[wagglebee]

There was a lot of animosity toward the war in the North, they generally saw the South as backwards and not worth fighting. Plus, they really wanted interruption of cotton and agriculture products to end (we tend to forget that the effects of the blockade were felt on both sides). Lee's attempts to engage the Union in the North made many of the "fence sitters" pro-war.

I really think if Lee had done as Washington did in the Revolution, he would have been successful -- that was to make the enemy come to you, get victories where you could, but mainly avoid humiliating defeat. Had this happened, the Northerners would have eventually tired of the costs both in terms of loss of life and economically, the desire to become trading partners with the South would have been too great.

[Semper Paratus]

I really think if Lee had done as Washington did in the Revolution, he would have been successful -- that was to make the enemy come to you,

Problem was the Union was coming to him, trying to capture Richmond early and Lee was successful in defense. By 1863 Lee knew the South would soon be overwhelmed in the West and was staring to suffocate from the blockade. He was looking for a quick knockout by engaging the Army of the Potomac in the open where his ability to manouevre was unmatched. But he got drawn into a set piece battle with inferior lines and poor topography.

As it was he was able to hold out for 20 more months against overwhelming odds.

[Tallguy]

I really think if Lee had done as Washington did in the Revolution, he would have been successful -- that was to make the enemy come to you, get victories where you could, but mainly avoid humiliating defeat.

Perhaps you are right, but Lee was an aggressive military commander. Lee obviosly was not going to sit still in northern Virginia and be crushed by a larger force. Sooner or later you have to assume even the most poorly-led force is going to get a clue (or get lucky). I guess what I'm saying is that Lee-being-Lee, he could do nothing else.

This is why Jefferson Davis comes in for so much criticism. It was his "military genius" that selected the major field commanders for the Confederacy. Lee was brilliant in raising the siege of Richmond in the 7 Days. His aggressiveness was just what the situation required. But perhaps the South couldn't afford him in the long run.

Joe Johnston, the man Lee replaced, would probably have followed the course of action that you suggested. He was not as brilliant as Lee, but he was a solid general. Alas, he never held the confidence of Jeff Davis.