant]

Luck is quite a factor in every military enterprise. Heth running into Buford was an exceptionally piece of bad luck!

That was me about West Point. Lee was also very experienced from the Mexican War and other commands, such as his last post in Texas. He was an engineer, yes, but he was also a career soldier. He knew his business.

Maybe. He was untested as a commander in battle. He was brave. However, what did he do that was great and worthy of the adulation?