Robert E. Lee: Military Genius?
It is standard thought for Americans (Southerners in particular) to regard Gen. Robert E. Lee as one of the greatest military minds of all time.
When one considers the realities of the Civil War a different viewpoint should be considered: Lee was a suburb tactical thinker, but a strategic failure.
Consider, for example, the South's numerical disadvantage during the war. One would assume that sound military policy would be to spend the lives of his men conservatively in order to keep his army intact. Lee, on the other hand, seemed intent on doing the exact opposite, throwing his men into the meat grinder (Malvern Hill, The Cornfield at Antietam, Pickett's Charge) with seemingly little regard for the long term consequences.
On a whim, I compiled the casualty figures for the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. Honestly, I quite surprised by the results. While the Confederates lost fewer overall men in most engagements, they lost higher percentages of soldiers in an alarming number of battles, even ones typically thought of as Confederate victories. At Chancellorsville, widely regarded as Lee's greatest victory, the Army of the Potomac suffered about 12.8% casualties. Lee's army suffered 20.9% casualties. At Gettysburg, Lee's army lost 32% of its numbers.
The Army of Northern Virginia suffered more than 20% losses in no less than 5 major engagements, not counting Petersburg (The 7 Days, Antietam Creek, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Spotsylvania). The Union Army, on the other hand, only suffered those levels of losses at Gettysburg.
U.S. Grant, considered a bumbling butcher by comparison, never lost more than 20% of his men in a single engagement, even in the debacle at Cold Harbor.
Lee's army was unable to stop Grant, not because of Union steam-roller tactics, but because the Army of Northern Virginia was a hollow wreck by the time 1864 rolled around.....
This is what happens when I can't sleep [;)]
When one considers the realities of the Civil War a different viewpoint should be considered: Lee was a suburb tactical thinker, but a strategic failure.
Consider, for example, the South's numerical disadvantage during the war. One would assume that sound military policy would be to spend the lives of his men conservatively in order to keep his army intact. Lee, on the other hand, seemed intent on doing the exact opposite, throwing his men into the meat grinder (Malvern Hill, The Cornfield at Antietam, Pickett's Charge) with seemingly little regard for the long term consequences.
On a whim, I compiled the casualty figures for the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. Honestly, I quite surprised by the results. While the Confederates lost fewer overall men in most engagements, they lost higher percentages of soldiers in an alarming number of battles, even ones typically thought of as Confederate victories. At Chancellorsville, widely regarded as Lee's greatest victory, the Army of the Potomac suffered about 12.8% casualties. Lee's army suffered 20.9% casualties. At Gettysburg, Lee's army lost 32% of its numbers.
The Army of Northern Virginia suffered more than 20% losses in no less than 5 major engagements, not counting Petersburg (The 7 Days, Antietam Creek, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Spotsylvania). The Union Army, on the other hand, only suffered those levels of losses at Gettysburg.
U.S. Grant, considered a bumbling butcher by comparison, never lost more than 20% of his men in a single engagement, even in the debacle at Cold Harbor.
Lee's army was unable to stop Grant, not because of Union steam-roller tactics, but because the Army of Northern Virginia was a hollow wreck by the time 1864 rolled around.....
This is what happens when I can't sleep [;)]
0
-
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
kimi
Lee was an American who decided to fight against his country, the U.S.A. That means he was a TRAITOR. You can white wash that anyway you want, but it is still TRAITOR. Everything else is just an excuse to justifiy his actions.
Your question about Kerry is a red herring. Its answer is, of course not!
How many of the confederate states, in their decairlation of suscession said it was over wanting to preserve slavry. Or words to that effect?
You generally only become a traitor for being a leader of a major opposition group if you lose. If Washington had lost, what do you think British history books would call him today, and the British govenment called him then?
Arnold, on the other hand, had only one cause, and that was Arnold.0 -
eboydell, I will travel to Louisiana, and stand beside you on the field of honor. I claim the right to duel the ignorant rascal who had the temerity to praise the Devils Disciple, Sherman, while criticizing the military genius Robert E Lee. 0 -
We should name our next aircraft carrier the USS Robert E. Lee.
He is deserving of this honor.0 -
Mcaso -
A traitor you say? Not when it was quite unclear whether federal or state government had the final say. That's essentially what the war was about. Obviously it was decided against the states.
