Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Colt .45
You have to look at levels. At a brigade level Lee had little luck....remember the West Virigina campaign of 1861. Lee didn't shine until he took over the ANV.
As with any organization, its the teamwork that gets the job done. Jackson/Longstreet/Lee were unbeatable. As was Joe Johnston/Beauregard. Seperate, they are great...together they are magnificent. Same with Handcock/Sedgwick/Sheriden/Meede/Grant. Together they held the army together while beating down the ANV.
54 posted on 08/14/2002 7:33:12 AM PDT by Conan the Librarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Conan the Librarian

Whereas Lee may not've shone brillance at a few things, he was a master of large troop movements and tactics. Still, the Napoleonic tactics he was using were what was the norm during that time. Yes, his junior Generals were essential, but without Lee's mind and experience they couldn't have accomplished half of what they did! Grant on the other hand was not known for caring too much for the welfare of his men. How many men did he waste at Cold Harbor in useless frontal assaults against fortified positions? Meade?! Pretty timid and cautious. Hancock was a good leader.

Despite what your assertion is, Lee is much better than this author is trying to make him out to be.

76 posted on 08/14/2002 3:58:57 PM PDT by Colt .45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson