New book on Lee. Would you read it?

As an army commander, it would be battlefield victories, while also taking into account the resources they had to work with. It would also incorporate the judgment of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence (Confederates) or put down the rebellion (Union).

Based on that, there is no one on the Confederate side who compares as Beauregard (1st Bull Run) and Bragg (Chickamauga) are the only other Reb generals to lead their army to a battlefield victory. Those were singular successes for each of those generals.

For the Union, Grant is the obvious choice to challenge Lee. But, were it not for reinforcement from Buell's army at Shiloh, his army could very well have been destroyed and that would have been the end for him. He did have 3 armies surrender to his forces at Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox. The first occurrence was utter incompetence from the opposing general; the second was a brilliant campaign by Grant, no doubt; the third was Grant using his overwhelming preponderance of manpower, artillery, and supplies. If he had forced Lee's surrender while minimizing his troop losses, I would think differently. But the enormous casualties he sustained in the last year of the war against a malnourished and feebly supplied army was not the least bit impressive. The result was a foregone conclusion; the manner in which he achieved it was a ghastly operation.

Lee was greatly outnumbered in every one of his battles, as badly as 2-to-1 at Chancellorsville. Think about what would have happened had Lee had similar troop numbers and logistics in any of his campaigns.
I think he did an amazing job with poor resources. If he had been less skilled and talented the war would have been over in a year. If he is to be judged by how well he redeemed himself after the war then the author has a point. But he had a short time left and my understanding is that he did well at Washington and Lee. So for us CW buffs he will always be a hero.
 
Vote Here:
As an army commander, it would be battlefield victories, while also taking into account the resources they had to work with. It would also incorporate the judgment of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence (Confederates) or put down the rebellion (Union).

Based on that, there is no one on the Confederate side who compares as Beauregard (1st Bull Run) and Bragg (Chickamauga) are the only other Reb generals to lead their army to a battlefield victory. Those were singular successes for each of those generals.

For the Union, Grant is the obvious choice to challenge Lee. But, were it not for reinforcement from Buell's army at Shiloh, his army could very well have been destroyed and that would have been the end for him. He did have 3 armies surrender to his forces at Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox. The first occurrence was utter incompetence from the opposing general; the second was a brilliant campaign by Grant, no doubt; the third was Grant using his overwhelming preponderance of manpower, artillery, and supplies. If he had forced Lee's surrender while minimizing his troop losses, I would think differently. But the enormous casualties he sustained in the last year of the war against a malnourished and feebly supplied army was not the least bit impressive. The result was a foregone conclusion; the manner in which he achieved it was a ghastly operation.

Lee was greatly outnumbered in every one of his battles, as badly as 2-to-1 at Chancellorsville. Think about what would have happened had Lee had similar troop numbers and logistics in any of his campaigns.
Well, it does pay to read books that challenge all the accepted "wisdom". Just for example, Alfred C. Young's excellent 2013 book Lee's Army in the Overland Campaign, based on extensive research, shows that Lee had more troops and incurred greater casualties in 1864 than the conventional story showed for 150 years. Also you diminish what Grant did at Donelson by focusing on the incompetence of his opponent - which is reasonable - but then simply ignore the poor decisions by Pope at Second Bull Run and Hooker at Chancellorsville. Not only did Lee benefit from Hooker, Howard and Devens ignoring plenty of warnings about Jackson's flank attack, but Lee had to be talked out of a suicidal attack against Hooker's position on May 4. Lee was not "greatly outnumbered" in the Seven Days or at Second Bull Run.
 
Vote Here:
Me too. Odd that a losing general is termed “most successful”...
Good point. I can think of a lot of NHL fan bases - and others - that wouldn't use that definition. It reminds me of Bill Parcells' comment at a press conference - along the lines of "you are what your record says you are". 😎 Don't get me wrong - a good general can lose battles. But "most successful" is off the charts. It starts to sound like the propaganda that Early started spinning after the war.
 
