Replies

Lee didn't have much to work with in term of resources. The North had innate advantages, with population, manufacturing, and railroads. But Lee did remarkably well under the circumstances.

Having said that, I will say that as far as I recall, even in his victories, Lee often lost a lot of men (something the South was not capable of doing for long). Lee's final stretch of the war, in which he and Grant maneuvered and fought repeatedly, sometimes reminds me of George Washington. Although Washington lost most of his battles, he was able to maneuver well enough to gain his objectives, and then win the battle that mattered. Robert E. Lee did not do this.

Washington's forces (regulars,irregulars, and militia) outnumbered the British, whose main base was more than a thousand miles away, across an ocean. Washington was bound to win, through attrition if for no other reason. Lee did not enjoy such logistical and numerical odds. That being said, Gettysburg was Lee's blunder (and Stuart's, who cost the Confederates greatly by his dawdling and untimely arrival at the battle). Lee's other engagements were something else, and he accomplished great victories against great odds (good grief, he was outnumbered 2-1 and was outsupplied and out-equipped throughout the entire war, yet came within an eyelash of winning the whole damn thing. What finally broke the Confederates was (1) attrition, which they could not afford; (2) lack of supplies; (3) Ulysses S. Grant (had Grant not taken overall command it is entirely likely that the end of the War would have been different; Grant was a fighter, very aggressive, and was not at all afraid of taking casualties to achieve his goals; and I have great respect for him, even though I am a Southerner).

The South won while Stonewall Jackson was around. Once he was shot (mistakenly by his own men) the South began losing.

Certain things may have changed the outcome of the war, but the industrial North certainly had the edge over the South. It was a sad time for our country and bitterly divided people. The loss of life and limb was horrible.

What bothers me is the undying hatred some people have for Lincoln. I do not think he was a saint, but the diatribes against him do not strike me as fair or balanced. There seems to be a hate-Lincoln orthodoxy out there. Someone phoned me - a stranger - and began blaming all our current woes on Lincoln. Was I supposed to start cheering for John W. Booth?

You are right in terms of resources, although arguably Lee had much better corps commanders that he pilfered from West Point than did the North. However, in actual combat terms, he often had as much artillery, and matched up pretty close in terms of total troops. Even so, even when in defensive positions, it's interesting that Lee usually lost a higher % of his men than did any of his federal counterparts.