Posted on 06/22/2018 11:46:12 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
That was according to my 8th grade history teacher-retired military. The only one who came close was MacArthur. That brings up the politics of the left. If it is true that Lee was a great General isn't it at least worth acknowledging? This tearing down of statues should stop. Educated persons should acknowledge the truth. It's the left that's the intelligent ones as they would have us believe. I see no conservatives standing up for this truth. The Senate GOP candidate in Virginia should start an 'intellectual' conversation on Lee and let the left react. Don't wait for a baiting reporter to to knee-jerk him into a quick response that they can interpret their own way.
Yes, indeed it did. He had a heart attack at Gettysburg.
No. Grant freed his one slave in 1859. Grant freed his last ones in December 1862.
That's speculation, and even if true what does that have with his tactical thinking?
I do actually like the idea of Washington as the greatest.
He did the most with the least and basically was a “gifted” amateur! He learned from every mistake and he made a lot in the beginning but the next time he was better & then learned some more from the next battler and was better again! If you break generalship into tactics & strategy, Washington was a superb strategist!
Two of my favorite and least heralded generals are:
George Rogers Clarke - another who did great feats with virtually nothing! He took I think 188 men and gained operational control of the Northwest (out to Illinois!) Did it in appalling winter conditions!
Winfield Scott - Landed at Vera Cruz out numbered, never lost a battle marched inland & took Mexico! Even Wellington said he was the greatest general of his time.
It is not speculation - it was and is obviously true if one reads history without an agenda or an ax to grind.
I will leave it to others to explain how a serious illness affects judgment although one would think it is self-explanatory.
While that may be a true statement, it isn't true that the North was a "safe place" to which slaves could flee. Because of the "Dred Scott" decision and the fact that it was federal law to mandate state and local government assistance to accredited "slave hunters" who were hunting escaped slaves in the North, there was no "safe place" in the North. Anyone assisting in the escape or hiding of escaped slaves was guilty of a federal offense, which was not likely to change without a sea-change in the attitudes of Southern politicians in Washington and elsewhere.
A successful general, yes.
A great general, not really.
He was well above average as a strategist but many of his successes were because of the tactical generals he had as both advisers and implementers. He did well when he took the advice of his generals but in short order he began to take the sunshine pumped his shorts about how great he was a bit too seriously.
In the end his strategic instincts could not carry him through his near defeats and the debacle at Gettysburg.
Grant and Sherman were disparaged by the Army and politicians for too long. When Grant was finally given command, things changed. He was able to read and anticipate Lee and knew that he had to be aggressive and put on the pressure. Before this, his opponents were political generals like McClellan who were certainly subpar when compared to him and who were unwilling to take risks and fight. With Grant and Sherman he faced opponents who knew that to win, they had to fight and take risks AND learn from their failures. They were at least equal to Lee and that was proved out by the ending.
Lee was an honorable man who with reservation took the side of his traitor state over his allegiance to the Constitution.
at least he had ideals....at least he did what his heart told him to do, not so he could get his 20 fat pension like so many officers today..
George Washington, for example, was probably a far better leader than a tactician -- especially if you include his track record as a British officer in the French & Indian Wars.
Hitler was a worse "field commander". If Rommel were allowed to do what he wanted and the sea conditions different, D-Day would be a bloodbath and the Allies would never breach beyond the beaches and be repelled back to the sea. This is why Ike had a backup failure letter.
Never lost a battle even when outnumbered. Took Mexico. Gave it back because Mexico sucks.
Joshua Chamberlain he saved the union with that wheel to roll up the confederates
I've read several books on Gettysburg and several biographies of Lee and while there was some speculation on his health during the summer of 1863 not blamed his decision on the third day on a heart attack.
Lee was great but certainly not the greatest. Washington, Sherman, Grant, Patton, Stonewall Jackson, Lee. Washington created a nation with his army, Sherman, Patton, Jackson crafted brand new tactics, Grant was smart enough to attack and never pull back regardless of the costs. Lee was brilliant in battles that meant little but when the issue was on the line at Antietam and Gettysburg and he had a chance to win, he did not. He had won battle after battle on the defense but did not win after 1863 significant battles on the offense.
He was a native son of a state whose interests he represented over and above that of the Federal government.
If we could have 400 such men in Washington today, this would be a great country indeed.
I see, you're actually talking about Lincoln, I agree.
Lee got more of his own soldiers killed or wounded attacking Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg then Grant got killed or wounded in the assault against the Confederates at Cold Harbor.
No mention of Matthew Ridgway.
He lost.
“Why not George Washington as greatest General?”
Emotion gets the better part of rationality in some people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.