Lee Well here's a hatchet job on Lee

Although the newspaper seems to take glee in lampooning anything south of the Potomac, I don't think the article itself was a "hatchet job". There are those historians who think that Lee made some costly mistakes. I, myself, have always thought that Lee was an excellent Virginian but something less than a great Confederate, who had difficulty seeing things west of the Alleghenies or south of the Dismal Swamp. Had the North not had in Lincoln an inflexible commander in chief who flat out would not cave in to the Confederacy under any circumstances, his strategy of making it too costly for the North to invade the South just might have worked. As a commander he did the best any Southern commander could have done, given the physical limitations of the Confederacy. But even Lee recognized, and that early in the war, that defeating Northern armies by itself would not win the war unless he could crush his opponents by cornering and trapping them and this he could not do. As for Gettysburg, it was not a battle entirely explainable as something that Lee either did or did not do. Fighting on their own dunghill the Yankees had something to do with that.

He isn't a historian.
 
That's from the 4 seasons of the confederacy painting at the Virginia historical society is about the time of 2nd manassas

Yes, 1862 would make more sense. Virginia Historical Society points out, by the way, that the scene is entirely invented by the painter and there is no recorded joint meeting of these particular officers at any time.

http://www.vahistorical.org/hoffbauer/
 
If he was so bad at his job...

when he took command the AotP was 8 miles from Richmond. It took them 3 years to get into Richmond.

Of course none of that is mentioned. Lee fought on the defensive at many battles. They make him sound like a guy that just threw his forces into attacks at every battle.

Good point. It occurs that General Eisenhower got the Armed Forces of the United States across the Atlantic Ocean, led an Allied invasion of Europe and took Berlin in less time than it took the Union Army to march those eight miles against General Lee.
 
Good point. It occurs that General Eisenhower got the Armed Forces of the United States across the Atlantic Ocean, led an Allied invasion of Europe and took Berlin in less time than it took the Union Army to march those eight miles against General Lee.
I'm sure the Soviets/Russians might wish to differ.
 
Thanks for posting the link. Whether you agree with the author or not, it's a useful review of the history of Lee revisionism. I didn't realize it started nearly 50 years ago.

It's worth repeating that twaddle like this began in the 1930's with hatchet jobs by "muckraking" and supposedly un-biased (read: revisionist) writers - not true trained professional historians - in the wake of the disillusionment with WWI, the failure of liberal causes like Prohibition, and the emerging misery of the Depression and the Dust Bowl. Among their attempts to shine a "true" light on idols with feet of clay were attacks on former heroes like George Washington and George Armstrong Custer. Frederick Van de Water was a journalist whose Glory Hunter appeared right after Mrs. Elizabeth Bacon("Libbie") Custer had conveniently just gone to her grave and was therefore unable to refute the first serious attacks on her husband. It was around the same time that we learned George Washington had wooden teeth, consorted with his female slaves, etc., etc. Sensationalistic "fake news" such as these examples were just as prevalent then as now!
 
Good point. It occurs that General Eisenhower got the Armed Forces of the United States across the Atlantic Ocean, led an Allied invasion of Europe and took Berlin in less time than it took the Union Army to march those eight miles against General Lee.

Nazi Germany was up against three great powers simultaneously, the United States, the United Kingdom (which could also draw support from the Commonwealth nations), and the Soviet Union, the last of which did the bulk of the heavy lifting in defeating Germany. Germany had also been at war for two years before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the Second World War also occurred during an era where nations had planes and motorized transport, all of which aided the speed of offensive movements.

The Union may not have had cross an ocean to defeat the Confederacy, but it also was not part of coalition, did have an ally that had been at war with the Confederacy for two years prior to Ft, Sumter, and Union armies did not have the benefit of Ford Motors.

The war effort by the United States in both conflicts isn't really comparable, and it isn't really surprising that the Civil War lasted longer than the war in Europe following D-Day.

Getting back on topic...

Lee was one of the better generals of the Civil War and far and away the single best army commander to wear Confederate gray. He was however not a man made of marble, and as such, he had flaws. He wasn't without failures and historians pointing those out isn't necessarily a hatchet job. As good as Lee was on his best days, it is worth pointing out that he wasn't nearly as successful offensively as he was defending his own patch. The offensive into Maryland failed as did his strike into Pennsylvania, and he was out-generaled by Meade in the latter. He was good, but no Alexander or Caesar.
 
Last edited:
If he was so bad at his job...

when he took command the AotP was 8 miles from Richmond. It took them 3 years to get into Richmond.

Of course none of that is mentioned. Lee fought on the defensive at many battles. They make him sound like a guy that just threw his forces into attacks at every battle.
The issue with Lee is that he fought the Napolean style of battle against an army that had modern artilery and wepons.Look at the weapons the average Confederate soldier had.One more issue is that you do not charge a fotified position when the ememy can hold and fire at a much longer range . When you are using rifles from 1840s and the foe is using bridge loaders.The reason it took three years to git to Richmond ,the Union army was commanded for two year by inepte generals. The truth is that the South did not have the manufacturing capibility to match the North in the production of better weapons. Before you think that this must be a Yankee,I come from a family of Al. and Ga..I bleed Rebel blood
 
The issue with Lee is that he fought the Napolean style of battle against an army that had modern artilery and wepons.Look at the weapons the average Confederate soldier had.One more issue is that you do not charge a fotified position when the ememy can hold and fire at a much longer range . When you are using rifles from 1840s and the foe is using bridge loaders.The reason it took three years to git to Richmond ,the Union army was commanded for two year by inepte generals. The truth is that the South did not have the manufacturing capibility to match the North in the production of better weapons. Before you think that this must be a Yankee,I come from a family of Al. and Ga..I bleed Rebel blood

He won battle after battle. Lincoln replaced four Generals at the helm of the Union Army of the Potomac. Lee was never tactically defeated in the field, even by Grant. Everyone will rush to Gettysburg, whoopedy-do, that's all they've got.
 
Back
Top