Replies

[Lee] should be recognized for his gentility and military brilliance but should NOT be included in the pantheon of the American great generals like Patton, Pershing, Grant and Washington.

I certainly think Lee should be respected at the same level as Patton (though not necessarily the others), but instead of getting into a "who's who?" of American generals, your basic point is worth considering. Was Lee brilliant in a truly momentous way, or was his leadership flawed in some way that lowers him from the ranks of America's greatest?

There is a book - Grant as General (I forget the author) - which makes the point that while Lee was an excellent tactical general, he never functioned effectively as General-in-Chief. This is due to a weakness on strategic perspective. Where was the true center of gravity for the North - what was the real strategic opportunity that might achieve the South's objectives? This point is also raised in an issue of Military History from a few years back (I don't have that in front of me as I write this, either).

At the highest level, success for the South would have required recognition by the major European powers. If they had decided to aid the South and force the blockade, then independence would have been achieved. And the strategic center for the South was their agriculture strength flowing along the Mississippi river. So their strategy needed to be to show that they could maintain their territorial integrity, produce sufficient agricultural product to have a valid basis for trade, and get that product to ports that were within reach of European navies if they chose to go there.

None of those objectives were supported by Lee's raid into Pennsylvania.

And his generalship at Gettysburg was - by the cruel but objective judge of results - a failure. Based on actual judgment, Longstreet, who saw Vicksburg as the key strategic battle, and who saw the flaws in Lee's approach at Gettysburg, was a better general.

On the other hand, Lee was truly matchless at motivating men to fight. His sterling personal character, including his honest Christian faith, was so far superior to others that even his opponents respected him deeply. Even Washington - who had that effect on the nation as a whole - never had that sort of personal engagement with the troops under his command.

So, does Lee belong in the first rank, or the second, or somewhere else in the list of American Generals? It's an interesting question to consider. There are no right answers because the ranking depends on what one chooses to prioritize. I think he was, in the end, an excellent but not perfect general. In my own list, he is in the second rank with Patton and MacArthur, but behind Washington, Pershing, and Marshall. But that is because at the very highest levels of leadership I value strategic insight more than tactical.

There is a book - Grant as General (I forget the author) - which makes the point that while Lee was an excellent tactical general, he never functioned effectively as General-in-Chief.

Actually, no such position existed in the Confederacy until very late in the war. Jefferson Davis was the de facto "General-in-Chief" until he turned the job over to his disgraced friend Braxton Bragg in early 1864. Lee became "General-in-Chief" in early 1865, only a few weeks before his surrender, when it was far too late. Up to that point, he was only commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, with one mission, defend Virginia and the CS capital at Richmond. It wasn't his job to think about the big picture.