Replies

Whatever else, when all is said and done, Lee was probably to South's "indispensable" person. Jackson was a better tactician and field general, perhaps, but it is hard to imagine anyone filling Lee's role. Jackson is a defensible choice, but I think Lee made Jackson and Jackson complemented Lee. The Confederacy might have collapsed by 1863 without Lee's leadership and example.

Critics of Pickett's charge rarely offer an alternative. Lee's Army was deep in hostile territory, was facing a numerically superior force which was being hourly reinforced by an influx of reserves. Time was not on his side.

He had no legimate chance, so he took the gambler's plunge. Experience had shown that Union troops often panicked when faced with a determined Rebel charge, Union Generals were capable of inexplicable plunders, given the opportunity. He offered them one.

In a protracted battle of attrition, he would lose. A retreat back to Virginia would signal the admission that Lee's Army was no longer a match for the Union Army - that the War was lost.

There is simply no parallel to Lee in the North. General Thomas was proabably the North's best general, on all counts, but his Virginia origin limited his prospects. If Thomas had a fault, he lacked the gift of self-promotion. Grant, at his best, was persistent and used his considerable advantage in men and material to effect and end to the War.