Posted on 01/17/2019 8:15:01 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Sir Winston Churchill: “Lee was the noblest American who had ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war.”
During a tour through the South in 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt told the aged Confederate veterans in Richmond, Virginia, “Here I greet you in the shadow of the statue of your commander, General Robert E. Lee. You and he left us memories which are part of the memories bequeathed to the entire nation by all the Americans who fought in the War Between the States.”
Saturday January 19, 2019, is the 212th birthday of Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee, a man whose military tactics have been studied worldwide, was an American soldier, Educator, Christian gentlemen, husband and father.
Grant was wearing an officers sack coat similar to the fatigue coat of Union enlisted. But it was an officers coat, tailored and made of much finer material then the enlisted men’s coats.
If the capital were further South, the Confederate high command would have had more options. They could have lured the Union Army south and bedeviled it with guerrilla attacks, cutting off federal supply lines, until they could crush their foe. But Virginians wouldn’t have fought so doggedly if they thought their state was expendable, so the capital was in Richmond, and the war was about defending Richmond, and Lee was locked into situation that made victory very difficult.
Lee’s reputation has a lot to do with his masterful victory at Chancellorsville. Some of the Union generals he faced were incompetent, like Burnside at Fredricksburg. When Lee invaded the North at Antietam and Gettysburg, he didn’t succeed. He did save Richmond in the masterful Seven Days’ Battles, but also incurred higher losses than McClellan.
The contrast between Lee the master tactician and Grant the bloody brute force butcher isn’t fair or accurate. If you wanted to advance in the kind of war that the Civil War generals fought, you attacked and took higher losses than your opponent. Lee and Grant weren't as different in that respect as the myth says.
Here here on Washington.
Often dreadfully unappreciated.
Notice how Lee gets a total pass for his disadvantages, while for Washington the gigantic disadvantages are often ignored.
a pretty good synopsis of Lee’s thoughts on the Pennsylvania campaign.
I would disagree on one point. IMO, the mistakes that Lee made before and during the Battle of Gettysburg, coupled with the fact that Meade made few mistakes during the battle resulted in the defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg. I do not think bad luck was the reason for the failure of the Pennsylvania campaign.
Awhile back, someone posted a link to a video of some fellow at the War College talking about Lee's foray into Pennsylvania. It was quite good.
He attributes Lee's loss to a dispute between two of his Generals, I believe Stuart was one of them, and I forget the name of the other.
The man's point was that they hated each other, and when Stuart was to make his circle around the Union ranks and then meet up with Lee, he ordered rookie sections of Cavalry to accompany Lee, and he ordered the seasoned sections of cavalry to remain to guard some pass or stretch of land, because he hated the guy in command of them.
Lee had previously demonstrated that he would not use unseasoned rookie cavalry, and Stuart knew this, and if Lee had had the seasoned and successful group of cavalry that Stuart had ordered to remain behind, he would have used them and it would have turned the tide in Lee's favor.
The man's point was that Lee lost Gettysburg because of a grudge between two of his subordinate Generals.
I think I found it. Here it is.
Had King George III been as willing to shed blood as Lincoln, George Washington would have been ultimately beaten.
Not really. Tarleton and other British commanders could be quite brutal. What changed was the nature of war. 19th century war became mass war with much greater firepower.
Had King George III decided to keep sending armies against Washington, he could have done so. He relented.
One of the lamer reasons I have heard for Lee’s loss at Gettysburg. It was Lee that gave Stuart the option to choose his own route into Pennsylvania. Lee never envisioned Stuart riding a circle around the Union Army.
Yes, it's a bit long, but I think you will find it interesting.
It is true that Howe wasn't pursuing victory very doggedly at the beginning of the war. He was looking forward to a negotiated peace and thought that if he crushed Washington, it would only embitter the Yankees and prolong the war.
But if Britain didn't crush Washington, odds are it was because they couldn't. Think Vietnam. We had the firepower and might, but in the end, we still didn't win. Plus, the French, the Dutch, and the Spanish all joined our side and Britain would have a lot of trouble defeating all those foes.
Had King George III decided to keep sending armies against Washington, he could have done so. He relented.
He wasn't an absolute ruler. He had to cope with Parliament.
Six or eight years and George III still didn't win the war. Parliament was getting restless. So he gave up.
If the Confederacy had been able to stick around for another two or four years, Lincoln probably would have had to give up as well.
you might mention that through most of that six or seven years His Most Britannic Majesty was at war with the King of France. Said King, possessed a very large and capable army and a large and capable Navy. With considerable more resources to fight a war that was available to the Colonials.
Admittedly, Lincoln’s logistics were far easier than George’s.
He already mentioned it.
Yet France is given far too much credit, as well.
Howe was more of a begrudging commander than the King could be credited with.
Some Unionists despise McClellan, and in fact he and Howe share much in reluctantly pursuing the enemy. They were “kindly”, feeling a bit sheepish about coming down on their respective brothers.
As far as Washington himself being crushed, maybe, but he should at least get the credit of Lee who did lose. His troops were in MUCH worse condition than any given Confed unit, including the logistics of recruiting them and balancing all the different types politically (not just all units of a single “army”, but many levels of origin and funding, as well as all kinds of uniforms and non-uniforms). Overall, GW’s situation was much more dire.
Thanks, My bad
Washington was the right man in the right place at the right time.
He is the greatest man, ever.
I saw the video last year when it was posted on a FR thread. It is interesting, but still one of the lamer excuses I have seen explaining General Meade’s victory over General Lee at Gettysburg.
“Washington was the right man in the right place at the right time.”
I fully agree with your observation.
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.