Replies

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).

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.

The war was won and lost in the west, not Virginia.

Lee's reputation hangs on one battle, Chancellorsville. In the Seven Days Battle his forces took heavier losses every day than Union forces did. His raids into loyal territoriy in both in 1862 and 1863 were ill-advised and unsuccessful. As long as he possibly could, Lee used the the wrong operational concepts, ensuring that his army was bled white by heavy losses. Further, Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Pope, Hooker and Burnside had within it. Lee is very overrated.

Walt

The movie "Gettysburg" suggests that Longstreet's wanted to go south to a defensive position near Washington and force the north to attack. Is that a true account? Also, given that the confederacy had a lot of success with defensive stands, you think it would have worked?

I've looked at Grant's attrition numbers vs. Lee and he was losing men so heavily that the North would have run out of soldiers before the South. What sealed the fate of the South was Sherman's March. By the time it was over, the Confederacy consisted of three states, and it was that attrition, not Grant's, that led to Appomattox.

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).

So did Longstreet. I'm reading his autobiography now. Great read BTW.

I'm sure not one to criticise Lee, but I'm sure if he could do it again, he would NOT attack the angle.

Rev. Pendleton should have paid more attention to that little "Baring false wittness" thing.