Vote Here:
As an army commander, it would be battlefield victories, while also taking into account the resources they had to work with. It would also incorporate the judgment of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence (Confederates) or put down the rebellion (Union).
Well, Lee was certainly a highly effective general but to characterize him as the "most successful of the Civil War" is a bit of overreach. Without going into a count by count recitation of battles won and lost, Lee had a better than average record, but he did so at the cost of squandering his manpower to the point where the Confederacy could no longer compete. Using the criteria of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence is a political standard, not a military one; Lee's efforts obviously failed to achieve Confederate independence and it is speculation to argue whether alternate military strategies might have had the same or better odds to achieve that goal.
 
Vote Here:
Well, Lee was certainly a highly effective general but to characterize him as the "most successful of the Civil War" is a bit of overreach. Without going into a count by count recitation of battles won and lost, Lee had a better than average record, but he did so at the cost of squandering his manpower to the point where the Confederacy could no longer compete. Using the criteria of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence is a political standard, not a military one; Lee's efforts obviously failed to achieve Confederate independence and it is speculation to argue whether alternate military strategies might have had the same or better odds to achieve that goal.
Agree. Considering the identity of the opponents is also fair - for Lee and for anyone else. It's the flip side of the quote attributed to Pickett about how the ANV lost at Gettysburg - "I always thought the Union army had something to do with it." To keep with the simplistic sports analogies, piling up wins against a bad team gives you a great W-L % but it needs an asterisk.
 
Vote Here:
Me too. Odd that a losing general is termed “most successful”...
It seems odd that an officer who chose the losing side, and whose victories led to a thorough ruining of his native state, along with a growing and successful momentum to solve one of the primary issues of the war in the manner controlled by his opponent, can be defined as successful. Though Confederate General Lee definitely won many tactical battles. One becomes curious, why didn't winning land battles in the Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania theater lead to a better result for his contending side?
Maybe in that era, it had already been shown that naval power, combined arms and water based logistics were indispensable. Or maybe the Crimean War and the US/Mexican war were just flukes.
 
Vote Here:
By the time of 1870 census there were Virginians distributed all over the 36 states, mostly in Missouri, Illinois and Iowa and in the far west. They moved to those areas before the war, during the war and after the war. Its strange that such results are considered successful. Defeat = victory is not a workable day to day strategy.
 
Vote Here:
As an army commander, it would be battlefield victories, while also taking into account the resources they had to work with. It would also incorporate the judgment of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence (Confederates) or put down the rebellion (Union).

Based on that, there is no one on the Confederate side who compares as Beauregard (1st Bull Run) and Bragg (Chickamauga) are the only other Reb generals to lead their army to a battlefield victory. Those were singular successes for each of those generals.

For the Union, Grant is the obvious choice to challenge Lee. But, were it not for reinforcement from Buell's army at Shiloh, his army could very well have been destroyed and that would have been the end for him. He did have 3 armies surrender to his forces at Ft. Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appomattox. The first occurrence was utter incompetence from the opposing general; the second was a brilliant campaign by Grant, no doubt; the third was Grant using his overwhelming preponderance of manpower, artillery, and supplies. If he had forced Lee's surrender while minimizing his troop losses, I would think differently. But the enormous casualties he sustained in the last year of the war against a malnourished and feebly supplied army was not the least bit impressive. The result was a foregone conclusion; the manner in which he achieved it was a ghastly operation.

Lee was greatly outnumbered in every one of his battles, as badly as 2-to-1 at Chancellorsville. Think about what would have happened had Lee had similar troop numbers and logistics in any of his campaigns.
Battlefield victories are nice, IF they lead to ultimate victory. Otherwise they just bleed your army dry, and with limited resources a prudent general would not just seek non-strategic battlefield victories, and certainly does not engage in hyper aggressive tactics that give a poor return on strategic value in exchange for high casualties. What the CSA needed was another Washington, who lost more battles than he fought, but kept the army intact and waited for the strategic opportunity. Lee never had a strategic victory, with the possible exception of the Seven Days. Grant had war turning victories at Henry and Donelson, Vicksburg and the Overland Campaign. War is about winning the war, not battles, and Lee had no plan to do so other than creating another Cannae, which he never accomplished. While it is true the US had manpower advantages, the CSA had the advantage of fighting on the defensive, on its own soil, with interior lines, and not having to protect extended supply lines, not to mention that the average Southern soldier was more committed to his cause than the average Union soldier, and the fact that the CSA did not need to conquer the US, but only had to outlast the public sentiment. Ultimately, Lee squandered all these advantages, and ignored some of them, and was a failure.
 
