Replies

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.

Thanks for reminding everyone that Lee was not made the “Supreme Commander” of Confederate forces until the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion. Lee should not be held accountable for the notable failures of others with similar command responsibilities. Gettysburg was a tactical failure for Lee, but the strategy (taking the fight to Union territory in an attempt to force an early stalemate and truce) was a sound one.

You're right about the formal assignment of responsibility, of course, but Lee was de facto head of the Confederate Army before becoming the de jure head, so he has some responsibility even if it were limited to giving good advice to Jefferson Davis.

And even taking your definition of his responsibilities as correct, there is little reason to support a raid into Pennsylvania as defense of Virginia and Richmond.

The rationale for that raid was that if he could lure the Army of the Potomac out and defeat it decisively, then the Union would give up. That is, in fact, a strategic rationale. It was just flawed both in appreciation of the situation (not likely that Lincoln would give up, and too far before the elections of 1864 to influence them directly), and in execution.

Again, I think Lee was a great general. He was tactically sound in most cases (all our generals, including Washington, lost battles so Gettysburg alone cannot negate all his spectacular successes) and probably unmatched as a personal motivator of men. But he doesn't quite rise to the first rank as I would prioritize the qualities of a general.