Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lee was a great tactician but an awful military strategist hence he was a poor general. It goes again to the Lost Cause Mythology that Lee is held to such high regard as a general. While Grant, a superior general in every meaningful sense of the word had his name dragged through the mud for decades.
The Confederates were outnumbered by the Union and did not have remotely the same material strength. Yet they had a major advantage in that they only needed a draw to win the war.
So what would a smart general do in this situation. Play to his strengths by pulling back, digging in and playing a defensive war. What did Lee chose to do? He invaded the North twice, both times suffering massive loses of both men and material. Then he went toe to toe in battle after battle with Grant. In a war of attrition that bleed his men and material completely dry against an opponent with far more resources at its disposal. As a general he was an overzealous and overconfident fool. His only saving grace was that the Union generals before Grant showed up were worse generals then him.
A defensive strategy had no chance of success against an enemy with the resolve to sustain massive casualties, as the North had proven it had. It would only insure a slow and bloody defeat.
So did Thomas Jefferson, who owned and fornicated with plenty of slaves. It was a different time back then and may heroes of history weren't exactly saints.
That's hardly true. How many street names, schools, park, and monuments have been changed or torn down by city officials because Americans "now hate" him and anything associated with the confederate army?
It's a miracle his name is still on any highways, parks, or monuments because the narrative quickly changed to him being a slave supporting traitor. The confederate flag is still BANNED from being sold by any major vendors.
When Dylan Roof shot up that church and posed with Confederate flags, that was it, America was finished with all that southern pride. Dozens, if not hundreds of Confederate monuments have been removed.
Would you provide some evidence for this statement?
Also, street names, schools, parks, and monuments tend to be named after people who were highly regarded. Even if they are currently being removed, having so many named after him sort of proves the point you are denying.
So did Thomas Jefferson, who owned and fornicated with plenty of slaves. It was a different time back then and may heroes of history weren't exactly saints.
That's hardly true. How many street names, schools, park, and monuments have been changed or torn down by city officials because Americans "now hate" him and anything associated with the confederate army?
It's a miracle his name is still on any highways, parks, or monuments because the narrative quickly changed to him being a slave supporting traitor. The confederate flag is still BANNED from being sold by any major vendors.
When Dylan Roof shot up that church and posed with Confederate flags, that was it, America was finished with all that southern pride. Dozens, if not hundreds of Confederate monuments have been removed.
I am not talking about the change in names or tearing down of statues.
I grew up in DC and have had a front row seat to this veneration of the Confederacy. Just a few miles from where I grew up, Virginia has had Lee Highway and Jefferson Davis Highway plus high schools named after him as well as JEB Stuart. And that is just the DC burbs of Northern Virginia.
The Confederate Flag is not banned by anyone. Vendors make a choice and for those who are so inclined, there are still plenty of places to purchase a Stars & Bars.
Washington went after outsiders of our lands; invaders in a sense.
Lee went after our own people.
Huge difference.
Again, you're judging past events by the standards of our own time. The American rebels most certainly did not see themselves as anything other than British subjects at the commencement of hostilities. The American Revolution started out very much as a civil war; British subjects killing British soldiers. It was only AFTER independence was declared that there was a notion that the British were outsiders and invaders.
Even considering that, again judging by the standard of the times, the Confederates absolutely considered the Union forces to be outsiders and considered any incursion of Union soldiers into Confederate lands to be an invasion. History is written by the victors; we now recognize that the Confederacy was illegitimate and that secession was illegal. However, to say that the Confederates should have recognized this was very much begging the question. Determination of the legality of secession was the whole point of the war. The question was never decided legally, only by force of arms. The Confederates regarded Union troops in exactly the same way as the American patriots in the Revolution regarded the Redcoats.
The South did need to fight to a draw, they started the war already in control of the territory they wished to acquire. All they had to do was hold the North off long enough for the Northern population to lose interest in continuing the war. At the onset and throughout the war there was always a strong contingent of northern politicians (Copperheads) who wanted to end the war and sue for peace with the new Confederate government. A stalemate in the war would have been a huge strategic advantage for the Confederates.
All Lee needed to do was play defense long enough for the North to lose interest or for Lincoln to lose the next election. Instead he aggressive pursued a knockout victory, which may have not even worked even if they did win Gettysburg. His stupid risks burned through men that they could not replace against an enemy that outnumbered them 3 to 1. What Lee should have done at the onset was fortify his position around Richmond, dig in and let the Union Army take the offensive. You don't take the offensive when you have less men and less supplies and already hold the territory you need.