Vote Here:
What the CSA needed was another Washington, who lost more battles than he fought, but kept the army intact and waited for the strategic opportunity.
There are of course, some major differences. The scales were ultimately tipped on the side of Washington (and the Continental Army), by the intervention of the French navy. Ironically, Lee and the leaders of the southern Confederacy were hoping for some similar kind of European intervention (albeit not necessarily military) to attain their independence. So by that standard alone, Washington was a success, whereas Lee was a failure. But additionally, Washington could wear down the resources and willpower of the British Crown, for which the defense or loss of their colonies was not an existential threat to their homeland. But the Union was fighting for its very life and soul, on its home ground; it would have taken a lot more than a waiting game and hope for Lee to expect that the north would give in to southern demands.
 
Vote Here:
I'm strongly inclined to skip this one because of the author.

Quite honestly there are a bunch of very interesting folks that participated I would like to see a book on. Lincoln, Grant, Lee have all been done to death.

Lincoln and Grant I agree. Even Meade has gotten excessive coverage in the last decade.

Lee is a popular topic of discussion, but he's had few modern biographies and none of them have been good.
 
Vote Here:
There are of course, some major differences. The scales were ultimately tipped on the side of Washington (and the Continental Army), by the intervention of the French navy. Ironically, Lee and the leaders of the southern Confederacy were hoping for some similar kind of European intervention (albeit not necessarily military) to attain their independence. So by that standard alone, Washington was a success, whereas Lee was a failure. But additionally, Washington could wear down the resources and willpower of the British Crown, for which the defense or loss of their colonies was not an existential threat to their homeland. But the Union was fighting for its very life and soul, on its home ground; it would have taken a lot more than a waiting game and hope for Lee to expect that the north would give in to southern demands.
Lee and the Confederacy could not play a long war game. The US had access to the interior of the continent, with two different transportation systems to use to facilitate that access. The US had telegraph technology by 1855. The British did not have that in the ARW period.
No matter what type of settlement the Confederates could obtain in a long war, the US was going to control the west, most or all of the Mississippi River and the future growth of the economy.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
There are of course, some major differences. The scales were ultimately tipped on the side of Washington (and the Continental Army), by the intervention of the French navy. Ironically, Lee and the leaders of the southern Confederacy were hoping for some similar kind of European intervention (albeit not necessarily military) to attain their independence. So by that standard alone, Washington was a success, whereas Lee was a failure. But additionally, Washington could wear down the resources and willpower of the British Crown, for which the defense or loss of their colonies was not an existential threat to their homeland. But the Union was fighting for its very life and soul, on its home ground; it would have taken a lot more than a waiting game and hope for Lee to expect that the north would give in to southern demands.
All good points. Maybe I should have used Sam Houston as a more on point example.
 
Vote Here:
Lee and the Confederacy could not play a long war game. The US had access to the interior of the continent, with two different transportation systems to use to facilitate that access. The US had telegraph technology by 1855. The British did not have that in the AWR period.
No matter what type of settlement the Confederates could obtain in a long war, the US was going to control the west, most or all of the Mississippi River and the future growth of the economy.
I dont think I agree. I think the Confed's best chance was a negotiated peace after Lincoln losing reelection in 1864. They had to make the war too expensive and too bloody for the Union to support. If Atlanta did not fall and if Early did not get crushed in the Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln could have lost in 1864 and McClellan would have felt pressure from his party to approve an armistice, which could ultimately lead to some kind of independence. I dont think its a slam dunk, but it seems like the best chance they had.
 
Vote Here:
I dont think I agree. I think the Confed's best chance was a negotiated peace after Lincoln losing reelection in 1864. They had to make the war too expensive and too bloody for the Union to support. If Atlanta did not fall and if Early did not get crushed in the Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln could have lost in 1864 and McClellan would have felt pressure from his party to approve an armistice, which could ultimately lead to some kind of independence. I dont think its a slam dunk, but it seems like the best chance they had.
That is also my opinion and regarding that Lee did a lot during the Overland Campaign (which I generally deem one of his better campaigns) to achieve that goal...
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top