Lee's - Last Chance To Save A Nation.

The Eastern Theater was the most important theater of the war. It was where the confederates could win the war.
Agreed. The Confederacy did not have the manpower to hold the territory. (Nor the generalship.) If the war was to be won, it had to be with Lee smashing the AotP.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the systematic destruction of supply to the AoNV was constricting Lee's supply lines. He could not win in his theater without those supplies. The Anaconda Plan, although not official policy, inevitably starved Lee into submission by attrition.
 
Exactly! Even a victory the size of Chancellorsville on Southern soil did not bring about the
victorious end result! Lee did not have the logistical ability to carry out a prolonged pursuit of a already defeated Union army when that army was retreating from Virginia to Washington!
But somehow he thought he did have the logistical ability to invade Pennsylvania or Maryland and do what?

A good point, IMO.

Merely inflicting another tactical defeat on the AoP - north of the border - was not going to change the war. Particularly given what was happening out west during the same period of time. To make the gamble worthwhile, Lee needed to completely smash the AoP - to virtually destroy its ability to continue to fight. A true battle of annihilation. Sort of a "Nashville" on steroids. Given the relative size of the AoP, I would think that this was highly unlikely.

s.c.
 
The war could have been lost in the East, but the war would be won in the West. The sterile tactical battles in Northern Va., were, in effect, holding actions as the strategic war reached its culmination at Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea.
 
Agreed. The Confederacy did not have the manpower to hold the territory. (Nor the generalship.) If the war was to be won, it had to be with Lee smashing the AotP.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the systematic destruction of supply to the AoNV was constricting Lee's supply lines. He could not win in his theater without those supplies. The Anaconda Plan, although not official policy, inevitably starved Lee into submission by attrition.

That's why if he was going to win he would have to win fast. Going on the defensive was only going to lose the war.
 
Exactly! Even a victory the size of Chancellorsville on Southern soil did not bring about the
victorious end result!

It was not on "Northern soil."

Lee did not have the logistical ability to carry out a prolonged pursuit of a already defeated Union army when that army was retreating from Virginia to Washington!


I believe there was a river in the way, and Lee had to deal with Sedgwick's troops who had crossed the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg and were approaching his rear. Add to that he had just lost Stonewall Jackson's services and the Federals were not all beaten.


But somehow he thought he did have the logistical ability to invade Pennsylvania or Maryland and do what?


http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/evaluating-lee-at-gettysburg-part-7-in-a-series/

By the time of Antietam the North had already invaded and occupied many Southern cities.
Surely a man as smart as Lee knew his limitations, if he didn't then he wasn't a man as smart as Lee, was he? After all, isn't that one of Napoleons maxims?
Or was it, never believe your own press clippings? I always get them mixed up. ;-)

Lee knew what he was doing. The confederates couldn't win the war in the West, but they could win it in the East.
 
It was not on "Northern soil."
That's what I said,

I believe there was a river in the way, and Lee had to deal with Sedgwick's troops who had crossed the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg and were approaching his rear. Add to that he had just lost Stonewall Jackson's services and the Federals were not all beaten.
And yet he did not listen to Longstreet, and others who advised that the CSA carry out missions which would allow them to stay inside their own logistical ability. That has always been the key to war.
I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that there was a river involved when Meade did not follow Lee after Gettysburg and finish the job. And he, Meade has been slammed ever since. But Lee has not been slammed even though he failed to seal the deal when he had more then one chance.


http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/evaluating-lee-at-gettysburg-part-7-in-a-series/



Lee knew what he was doing. The confederates couldn't win the war in the West, but they could win it in the East.
I would sure glad he knew what he was doing, other wise he could have lost the war!
 
Do you believe that only generals who don't know what they're doing lose wars?
I believe that Lee deserves much credit for keeping his army in the fight after most would have given up, I also believe that he had some really darn good men under him that never get their due, I believe that he was at his best when he exploited mistakes of his foes.
IMO he made more then one mistake at Gettysburg, his line was stretched, many of his soldiers were fresh replacements, his cavalry was absent when he needed them most, he made the same mistakes Hooker had made, he ignored reports that didn't support his plan. Longstreet wasn't the only General who protested Lee's plan.
Lee's order to Ewell, "carry the hill occupied by the enemy, if practicable, but to avoid a general engagement until the arrival of the other divisions of the army." were to vague, and finally, Pickett's Charge took too long to prepare, his men had to great a distance to march under fire before starting the final charge against Union forces who had good cover and could be reinforced quickly.
The best leadership on the first day was delivered by Hancock and Buford laid the foundation for Meade.
 
Back
Top