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.
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.
No mention of Matthew Ridgway.
He lost.
http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Nobody will say it. He wasn’t sexy, wasn’t well dressed, didn’t always succeed, got a lot of men killed. However, he understood war. He invented modern naval and land force coordination. He understood the enemy, and defeated the greatest tactical general of his time. Hated by the south, but he was the ultimate killer. He is my pick, because he won offensive campaigns in a time wherein entrenchment stagnated the battlefield.
Ulysses S Grant.
Aka Unconditional surrender Grant
Aka highest ranking military officer since George Washington.
I give honorable mention to many, Patton, Eisenhower, Lee, and Nathan Bedford Forest, and Curtis LeMay
And MacArthur was absolutely horrific, probably one of the worst generals we ever had.
It’s very difficult to compare different generals from different eras who operated in very different circumstances. That said, if Lee was not THE best he was certainly one of the best. What he accomplished with an army that was always significantly smaller, less well armed and vastly less well supplied was remarkable. He won battle after battle which, on paper his army should have had no realistic chance of victory in.
George Washington, then U.S. Grant. Washington accomplished more with less than just about any general in history against the global superpower of the day. Grant won every battle and accomplished every strategic objective, whether outnumbered or not. He understood how technology was changing modern warfare and adapted. As for the south, I think Longstreet was their best general. He was cut from the same cloth as Grant, IMHO.
Lee failed twice to invade the north, and ultimately lost. As for MacArthur he was methodical, but made two colossal errors that cost the lives of many troops. First he allowed the Air Force to be destroyed lined up on the ground at Clark Field eight hours after Pearl Harbor. Second he ignored the overwhelming evidence that China had infiltrated a half million troops into North Korea including captured Chinese soldiers, because he held the Chinese in contempt as soldiers. He also allowed them to not build proper defensive positions in case they needed to retreat, unlike the Marines who build firebases along the way. The result was the destruction of his 10th Corps (that he named after Ceasar’s 10th legion). Those two blunders bring him down though he was still a great general.
No not even close.
Lee was a butcher whose criminally incompetent offensive tactics, and absolute fixation on Virginia, cost the South any chance of winning.
He was not a General in the US Army.
Pretty simple answer to that question.
Lee not good at all.
As a % of the men under his direct command, he lost a higher % than did McClellan in the 7 Days, Chancellorsville, Antietam, and obviously Gettysburg, where he managed to lose 1/3 of his army in 3 days.
The only major battle where he lost a lower % of troops under his command was Fredericksburg, where he held an entrenched position on the heights, and Cold Harbor.
In moving, open conflicts he was repeatedly maneuvered into attacking fortified positions (Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, Gettysburg) and even when he HAD the high ground on occasion (Antietam) he still suffered higher relative casualties.
This is saying a lot when his opponents such as Pope, McClellan, Hooker, and McDowell were incompetent.
As for Lee, look up what his fans did to Longstreet and anybody who questioned Lee's generalship. If people criticize Lee now, maybe it's only fair, given how his partisans attacked anybody who stood in their way.
Some of the criticism relates to Lee's generalship. For all his brilliance in some campaigns, Lee wasn't able to form a winning strategy to win the war. Perhaps that was because he wasn't in over-all control of Confederate forces, but if he was, maybe he wouldn't have had the time to win those battles. Of course the Confederacy didn't have the resources the North had, but given that, shouldn't Lee and his fellow Southerners have taken another course of action?
Other critics take on the myth that's grown up around Lee as some kind of saint. Lee was so revered and with so little questioning or critical investigation, that it was inevitable that people would become skeptical about his reputation. If Lee's high reputation was deserved, it won't be entirely destroyed by current criticism.
American officer corps vs. American officer corps. That is why the war lasted so long.
Statues, both Union and Confederate should be an honor to American Military Might and a warning to other nations.
Let us not forget that Washington institued the first effective U.S. Army Inspector General was Baron Frederick William Augustus Von Steuben. Von Steuben was a former captain in the Prussian Army. He was recruited for the American Army in Paris by Benjamin Franklin in 1777. Had Washington not employed this man the Continnental Army might have failed... and Trump would not prevail!
This whole thread is pretty disgusting for the most part.
Who did Winston Churchill call “The most noble of all Americans”?
It was not Lincoln, Jefferson or even Washington. It was Robert E. Lee.
In military war colleges all over the world, when they teach basic infantry tactics, they all use General Lee’s tactics as their primary teaching tool. That should tell you something.