Lee Lee is overrated.

[cash]

Sometimes the stars don't align right to win battles. Bragg might of done the best could with the subordinates , manpower and logistical support available. Or again he might not. Point being he won a battle so no Lee was not the only successful general. Lee had the most success of any Confederate general.
Leftyhunter

Winning a single isolated battle isn't success as an army commander. The job is far more complex than that.

 

[leftyhunter]

Winning a single isolated battle isn't success as an army commander. The job is far more complex than that.

True just pointing out Lee was not the only Confederate general that enjoyed success. I never stated Bragg walked on water but he did have a brief moment in the sun.
Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

I very much disagree with your view that the war was all about slavery. As to the ability of General Lee, I can refer you to some good books authored by some very well thought of historians who would prove you wrong.

It was the Southern States' view. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

I agree there are revisionists historians would claim otherwise.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Who constructed the fortifications around Richmond that were to become so important to its defense in 1864 and 1865, and was thus derisively called "The King of Spades" by his own troops?

Lee

 

[cash]

True just pointing out Lee was not the only Confederate general that enjoyed success. I never stated Bragg walked on water but he did have a brief moment in the sun.
Leftyhunter

Lee is the only successful confederate army commander. Period.

 

[leftyhunter]

Okay, but does being a successful Confederate commander warrant greatness? I didn't reduce war to a mathematical formula, I reduced war "performance" to a formula. Sure math can narrow things down, the entire universe is under mathematical laws.

" Does being a great Confederate general warrant greatness". That's a good question. It depends on one's political view point.
As @cash stated something to the effect that we have to define greatness and greatness is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe it's more accurate to state that Lee did the best he could with the manpower and logistics available.
There are many generals and or paramilitary leaders that are successful but they fight for a cause many do not support.
Leftyhunter

 

[cash]

Lee

Exactly. Is making crucial preparations a sign of a good commander?

 

[leftyhunter]

Lee is the only successful confederate army commander. Period.

I will have to politely disagree based on the other Confederate Generals I cited. Generals have good days and bad days. Lee is not an exception to that rule.

Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

If you're going to stick to Lee should've been a great regimental commander, then your purpose here is no more than plain trolling. Plain and simple.

How? This is a discussion. Please provide an tangible opposing argument. No one has been able to do it.

Regimental Commanders are important leaders in battle. With Lee's tactical abilities, I believe that he would have been a great Regimental Commander.

 

[cash]

I will have to politely disagree based on the other Confederate Generals I cited. Generals have good days and bad days. Lee is not an exception to that rule.

Leftyhunter

Thinking a general is successful because he won one battle and lost the rest is invalid thinking.

 

[Jamieva]

I will have to politely disagree based on the other Confederate Generals I cited. Generals have good days and bad days. Lee is not an exception to that rule.

Leftyhunter

To say Lee is on another level does not mean other generals had limited success here and there. But not anywhere near the level or length of time as Lee

 

[leftyhunter]

Thinking a general is successful because he won one battle and lost the rest is invalid thinking.

To be fair we can't know how well or poorly Lee would if fared as Commander of the AoT.
Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

Exactly. Is making crucial preparations a sign of a good commander?

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.

 

[Jamieva]

How? This is a discussion. Please provide an tangible opposing argument. No one has been able to do it.

Regimental Commanders are important leaders in battle. With Lee's tactical abilities, I believe that he would have been a great Regimental Commander.

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

 

[cash]

To be fair we can't know how well or poorly Lee would if fared as Commander of the AoT.
Leftyhunter

We have evidence from the ANV. Lee was able to bend his subordinate commanders to his will in a way Bragg was unable to do. Jubal Early was just as, if not more, irascible as any corps commander in the Army of Tennessee.

 

[leftyhunter]

To say Lee is on another level does not mean other generals had limited success here and there. But not anywhere near the level or length of time as Lee

To be fair we can't know if Lee would of been more or less successful leading another Confederate Army; to many variables to consider.
Leftyhunter

 

[U.S. Grant]

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.

Sorry I meant Lee would not fight
..

 

[leftyhunter]

We have evidence from the ANV. Lee was able to bend his subordinate commanders to his will in a way Bragg was unable to do. Jubal Early was just as, if not more, irascible as any corps commander in the Army of Tennessee.

Again we can't prove or disprove a hypothetical question.
Leftyhunter

 

[Jamieva]

To be fair we can't know if Lee would of been more or less successful leading another Confederate Army; to many variables to consider.
Leftyhunter

Too many what ifs there. Track record speaks for itself

 

[wausaubob]

Since the post Civil War writers attributed an almost godlike knowledge to general Lee, he was over rated by them. Although a skilled commander, he was not all knowing and was not always successful when taking reasonable risks.
He was highly skilled and over rated at the same time.
The primary reason that General Lee was over rated was to distract from the facts. The Confederates never seriously challenged the US naval supremacy. The US took control of the thinly settled far west in 1861-1862.
The armies in the Mississippi theater broke the continuity of the Confederacy in 27 months, starting from non existence and gaining complete dominance.
The US had existing tax and finance systems. It was able to finance an expensive formula despite errors.
There is not much evidence that the Confederacy every constructed a tax or finance system. In that regard it was either an insurgency, or a retreat in a fuedal system of levies and impressment. General Lee cannot be blamed for that.
His responsibility lies in not admitting that the strategy he had been pursuing had clearly failed on November 11, 1864. It was time to admit defeat.