Again, read up on your history. That's pretty much exactly how it happened. Read up on McClellan's Peninsular Campaign and how it was defeated by the Confederates. It still didn't lead to the end of the war and victory for the Confederacy, though.
Yes, they already had control of that territory, although the Union did manage to control strategic parts of it throughout the war. However, again, due to blockades and logistics, the South did not have enough material goods, especially food, to fight a contracted war of attrition. It wasn't just the army that didn't have enough food; it was many of the citizens as well. Again, study up on Vicksburg, where people were eating rats and shoe leather. Here's a couple of articles about the South's food shortage:
And it wasn't simply a matter of waiting for Lincoln to lose. The logistic situation was becoming untenable enough to invade Maryland to fight at Sharpsburg in 1862--a full two years before the 1864 election. Gettysburg was almost a full year and a half from the election. Had Lee decided on this course of action in early-1864, you might have a point, but the reality is that the South needed relief much sooner than that.
Here's an article that discusses many of the necessary reasons for Lee to take the fight out of Virginia:
"The most important of those goals focused on logistics. Facing critical shortages of food, Lee knew that a movement into the untouched agricultural regions of Maryland and Pennsylvania’s Cumberland Valley held significant promise. If positioned northwest of Washington, Lee could force the Federals to remain between him and their capital, thus liberating war-exhausted northern and north-central Virginia, as well as the Shenandoah Valley, from the presence of the contending armies. Southern farms that had suffered from the presence of scores of thousands of troops could recover, crops could be harvested safely, and civilians could enjoy a respite from the stress of constant uncertainty about their persons and property. Meanwhile, Lee’s army would gather vital food, fodder, and other supplies from Maryland and perhaps from southern Pennsylvania. This double-sided logistical bonus, by itself, would be sufficient to render the Maryland campaign a success.
Beyond maintaining the strategic offensive and improving his logistical situation, Lee sensed an opportunity to affect political events in the United States. He read Northern newspapers carefully and knew that bitter debates raged between Northern Republicans and Democrats about civil liberties, the conduct of the war, and emancipation. If the campaign north of the Potomac went as Lee hoped, the North’s fall elections would take place while the Army of Northern Virginia maneuvered in Maryland or Pennsylvania. The presence of the premier Rebel army on United States soil would hurt Lincoln and the Republicans, believed Lee, making it easier for Democrats to press for some type of negotiated settlement."
Good points, and it should also be realized that one of the primary motivations for Lee's invasions of the North was to seize needed supplies from the rich North and to relieve some of the destruction that was occurring in the Virginia countryside. Even Gettysburg (the battle itself, not the campaign) ended up being fought because Southern troops heard a rumor that there were shoes to be had there. Southern troops showed up looking for shoes and were confronted by Northern cavalry. Eventually this skirmish escalated, the armies concentrated at Gettysburg and a massive battle was fought.
One might think the rebel generals who commanded in the more important western theater would generate more discussion than Lee does. Both Johnstons, Pemberton, Bragg, Hood etc.
As for judging people as products of their time—at the time of the rebellion many Americans were against slavery and many men from the rebelling states remained loyal to the United States. Those who chose rebellion weren’t living in a vacuum.
A defensive strategy had no chance of success against an enemy with the resolve to sustain massive casualties, as the North had proven it had. It would only insure a slow and bloody defeat.
That is not correct. This is exactly the right strategy, and really the only strategic option available. It was also almost successful.
The north was under much political pressure because of the war and massive casualties. Lincoln of course won the 1864 election against the democrat McClellan who was the "peace candidate". Still, McClellan managed to get 45% of the popular vote. To Lincoln's benefit, the "peace" party platform was divided between those that wanted an immediate peace and those that wanted a conditional peace. Also to Lincoln's benefit was a series of victories right before the election - i.e. Battle of Atlanta. The timing was beneficial, at the beginning of the year of 1864 with Cold Harbor and other bloody battles Lincoln himself thought he had no chance for re-election. If not for progress near the end of the year, history may be different....
He betrayed his country of birth by putting his state and slavery over the oath he took to the constitution of the United States.
He was a half assed General who blamed his failures on his subordinates. And he decimated his other Armies in order to keep Virginia better protected. His attack on Gettysburg proves how incompetent he was.
Plus he sent at least a 1000 free African Americans that he captured in Gettysburg (non combatants) back into slavery.
He’s a seditious weasel. Should’ve been hung after the war.
Plus he was white which automatically makes him evil right?
It's always amusing when the eejits who mainly post on the politics forum show up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