EMM -
Slavery was merely a sideshow and WASN'T the issue. Slaves were still held in the north at the time, but Lincoln decreed they be freed in the rebellious states. His intent was to politicize the issue. It worked. Slavery continued to be practiced for a time in Union states, but died a fairly quick natural death after the war.
AG -
Sherman was no saint, but he was no devil either. Sherman fought his enemy in terms that were then unthinkable at the time. He did it with great success. War is a cruel game and Sherman played it well.
Lee was too much a gentleman and too rooted in the past to have ever conceived such a rash plan or carried it out. Lee was, perhaps, the last great general of the old school and Sherman the first of the new school.0 -
quote:kimi
Advanced Member
USA
5509 Posts
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 12:39:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by zipperzap
Yep - best line of the war!
... and - for some reason, with utmost respect,
another quote that has forever been with me,
"Let us cross over the river and rest under
the shade of the trees."
That line, Zip, has a prominent spot in my father's memorial services.
I'm glad that quote moves others the way it's always moved me. It has
always made sense to me during senseless times. I suppose the image
of eternal peace and rest is it's appeal. Whatever it is - I carry it always.
My father was always all teary-eyed whenever he heard the strains of
Shenandoah ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMsfkEMZREU&mode=related&search=
He was away for seven years during WWII and I think that song kept him
going on many dark days, Omaha Beach and the Battle of the Bulge. He
never really explained it - he had lived in Kansas City, MO before the war.
I kept it together until some of my friends played it to his tribute - then I
lost it.0 -
"The war was NOT about slavery! It was about state's rights."
It was about the states right to allow slavery, which was a despicble policy that needed to be stopped.0 -
The entire issue of slavery was foremost in the fight, It was about states rights, but slavery was numuro uno.
Did you know that when the war ended, the southern states lost the right of having slaves, BUT the northern state still had slaves. At least for a few months until the gov outlawed them.0 -
(Gol-DANG! Saved agin by my ole trusty 30-40![:o)])0 -
Old Fool...
But slavery WASN'T stopped by the war. It was stopped in Confederate states because they lost the war! Lincoln freed the slaves ONLY in rebellious states.
Slavery died in the northern states because of economics and the changing morals of the northern population in general. If you really honestly look at the economics, then here is something to ponder. It doesn't exactly make those in north look like saints...
Slaves were expensive and had value. It was a great economic loss if a slave was lost due to disease or injury. Lucky for the north that the Irish were leaving Ireland in droves. They were much less expensive than slaves and their loss was of no account as more would come to take their place. Without these "worthless" Irish the canals and railroads would likely have not been able to have been built at the time they were. Besides... They were mostly Catholic in a Protestant north.
So let's see here... The Yankees were an entirely practical people. Slaves were expensive and one could go to church on Sunday and feel better for coming out against slavery. It worked in church and it worked in the wallet.
Irish were cheap. They came in droves and cost nothing. A practical Yankee could hire one for next to nothing and had no obligation to feed or house his family. And they made great servants if one so desired. A great system!
Slavery merely changed color and went to work in the factories of the north. Slavery by only a slim change of definition was the order of the day until as late as the Great Depression.
"Slaves" took the form of Irish, then Jews and Italians, but we didn't call it slavery as one man didn't officially own another. Call it what you like, but this made the US great... And it was a cruel system these people endured.
This is why I'm so set against our bleeding-heart liberals who listen to and buy the black slavery line. My white European ancestors endured as much as any race and I don't see reparations on the table. Do you?0 -
quote:Originally posted by eboydell
OKAY! THIS IS AN OFFICIAL ORDER FROM YOUR CONFEDERATE COMMANDER:"STAND DOWN IMMEDIATELY...THIS HAS BEEN A DRILL. I REPEAT STAND DOWN!" Oh,by the way, the Civil War WAS about State's Rights so that I could have slaves. Now all of you know the truth![;)][:D][:D]
eboydell,
first time I've read one of your threads, remarkable common sense for a lawyer (just kiddin', my son in law is a lawyer). He was raised in his fathers house which is built on top of the ruins of Fort Ethan Allen. Ya'll would enjoy talking about the war. Ever get to VA look up Steele Knudson esq (VA & DC bar). Ever get to GA look me up, always liked folks from LA, coon ass or not.
