Replies

Lee fought the only war he could, given the logistical situation he was facing. In his boots, Grant would have done the same things. Similarly, if Lee was heading the Union armies, he would have fought the war the same way as Grant did (and, if Lee had accepted command of the Union armies, the civil war would have probably been over in a year or two).

It’s my opinion that the South should have surrendered after Lincoln was re-elected in 1864. The writing was on the wall at that point- the Union had given Lincoln a mandate to finish the war with the complete defeat of the CSA. The South should have realized that every day the war continued after that election was just a waste of lives and resources.

Lee fought the only war he could, given the logistical situation he was facing.

If that is true . . . how good a general was he? If he had no choices, then he didn't really have much to do with the way things turned out.

I'll have to disagree with your contention. There were three major choices he could have made. This presumes that Jefferson Davis would go along, which I think is a valid presumption.

1) He could have recognized Vicksburg and the control of the Mississippi River as the true strategic center of the Confederacy, and reinforced it as required to beat Grant. This was - at least as reported in history - Longstreet's recommendation. And the timing would have been good because at that point Grant was still learning how to be a general and was very susceptible to the superior tactics of Lee and Longstreet. This would have had the best chance of setting up a sustainable, long-term stalemate (at least) that would have eventually led to conclusion that met the South's objectives.

2) He could have used his forces to secure several Southern ports and surrounding waters. This would have shown the Europeans that the South could maintain their territorial integrity, and it would have facilitated the trade which was - in the end - the only reason the European powers might have chosen to intervene.

3) He could have used his army as a raiding force to draw the Union army into battles that posed such a nuisance to the North that it would decide to end the war. This is what he chose to do, and it is a sign of an all-too-typical arrogance on the part of leaders (not just Lee, by any means). This option is based on the the presumption that only your own side is patriotic, courageous, and determined. With any stress, the other side will break, yet your own side can hold out as long as it takes. In fact, truly successful generals assume that the other side has moral strength at least as great as your own side, and that only overwhelming conditions will break them.

Obviously, this is not always true. France in 1940 is an example of a hollow, fragile enemy just asking for an excuse to quit. Yet that same presumption - with even more justification after the first few months of the campaign - led the Germans to defeat against the Soviets. And a similar presumption (reportedly not shared by Yamamoto) led to Japanese defeat.

A nation can set up those defeat conditions on itself - as we did in Viet Nam - by ostentatiously making it clear that there was no real threat to the other nation. We were that way in Iraq until Petraeus and the 'surge.' But with Lincoln and Grant, the 'give up because I'm tired of this' option was not real. So ultimately, Lee misread the courage and determination of his adversary, both strategically and - at Gettysburg - tactically.

Or so I would interpret things. Armchair quarterback / generals are a dime a dozen, and you may think you have some change coming.