to all those who mix in Lee with Jefferson and Washington.

[Yupster]

33. You bring up interesting topics for discussion

like what was the best strategy for the Confederacy to win the war?

It's really not possible to have that discussion though as you just drip with hatred and vitriol to the point where you just spout nonsense like "the only one of his subordinate commanders to survive the war was Longstreet."

It's too bad because these are questions that historians have been debating for over 100 years and are endlessly interesting.

1. Why did George Washington win and Lee lose?

2 What was the proper strategy for the Confederacy to employ?

3 Was it more likely that the Confederacy would succeed militarily or fail? When other areas of nations rebelled as large as the Confederacy, they were generally successful.

I will give my short answers.

1, Simple answer is foreign aid. Washington did not have any land he needed to defend. He could let the British occupy New York and even Pennsylvania. It didn't matter. There was no land that Washington had to hold. He could have retreated to the Appalachians and it wouldn't have mattered. Davis did not have that luxury. He had to hold Richmond. Forget the center of government. He had to have the Tredegar iron works. It was the third largest in the US before the war. He had to defend it which meant defending Richmond.

2. Quickly taking Washington after Bull Run? Just withdraw and keep armies in the field a'la Washington, guerrilla warfare, defend your nation with regular armies which is what they chose.

The first one was unrealistic. They just didn't have the numbers or organization to accomplish this.

The second was also unrealistic. The southern rebellion was a counter-revolution more than a revolution. They were fighting to preserve and order, not rip one up. If they just backed up and let the Yankees occupy their land, their social order (slavery) would have been overturned and the cause they were fighting for would already be lost.

The third was impossible for the same reason as the second. The Confederates go into the mountains and swamps, the Yankees change the social order, arm the slaves and the war is lost before it's even fought. The order would be overturned.

I think they had to choose the fourth option which is what they chose. I have an unusual opinion on this where I think they were successful. Their goal was to inflict so many casualties and damage on the north that the north would eventually just go home. I believe they accomplished that goal and if the north did not have leaders like Lincoln and Grant it should have been successful. The south inflicted enough casualties that the north should have gone home. It is to Lincoln's credit that he kept the north fighting after 300,000 casualties. I think that was extraordinary leadership.

3. I think railroads were decisive in the north winning the war. Throughout the war, New Orleans was the largest city in the south. The second largest city was wherever the Army of the Potomac was camped that day. In past wars you couldn't keep large armies in enemy territory for long. They would eventually have to return home to resupply. Railroads changed that dynamic. While the AOP's supply bases were already set by the time Grant got there, it is still to his credit that he was able to keep well over 100,000 men surrounding Richmond and Petersburg for almost a year. Lee had much more serious logistical problems and I would argue he dealt with them as well as anyone could. His army never lost a battle based on no arms or ammunition. He diverted men from battle fronts to forage for food and even make shoes. At Chancellorsville, Lee was missing two of his best divisions who were in southern Virginia, northern North Carolina foraging for food. Even under siege, his army though often hungry was never starving. Lee had very different logistic concerns than Grant. I think they both did as well as they could.

All interesting historical discussions.

Any can be answered with "Lee was a poopy head."