Whompuss
Chris Ramsey0 -
quote:eboydell:
Scott,(ZIP) Get a grip on yourself...move South with the family.
I did move as far South as I could - I'm only about 23 miles from Mexico -
I'm just off-center a thousand miles, or so, to the left.[8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
A great many military men have been brought low by poor supplies - Rommel, for example, can hardly be called a failure for what happened in North Africa.
I don't believe a comparision of Rommel and Lee is appropriate. As far as I am aware, Lee's army never lost a battle due to lack of supplies....unless you want to count Petersburg and its aftermath.
In fact Lee's smaller baggage train enhanced the mobility of his army greatly, which allowed him to pull off the flanking maneuvers for which he is so famous.
Lee benefited mostly from the amazing ineptitude of his opponents.
Grant's arrival on the battlefield changed that. Grant was the first Union commander to not high-tail it to Washington when Lee bloodied his army's nose.....Grant kept his army in the field and kept up the pressure. Lee's tactical brilliance was neutralized and he was forced into trenches around Petersburg.0 -
he was lincolns first choice as the military leader, he turned it down to lead the south. 0 -
Rack Ops,
Grant was better able to exploit Lee's weaknesses, but Lee's weaknesses were, for the most part, not his fault.
Grant had more men, more supplies, more guns, more of everything. Without delving into any hypothetical situations (like I did earlier), a man's brilliance hardly shines in the best of times and it is adversity that tests the limits of one's abilities. And when you enjoy such a massive advantage in men and materiel, it is hard to say that your performance was brilliant or even better than your opponent's.
Monty, for example, enjoyed massive superiority in supplies over Rommel when he launched his counter offensive. Was Monty the better general? I say no.
And that's how I view Robert E. Lee. His shortcomings were courtesy of the U.S. Navy and the Union blockade, as well as subordinates that didn't carry out his orders.
I'm not saying Grant wasn't a good leader, because obviously he secured victory for the Union, but Grant's victory over Lee does not make Lee inferior by any stretch of the imagination and should not be used as proof that Lee was anything less than one of history's most talented military commanders.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Joe Drees
Grant was the best. His campaign at Vickburg was unmatched. He was modern and adapted to the times. Lee had terrific generals to support him. When Jackson died much of Lee's success went with him. Lee also had the advantage of fighting against some truly inept generals.
Anyway that's my opinion. I also think the best football team ever was the 60s Green Bay Packers. Fun to argue things that are subjective, eh ?
Grant at Vicksburg failed to breach the Confederate lines after several attempts, he finally wised up. He was much smarter than Banks at Port Hudson, where the Union suffered well over 6,000 casualties as compared to relatively few Confederate losses. Banks, like Grant, had no choice but to depend on siege tactics. Some reports have it that when Pemberton surrendered at Vicksburg, that the Confederates waited a week before being set free due to a prisoner exchange, however, some believe that the exchange took place immediately. I have become to believe the latter report.0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
kimi
Lee was an American who decided to fight against his country, the U.S.A. That means he was a TRAITOR. You can white wash that anyway you want, but it is still TRAITOR. Everything else is just an excuse to justifiy his actions.
Your question about Kerry is a red herring. Its answer is, of course not!
How many of the confederate states, in their decairlation of suscession said it was over wanting to preserve slavry. Or words to that effect?
You need to study American history. I'm happy to see that you exclaim that you did not vote for John The Communist Lover Kerry.0 -
Some folks say the Civil War, The War Between the States, The War Against Northern Aggression, The Great Rebellion, The War for Southern Independence, The Second American Revolution, Mr. Lincoln's War, The Second War for Independence, The Brothers' War, The Yankee Invasion, The War for Abolition, The War for the Union, The War for Southern Freedom was the war which changed "These United States" to "The United States". 0 -
This has been a most intereting discussion. Nord and I seem to see things the same way. Shermans record on rape, etc. has been greatly inflated. His army was not made up of a bunch of undisciplined thugs; the opposite is true. For instances, when they neared a fort near Savannah, that was defended by 10,000 troops, they took it with an assault that lasted about 10 minutes. Sherman had 62,000 men. There were another 5,000 men in and around Savannah but they choose not to fight and drifted away. A wise decision. Of course none of the armies that Sherman encountered were near as large as his, but they rarely showed up for a fight, which was good decision if you wanted to live to see another day. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
48 comments