Sherman123
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,774
- Reaction score
- 3,791
- Location
- Northeast US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Outgeneraled, outsmarted and outfought, Lee's luck ran out 151 years ago.
Outgeneraled, outsmarted and outfought, Lee's luck ran out 151 years ago.
He was neither out generated or out smarted. He didn't have the money or industry to win. Recognizing those advantages should not have taken that long. But it did. Lee was a genius and had he been fighting for the union...he likely could have ended the war much sooner.
The "traveler" thing above your avatar is appropriate in this thread.
But the thread should not have been written this way. A war was fought...one side surrendered. The man who defeated Lee rightly treated him with a lot more respect than the OP...which is an unnecessary call to anger and division at a time when it is less welcome than usual.
Confederate "Lost Cause" mythology remains a pernicious factor in our national life.
Considering the thread, I gotta ask again about the "Traveler" thing above your avatar. Is it just coincidence?
I lived outside the US for a total of 18 years, resident in seven countries. Visited or passed through another 30 or so.
Sorry, Jack...I should have been more clear.
Traveler is to Robert E. Lee...what Silver is to the Lone Ranger or Trigger to Roy Rogers.
I just thought that was a well-known fact. My apologies.
Long Live the Republic!
Had Lee faced Grant rather than McClellan on the Peninsula he would have been defeated in 1862 and the war ended then.
Confederate "Lost Cause" mythology remains a pernicious factor in our national life.
Really? You mean the Grant whose only abilities were essentially to lay siege to the west until there were not enough resources in the east? The fact that Lee was able to do what he did speaks volumes to his abilities. Not to mention his knowledge of the terrain and his abilities with his staff.
You are talking about comparing a general who understood his advantages were numbers and that once he faced Lee...that he must defeat Lee's army at all costs (regardless of the cost). And Lee who understood he was outmanned from the beginning. He was under supplied. And he was under gunned. Let's put it this way...had Lee been in command of the Union army...what do you think would have happened in the East? Now ask yourself what would have happened had you put Grant in Lee's shoes?
And those who typically find themselves as anti southern...love to ignore that Lee was an outstanding general. He is only a lightning rod because the cause for which he fought was negative. Objectively denying that he was beyond spectacular is simply insane.
Really? You mean the Grant whose only abilities were essentially to lay siege to the west until there were not enough resources in the east? The fact that Lee was able to do what he did speaks volumes to his abilities. Not to mention his knowledge of the terrain and his abilities with his staff.
You are talking about comparing a general who understood his advantages were numbers and that once he faced Lee...that he must defeat Lee's army at all costs (regardless of the cost). And Lee who understood he was outmanned from the beginning. He was under supplied. And he was under gunned. Let's put it this way...had Lee been in command of the Union army...what do you think would have happened in the East? Now ask yourself what would have happened had you put Grant in Lee's shoes?
Really? You mean the Grant whose only abilities were essentially to lay siege to the west until there were not enough resources in the east? The fact that Lee was able to do what he did speaks volumes to his abilities. Not to mention his knowledge of the terrain and his abilities with his staff.
You are talking about comparing a general who understood his advantages were numbers and that once he faced Lee...that he must defeat Lee's army at all costs (regardless of the cost). And Lee who understood he was outmanned from the beginning. He was under supplied. And he was under gunned. Let's put it this way...had Lee been in command of the Union army...what do you think would have happened in the East? Now ask yourself what would have happened had you put Grant in Lee's shoes?
Grant's Vicksburg campaign was the preeminent masterpiece of the war. His selection of and support for Sherman was a superb executive decision at the strategic level. His 1864-65 campaign against Lee was decisive. Lee's soldiering mirrored the greatest commanders of the past to that time, but Grant's presaged the great commanders of the 20th century. The future defeated the past.
That analysis shows a catastrophic lack of understanding for Grants capabilities. I'm not sure I agree that Lee was 'out-generalled' given the paucity of options available to him but to malign Grant like that is inappropriate. You make it sound as though all Grant did was waltz up to Vicksburg (or Donelson) and dig a series of entrenchments.
Grant's Vicksburg campaign is considered one of the masterpieces of complex maneuver and is widely studied at military academies and among historians. The brilliance of Grant lay with his ability to cut through the fog of war and make decisive decisions and decisive movements despite uncertainty and an inability to break under pressure. This quality is rare in the commanders of armies and is worthy of high regard. It was also matched with a serene understanding of the strategic realities of the war and a shockingly competent military mind.
Grant conducted a dangerous and rapid movement through dense terrain west of Vicksburg along the western bank of the Mississippi, cut off from his base of operations and the normal flow of supply and support. He then launched one of the largest and riskiest amphibious operations in American history (until Normandy) by directly challenging Confederate defenses across the Mississippi and upon succeeding transferred his entire base of operations to the south of the Vicksburg, deep in Confederate territory, something that had been thought impossible.
Not waiting to heavily consolidate his position he launched a rapid march inland which surprised both Pemberton and Johnston and drove a wedge between their armies. Striking eastward he seized Jackson (the railroad junction there being critical) and thereby destroyed the efforts of the steadily concentrating army under Johnston to relieve Vicksburg or harass the would be besiegers. The swift sledgehammer blows to the west with little delay for rest for his army prevented Pemberton (if he had been so inclined) to contemplate a withdrawal of the city by bringing his army into contact with the Vicksburg lines and thus commencing the siege.
This massive campaign and all of its accomplishments was conducted in roughly 18 days. It was a highly complex, shockingly fast, daring, and wildly successful campaign of maneuver. It is rightly regarded as one of the greatest military campaigns in American history.
So let me ask you. How do you think he would have done in Lee's shoes?
And those who typically find themselves as anti southern...love to ignore that Lee was an outstanding general. He is only a lightning rod because the cause for which he fought was negative. Objectively denying that he was beyond spectacular is simply insane.
Is at as catastrophic as trying to undercut Lee's abilities as a general? It is a disturbing trend to me. And it is especially common amongst those who want to make it a way to stick to "southerners." Lee had one of the most difficult commands for any general in American history. Do you think Grant could have done better in Lee's shoes? I certainly don't. I think Lee was one of the only Generals who was even remotely able to do what he did for as long as he did.
I agree that Grant was a masterful general, but is simply not true to say that he "out generaled" Lee. He didn't. By the time he got to Lee...Lee was in dire straights in a campaign where he had no chance of winning. Lee's army was the only thing holding the Confederacy together at that point.
the math didn't work, and Pickett's charge was a disaster. i will say that i admire Lee for his loyalty to his state and home. i'll also say that the Confederacy did more with less than any other American rebellion will probably ever do again. if today's idiot partisan morons mounted another rebellion, they'd be put down in about ten minutes if they tried to do it with firearms. back then, they actually had a brief chance of victory.
but **** slavery right in the ear, and yeah, that was a major reason for the Civil War.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?