Was Rober E. Lee actually a great strategist???

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm guessing you didn't understand why he didn't try to take washington. He realized he couldn't and even if he did he wouldn't be able to hold on to it. Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker had stationed his corps in locations that would assure their being between him and Washington. The other problem was logistics Chancellorsville left the Army of Northern Virginia severely wounded. It was a victory however his losses where high. He lost stonewall Jackson who was killed and his second in command was severely wounded and needed time to recover. To make matters worse for him J.E.B . Stuarts Cavalry was resupply ed and would have done major damage to his men. If he tried to take washington he would have lost quickly.

His plan was to move in to pensylvania hoping to draw the Norths reserves down and hoped he could defeat them. The mistake he made was I believe he thought he would get support from pensylvanians he did not.

As far as Gettysburg his plan was smart problem was longstreet made a huge mistake. Instead of getting his troops in position to take advantage of a weakness Lee spotted in their lines he decides to move his troops in to a support role. He attempts to help hold a position they were not going to lose anyway.


Lee's big mistake he made was picketts charge. Long street actually refuses to charge his men up that hill and walks away. Lee was worried if they ended up in a long battle they couldn't hold out. But a charge was stupid and cost them dearly. They tried to fight uphill over open ground with a fully supplied northern army. His fear that his supplies were running out caused him to take a stupid gamble.

Now overall as a general he was very smart and several of his battles are still taught at the army war college. Including the mistake of letting supply problems to force you into a battle you can't win.

you`re right.
Jackson wasn`t at gettysburg ewell took over his division when Jackson died, ewell was very cautious he wouldn`t take culps hill on the first day and destroy the federals right flank making cemetery ridge untenable,because the sun was setting and he didn`t have his people in line.By the time ewell got around to attacking culps hill on the 2nd day the federals were reinforced and dug in.Theres no doubt that Jackson would have had his "foot cavalry" at the base of culps hill on the first day long before the sun was going down,and taken that hill.

I`m just saying that for an underrated, outmanned and outgunned bunch, the confederates were outstanding fighters.

originally posted by: Regnor
a reply to: misterhistory I'd be curious what book you've read. Most recent scholarship (post-Lost Cause influenced authors) has raised Longstreet's stature. Also, Lee must have seen something as he made sure Longstreet's promotion to Lt. General was dated a day before Jackson's.

He's not entirely wrong longstreet often felt his plans were better and caused lots of problems. He wanted to stand out and was thinking more of his personal glory then what was needed in the battle. He was great at inspiring his troops and was the best at reading a battlefield but he refused to accept others were just as good as him. So he often made decisions trying to leave his mark. And sometimes like Gettysburg it cost them the battle. If he had his troops I'm position where he was supposed to the North would have lost. Problem was he didn't like the idea of his troops avoiding the battle to flank them. Had he flanked them as planned he would have destroyed the Norths front line. But I think he saw it as sneaking and beneath him.

originally posted by: misterhistory

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lee should've listened to Longstreet.

This can't be stressed enough. I've read a whole book on Longstreet; every time Lee made a stupid decision, Longstreet had a hissing fit and practically phoned it in with his orders when Lee went ahead and made him do it.

I think we should count our 50 lucky stars that Longstreet didn't have total control.

you`re right about that, longstreet was a man of his own mind, if he didn`t like it he wasn`t gonna do it no way no how.
when he was west under general bragg he hated that guy and wouldn`t do anything bragg told him to do,the only reason longstreet attack at Chickamauga was because he saw an opportunity to split the union line.longstreet cared about the folks under his command he wasn`t going to sacrifice them for glory he would send them in for the win.

a reply to: Tardacus

He knew going into pensylvania was a long shot. I honestly believe he thought they would end up trying to negotiate with the shock of southern troops in Pennsylvania. His goal wasn't to win the war he knew that was impossible. His plan was he wanted to scare the politicians into negotiating. He underestimated Lincoln to be honest. Lincoln managed to keep the politicians focused on victory and not negotiating. Lincoln wasn't a military genius but he was a very good politician and was able to win political AK victories against his opisition.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Regnor
a reply to: misterhistory I'd be curious what book you've read. Most recent scholarship (post-Lost Cause influenced authors) has raised Longstreet's stature. Also, Lee must have seen something as he made sure Longstreet's promotion to Lt. General was dated a day before Jackson's.

