re: Where does Robert E Lee rank as a military tactician

Sophomore year ROTC (1957-8 version) included American Military History. Lee was studied extensively as one of, if not THE very best.

quote:

---

Sophomore year ROTC (1957-8 version) included American Military History. Lee was studied extensively as one of, if not THE very best.

---

Wonder where you studied...

quote:

---

He didn't. He waged the war too aggressively and cost the southern army valuable men and material. Had he been more conservative and fought battles like he did at Fredericksburg instead of like he did at Chancellorsville or Gettysburg, he might have ultimately won and we'd be talking about two separate nations right now.

---

Here’s the thing, Lee won a big victory at Fredericksburg because of Burnside and the inept plan that failed to get pontoon bridges to the Rappahannock in time. Burnside ordered a frontal assault even though Lee had time to set up his defenses in the high ground.

At about the same time the Union forces in the West were organizing to move on Vicksburg.

Burnside lost but he didn’t go. He stayed north of the Rappahannack for the winter. Lee remained entrenched on the heights. However, late April the Union army now under Hooker decided to flank Lee by crossing the Rappahannack and reforming at Chancellorsville. Lee was faced with a large Union force in his front and an even larger force on his flank. He had no option but to split his force to stop the threat on his flank.
In response to Lee’s move Hoooer we ton the defense, but left his western flank hanging.

Lee could defend or go on the attack taking advantage of the situation. He. chose to attack and nearly destroyed the Union army. But it was costly. He lost Jackson and valuable men. His army back at Fredericksburg was also defeated.

What if Lee had defended and not attacked? Who knows? He was having to defend a wider and wider front with a smaller army.

At this time Grant was winning a string of battles around Vicksburg and was almost ready to start the siege. The West was bring lost.

Lee playing defense in the East may have prolonged the war in that theater; however, the west was lost. What could he have done in Virginia when Sherman marched through Ga. and North in his rear? Nothing.

Lee had to win the Eastern theater, force public opinion against Lincoln. He thought that was his only chance and thus the desire to attack in hopes of destroying a Union Army.

Was this already posted?

quote:

---

. And that mistake was made by putting Pemberton in charge at Vicksburg.

---

Davis put Gen. Johnston in charge of the West. Johnston chose to do nothing to help lift the siege. Nothing zip zero nada. He was in the area and did nothing to harass Grant.

Brilliant in his use of maneuver (for his day) and leveraging a smaller (albeit more skilled and motivated) force against a larger, less well-led and less capable/motivated force. He was bolstered by the fact that, yes, at the initiation of hostilities the average Confederate soldier was worth probably 5 to 7 Yankee soldiers (and that's not even getting into the butchers in charge of the Army of the Potomac in 1861 and 1862).

But, the ANV losses were irreplaceable and there was an effectively infinite number of Union soldiers to replace their losses and steadily increase their numbers over time.

By mid-1863, certainly the average Confederate soldier was still superior to his Northern counterpart, but it wasn't nearly 5 or 7 to 1 - probably closer to 2 1/2 or 3 to 1. And Yankee leadership was improving dramatically after the debacle of Fredericksburg.

Lee actually concocted a plan at Gettysburg that was Burnside in simplicity and it cost him. The right choice (as always) for the ANV should have been to decline ANY major engagement that was under less than optimal conditions. If so, the war might have dragged on to 1866 or 1867 - the closer it got to Lincoln facing the electorate a second time (or declining to run) would have dramatically increased chances for a negotiated peace.

So, Lee's brilliance made all the early war successes of the ANV possible, while his (few) blunders, notably Gettysburg, hastened the end.

But that end isn't seriously in doubt. The industrial machine that was the Union Army in 1864 and 1865 was unstoppable. Even the Prussian Army of that era would have caught hell trying to fight the Yanks under Grant, Meade, Sherman, etc.

To put the South's dilemma (setting aside their supply and logistical issues that increased sharply from 1863 onward) into perspective, just in manpower shortages, by the end of the war, Spring, 1865, there were more soldiers in Colored Regiments of the Union Army than there were in Regiments of the Confederate Army. And Colored Regiments were only a fraction of Union manpower.

:letthatsinkin:

quote:

---

He lost it by being way too aggressive

---

To be fair, it was a tough decision. Conservative warfare ensures a longer war of attrition. Mean while, the Union destroys the railroad and essentials needed by the South.

My assumption (and that of some historians) is that Lee wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Everyone during the time period underestimated the brutality and length of the war. Lee being a general was in the thick of it. He probably thought a swift bloody victory would have been better than the alternative.

One must compare military leaders to others of his day and how they use their advantages and exploit their opponents disadvantages and mitigate their advantages.

The South’s advantages. Better more flexible leadership, top to bottom, that though faster and reacted quicker. More martial population that could march faster, survive privation, and hit hard. Related to the last, superior cavalry. Internal lines of communication. European trade partners who could provide military goods in return for cotton.

The South’s disadvantages. Smaller military population. Almost no industrial base. Special commodity based agriculture, producing exportable goods like cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar, hemp. Food shortages increased over time. A long coastline with no navy. Less railroads that would degrade do to non production of replacement parts reducing interior lines of communication. And a large work force that needed to be guarded and goaded constantly. Reducing economics as money crops were stifled by blockad and converted to inferior food crops (corn is a better animal feed than a human staple crop. Wheat, oats, rye, and barley do not grow as well in the Deep South).

North’s advantages. Large population with continued immigration growth that could sustain higher casualties because of inferior leadership. Time to develop military prowess in the school of hard knocks. Huge military formations from East to West that could be replaced, resupplied, rearmed with superior equipment, and increased almost at will. The ability to expand its railways to strategically decisive points. A navy to starve and attack the south along its huge coasts. A determined president.

The North’s disadvantages. All except determination would decrease with time.

The South’s only possible winning strategy was to bleed the Northern public’s will to fight with bloody defeats that prevented capturing to many critical strategic areas. The South could not sit back on the defense like Washington for most of a decade. There was no ocean separating the Northern might from the South, and no external diversions like France to Britain.

Lee’s aggressiveness and superior movement almost carried the Day. He failed with Lincoln’s re-election, but it was close. He was superior to all Northern and Southern generals except Grant and possibly Sherman. All they had to do is apply their superior weight against the smaller Southern armies and not disengage from defeats.

The best civil war generals in my order, Lee, Grant, Jackson, and Sherman. Since it’s not humanly provable, argue as you like.

quote:

---

Grant became so tired of getting his arse handed to him by Lee who was 2:1 outnumbered in most engagements that be broke off his pursuit of Lee and took his Army south to cross the St. James River on the biggest pontoon crossing ever to get his Army behind Lee.

---

Grant was trying to maneuver Lee into a battle that favored the Union army. Lee knew he was trying to do this and was actively working to avoid that. Lee had the advantage of being a lighter force as the Union army had to rely on a massive supply train that, if allowed, could have stretched all the way from Fredericksburg to Richmond - a distance of about 60 miles.

As a result, Lee could move much faster than Grant and was able to beat Grant to the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna River, and Cold Harbor. He then dug entrenchments and forced Grant to either a) give battle or b) attempt to get around Lee. Grant chose to give battle at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor.