[ClearCase_guy]

I'm a yankee, but I have to say that Robert E. Lee had a great deal in common with Washington -- as a tactician, he was adequate, as a strategist, he was masterful, his men loved him, he kept the army together in the face of a formidable enemy, and he sent a succession of enemy generals home in defeat.

Eventually, though, the north found Grant, and succeeded in wearing down the south. Lee comes out as the loser, but I think he was a worthy successor to Washington.

[Pharmboy]

I assume that you know this, but I write it for those who may not: General Lee was the son of Light Horse Harry Lee. Harry was a stand up guy and a great fighter, dragoon and cavalry officer (dragoons are mounted, but dismount when they get to their position on the battlefield, unlike cavalry who stay up).

Loyal to friends to the end, he died in 1812 helping defend his friend in Baltimore from a mob.

[gusty]

I see Washington and Lee being quite the opposite. Washington was not a great tactician but a great strategist. Washington understood he had to keep the Continental Army alive in order to wear down the British and win the war. Lee was a brilliant tactician on the battlefield, but a disaster as a strategist. His two invasions of the north wasted resources the South couldn’t afford. His neglect of what was happening in the Western Theater arguably cost the South the war. Washington saw the big picture, while Lee was concerned only with a narrow focus on his own theatre.