Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
10. That may be going a bit too far.
Sun May 21, 2017, 12:22 PM
May 2017

As for the overall strategy, I disagree with the interpretation that "all the CSA had to do to win was not lose." They were competent enough to figure that a long war of attrition would have only one conclusion, so went for an aggressive strategy in hopes of shaking up the USA and maybe securing some foreign intervention. Whether the latter would have been of much practical use is a separate question. Personally, I doubt it.

As for Lee as tactician, I have always pretty much agreed that he pulled off a lot of things he should not have been able to get away with against more competent opponents. How much of the credit goes to him for recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing armies and commanders, and how much of it was blind luck is open to question, but one notes the same tactics didn't work all that well in the Western theatre, so other things being equal, Lee must have had something on the ball. He did tend to throw his people forward relentlessly and rely on their valor and the enemy's confusion to win the day, which tendency Michael Shaara recognized as far back as 1974 in The Killer Angels.

Ultimately, you can't argue with success, and Lee's main job, of keeping Richmond clear of blue bellies, is one at which he was successful for several years when any rational analysis of the odds would have had him down and out. There must be something there, one might think.

-- Mal

General Lee had a propensity to crash, too Brother Buzz May 2017 #1
I've done a bit of reading and studying of the Civil War... Wounded Bear May 2017 #2
There was a lot of ineptitude in that war underpants May 2017 #5
Conversely, many of the Southern gentlemen you're talking about... Wounded Bear May 2017 #9
Sherman, Sheridan and Grant. Blue_true May 2017 #19
General George Thomas, a Virginian that wasn't a traitor DefenseLawyer May 2017 #21
Accepted, I had read about a southerner who was an Blue_true May 2017 #23
The Rock of Chicamauga thucythucy May 2017 #28
+1, The plantation owners had to lead the cannon fodder to death so they could keep slaves uponit7771 May 2017 #16
Actually, they did not GeoWilliam750 May 2017 #24
Oh don't tell this to the "Lost cause" industry underpants May 2017 #3
I've always thought Lee was the most over rated general of the war. Foamfollower May 2017 #4
eh, Billy was a lousy tactician. malthaussen May 2017 #13
The defeated South desperately needed a hero. Many still need one. nt oasis May 2017 #6
Arguably, the south lost the war when Jackson was killed...friendly fire I might add Docreed2003 May 2017 #7
Very correct when Lee was on the defensive he was brilliant. gordianot May 2017 #8
That may be going a bit too far. malthaussen May 2017 #10
Yeah I don't buy the defensive strategy argument either Kentonio May 2017 #25
Just for fun... Sancho May 2017 #11
Statistics of "Great Generals" ThoughtCriminal May 2017 #12
This presumes one agrees with General Groves's criterion. malthaussen May 2017 #14
That also assumes that the chance of winning is always 50-50 Kentonio May 2017 #26
Lee went on attack because of non reality based conservative thinking... Stupid cons think they have uponit7771 May 2017 #15
Lee was very successful defensively.... Adrahil May 2017 #17
Oh packman, YOU DO LOVE CATS.... onecent May 2017 #18
He should have been hung for treason BannonsLiver May 2017 #20
Pickett's Charge was an inexplicable decision, and a terrible one. kwassa May 2017 #22
anyone who has stood at the bottom of that long field looking up at the ridge, Voltaire2 May 2017 #27
My great-grandfather probably watched the charge. kwassa May 2017 #31
The Union won because of a recce pilot and a FAC. trof May 2017 #29
Lee was another Napoleon, while Napoleon was a master of maneuver, he shifted to only assaults. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gen. Robert E. Lee - Not ...»Reply #10