⋆L★G⋆ Lee, Lt. General Stephen Dill

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DixieRifles

Captain
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
5,453
Location
Collierville, TN
He fought a good commander in A.J. Smith, at the battle of Tupelo/Harrisburg, Mississippi, and was beaten back.
I tend to believe an opinion of the Battle of Tupelo that I read somewhere. After General Forrest's tremendous victory at Brice's Crossroads, his commander, General Lee, wanted to get some of the glory by leading the next campaign. He failed to move his troops and motivate them as well as Forrest did and came close to suffering a major defeat.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,031
Location
Texas
I tend to believe an opinion of the Battle of Tupelo that I read somewhere. After General Forrest's tremendous victory at Brice's Crossroads, his commander, General Lee, wanted to get some of the glory by leading the next campaign. He failed to move his troops and motivate them as well as Forrest did and came close to suffering a major defeat.
I believe he tried again to gain victory and glory at Ezra Church, failed miserably.

Kevin Dally
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
12,381
Location
East Texas
Lee had his good moments, and bad ones too.
I have often wondered what his veterans thought of him criticizing THEM in the OR's for their lack of zeal at the battle of Jonesboro, GA.? That took place a short time after Lee rammed thousands of them against the dug in Yanks at the battle of Ezra Church, with a terrible casualty rate, that accomplished little.:unsure:
He fought a good commander in A.J. Smith, at the battle of Tupelo/Harrisburg, Mississippi, and was beaten back.

Kevin Dally
He probably should have been left with his first arm of success, the artillery. I don't know what the reasoning for sending him to the West was; it was so often a "dumping ground" for failures like Theopholis Holmes, etc. and I see no reason for anything like that, in light of his performances at Manassas and Sharpsburg. He and Forrest didn't get along very well at first either, especially at Tupelo, and his recall of Forrest to fight Sturgis at Brice's Crossroads, although a stellar victory, may well have been a mistake in the long run since it left Sherman's vulnerable supply line untouched during the Atlanta Campaign.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DixieRifles

Captain
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
5,453
Location
Collierville, TN
He probably should have been left with his first arm of success, the artillery. I don't know what the reasoning for sending him to the West was; it was so often a "dumping ground" for failures like Theopholis Holmes, etc. and I see no reason for anything like that, in light of his performances at Manassas and Sharpsburg. He and Forrest didn't get along very well at first either, especially at Tupelo, and his recall of Forrest to fight Sturgis at Brice's Crossroads, although a stellar victory, may well have been a mistake in the long run since it left Sherman's vulnerable supply line untouched during the Atlanta Campaign.
If you can believe the biographer---which we know they can be a little biased---then this is the story behind Lee's promotion and transfer. I am paraphrasing because this book won't lie flat.

Five days after Antietam, S. D. Lee turned 29 on their march back into Virginia. At this time, President Davis sent a letter to R. E. Lee asking for a recommendation of an artillery officer who he could promote to General and send to Vicksburg. General R. E. Lee recommended S. D. Lee. The author does point out that R. E. Lee sometimes promoted out of his command officers he didn't like. In this case R. E. Lee desired to give his artillery command to E. Porter Alexander. R. E. Lee did give high praises about S. D. Lee ---but we know how today's officer performance reviews get over-inflated. He wrote: "I feel that I am much weakened by the loss", where President Davis replied "if you require Lee he will be sent back to you." Lee was a day late arriving at his ceremony in Washington but his promotion was still dated the previous day, 6 November 1862.
Less than a Year later(November 1863?), R. E. Lee needed a new division commander and wrote Davis: "I think it probable that some meritorious officers . . . on duty in Gen. Johnston's Department may be without a command. If Gen. Stephen D. Lee is in this situation I would recommend that he be ordered to this army to take charge of Wilcox's brigade in case of the latter's promotion." Then just 2 days later, Stephen D. was promoted to Major General.

Another interesting piece of detail about S. D. Lee that may reflect either how well he was liked or how well his connections were occurred after the fall of Vicksburg. General S. D. Lee was exchanged on 13 July---9 days after the Confederate surrender. It happened so fast that General Sherman complained to Washington that S. D. Lee had violated parole & exchange protocol.
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
12,381
Location
East Texas
If you can believe the biographer---which we know they can be a little biased---then this is the story behind Lee's promotion and transfer. I am paraphrasing because this book won't lie flat.

Five days after Antietam, S. D. Lee turned 29 on their march back into Virginia. At this time, President Davis sent a letter to R. E. Lee asking for a recommendation of an artillery officer who he could promote to General and send to Vicksburg. General R. E. Lee recommended S. D. Lee. The author does point out that R. E. Lee sometimes promoted out of his command officers he didn't like. In this case R. E. Lee desired to give his artillery command to E. Porter Alexander. R. E. Lee did give high praises about S. D. Lee ---but we know how today's officer performance reviews get over-inflated. He wrote: "I feel that I am much weakened by the loss", where President Davis replied "if you require Lee he will be sent back to you." Lee was a day late arriving at his ceremony in Washington but his promotion was still dated the previous day, 6 November 1862.
Less than a Year later(November 1863?), R. E. Lee needed a new division commander and wrote Davis: "I think it probable that some meritorious officers . . . on duty in Gen. Johnston's Department may be without a command. If Gen. Stephen D. Lee is in this situation I would recommend that he be ordered to this army to take charge of Wilcox's brigade in case of the latter's promotion." Then just 2 days later, Stephen D. was promoted to Major General.

Another interesting piece of detail about S. D. Lee that may reflect either how well he was liked or how well his connections were occurred after the fall of Vicksburg. General S. D. Lee was exchanged on 13 July---9 days after the Confederate surrender. It happened so fast that General Sherman complained to Washington that S. D. Lee had violated parole & exchange protocol.
Great information - I have only one somewhat unrelated comment regarding Alexander: Confederate artillery batteries had been divided into divisional artillery with batteries attached directly to individual divisions in battalions consisting of as I remember three or four batteries combined under the command of a major; and an artillery reserve at the corps level consisting of two battalions of four or five batteries, each under the direction of a colonel. As it worked out, in Longstreet's First Corps Alexander commanded only one of the two battalions and was subordinate to Colonel Walton commanding the battalion consisting of the Washington Artillery of New Orleans who outranked him. In fact, at Gettysburg Lee or Longstreet had to somehow finagle Alexander into command of the bombardment of July 3! Previously, at Fredericksburg this hadn't been a problem because the battalions were engaged sequentially instead of simultaneously, with Walton going first, into positions that had been selected by Alexander. So if the scenario you propose is true - and there's no other reason to suppose it may not be - it didn't exactly achieve the stated purpose.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top