He's not entirely wrong longstreet often felt his plans were better and caused lots of problems. He wanted to stand out and was thinking more of his personal glory then what was needed in the battle. He was great at inspiring his troops and was the best at reading a battlefield but he refused to accept others were just as good as him. So he often made decisions trying to leave his mark. And sometimes like Gettysburg it cost them the battle. If he had his troops I'm position where he was supposed to the North would have lost. Problem was he didn't like the idea of his troops avoiding the battle to flank them. Had he flanked them as planned he would have destroyed the Norths front line. But I think he saw it as sneaking and beneath him.

no, longstreet didn`t care about his own personally glory, he cared about his troops he wasn`t gonna sacrifice his troops for a chance at personally glory.longstyreet was strickly military he didn`t care about the politics of the battle he only cared the military aspects of a battle he wasn`t going to send his troops on a suicide charge.Lee had politics in his military mind but longstreet had none.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Tardacus

He knew going into pensylvania was a long shot. I honestly believe he thought they would end up trying to negotiate with the shock of southern troops in Pennsylvania. His goal wasn't to win the war he knew that was impossible. His plan was he wanted to scare the politicians into negotiating. He underestimated Lincoln to be honest. Lincoln managed to keep the politicians focused on victory and not negotiating. Lincoln wasn't a military genius but he was a very good politician and was able to win political AK victories against his opisition.

yup, Lincoln was a dictator anything for victory,nobody would scare Lincoln. Lincoln had the entire Maryland state legislature imprisoned without charges ( this was before the patriot act) for the duration of the war because he was afraid they might vote for secession and make Washington D.C. surrounded by confederate states.
Lincoln was a serious dictator,the kind of guy that throws the constitution out the window to do what he wants to do.
Lincoln was like a dictator or a mob boss , nobody was gonna tell him what to do.
imagine if trump put the entire legislature of califorina in prison indefinitely without charges, do you think anyone would protest about that? well Lincoln got away with that crap.

I guess NOT.

He...kinda like...LOST the war.

...K?...

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
I guess NOT.

He...kinda like...LOST the war.

...K?...

the brits lost the revolutionary war, you know the war that gave us a country and the right to free speech but I don`t see any snowflakes bitching about why so many states are named after british royalty, but that`s probably because the social justice warrior snowflakes are ignorant #s when it comes to history,either that or they don`t have the balls to take on state goverments.

Hell yeah!

The guys a legend!

He was given basically nothing to work with.

His army was understrength and under supplied.

Hell he did notveven have enough boots and the weapons given to him where outdated by decades.

The fact he lasted so long his a credit to him and his men.

And this is from a Brit

a reply to: Phonixfromtheashes

Really though, it was his guys that did the work and died and fought and bled.

We have the same problems today with the distribution of credit to the posers who sit there, safe in the rear.

...With their thumbs in their rear after spending little time or effort fighting the battles...

Fock him.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What difference does that make if we are saying Lee was anti slavery??

Forgot it was father in law , but that just poops all over that narrative..

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Your right, but I will say he took credit for the lose as well...


No excuses.. no deflection


It was all my fault boys...

I kinda wonder if that isn't what he is really remembered for..

a reply to: Phonixfromtheashes



CAn you name his most brilliant move??

People say he was brilliant but I've never heard aspecific story of his brilliance..

Robert E Lee was an amazing general.

Just because he fought for the south in the Civil War doesn't mean he loved or wanted slavery.

Erasing American history is a short sighted knee jerk reaction.

a reply to: Tardacus

You won't get a lick of argument from me over forrests ability..

Militarily the man was prob the best the time period had to offer..

I've heard a dozen amazing Forrest stories..

But not one Lee story...

Maybe it's an issue of needing to be able to read the old battle blueprint maps to appreciate it...


I wonder if it wasn't his demeretless West Point career that did it..

Ok so lee just dripped with "honorable" and was maybe the most accountable person on the continent..

I kinda wonder if it wasn't his personality that made people like him, and it was that people liked him that led to his career.

He was Winfred scotts protege.. and I wonder if most of his legacy wasn't "well he should have been great, everyone thought he would.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Phonixfromtheashes



CAn you name his most brilliant move??

People say he was brilliant but I've never heard aspecific story of his brilliance..

You might want to read some history or war books. But l doubt you will. Like most other Liberals you'd rather keep your head buried in the sand and keep your own opinion or what the media tells you about past events.

www.biography.com...

a reply to: Tardacus

so many states are named after british royalty, but that`s probably because the social justice warrior snowflakes are ignorant #s when it comes to history,either that or they don`t have the balls to take on state goverments

Charlottesville was named after Queen Charlotte.

The wife of King George III

a reply to: jjkenobi

I've watched every civil war documentary in existence.. and watched multiple Ivy League lectures on the subject..

Even met and talked to Shelby foote a hand full of times.. (historian)

He really liked my fort pillow massacres theory..


Check. Lol


To be fair I didn't ask him about lees specific achievement.. that opinion came after footes death

a reply to: jjkenobi

Can you name a specific example of his military brilliance??

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Was Napoleon a bad general because he lost at waterloo?

Same story Neys cav charge was a huge mistake at waterloo and Picketts charge was a disaster for lee

Lee was a very good general and above all a Virginian loyal to his state