• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Robert E. Lee a Great General?

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a question I have seen debated a few times. I never quite understood that. People use Lee's act of desperation to judge him, instead of his record.

I personally think that if he were the head of the Union Army the war would have been over in a brief period of time.
 
He was a very successful general and was far better than a certain other general in American history.
 
stonewall50 said:
This is a question I have seen debated a few times. I never quite understood that. People use Lee's act of desperation to judge him, instead of his record.

I personally think that if he were the head of the Union Army the war would have been over in a brief period of time.
Click to expand...

That is a mighty broad question. He was very good tactically, mediocre strategically. Overall he was maybe the second best general in the Civil War.
 
Bobby Lee was a great general and a great leader of men. IMHO his greatest mistake was not to adopt the scorched earth policy that was later successfully used by Sherman. Lee had the chance, and if memory serves, Jeff Davis encouraged Lee to invade and to destroy the north. Lee decided against doing so. That was a mistake.
 
He was the first pick of Lincoln. Lincoln was so pissed that he said no. (would not fight against his fellow Virginia natives)That he started burying bodies of soldiers at the stoop of "Lee House" at Arlington Cemetary.
 
CRUE CAB said:
He was the first pick of Lincoln. Lincoln was so pissed that he said no. (would not fight against his fellow Virginia natives)That he started burying bodies of soldiers at the stoop of "Lee House" at Arlington Cemetary.
Click to expand...

i thought it was a union general that made the decision to bury union war dead at arlington cemetary?
 
Redress said:
That is a mighty broad question. He was very good tactically, mediocre strategically. Overall he was maybe the second best general in the Civil War.
Click to expand...

And Grant was better?

Also.

What was his bad strategy?
 
He lost so---No.

Read up on Gettysburg if you doubt me.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bobby Lee was a great general and a great leader of men. IMHO his greatest mistake was not to adopt the scorched earth policy that was later successfully used by Sherman. Lee had the chance, and if memory serves, Jeff Davis encouraged Lee to invade and to destroy the north. Lee decided against doing so. That was a mistake.
Click to expand...

I can agree. He made a mistake early in not putting pressure on a disorganized Union. But at the point of Gettysburg supplies were limited.
 
General Lee was the best general of the Civil War and one of the best generals in American history. Anyone that says otherwise is handicapped by their political ideology and/or ignorance of historical facts.
 
calamity said:
He lost so---No.

Read up on Gettysburg if you doubt me.
Click to expand...

Are you aware Gettysburg was an act of desperation and he was handicapped by not having his best scout?

Losing does not make one an inferior General. I suppose you would say Rommel was inferior?
 
apdst said:
General Lee was the best general of the Civil War and one of the best generals in American history. Anyone that says otherwise is handicapped by their political ideology and/or ignorance of historical facts.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Bias trumps logic in this topic. The simple way to debate this is...how quickly would Lee have won had he had the Union forces under his command rather than the South?
 
stonewall50 said:
Are you aware Gettysburg was an act of desperation and he was handicapped by not having his best scout?
Click to expand...
GB was in PA. He didn't have to attack.

Losing does not make one an inferior General. I suppose you would say Rommel was inferior?
Click to expand...
Sure. At the very least Lee picked the wrong side.
 
apdst said:
I would love to hear you explain your point.
Click to expand...

He led his troops into a lost cause battle. Not very solid leadership that.
 
calamity said:
GB was in PA. He didn't have to attack.
Click to expand...

At that point in the war he did. You clearly don't have a grasp on how armies of the time worked. You didnt get your food flown in on helicopters and planes and driven in by trucks. You had to get supplies from where you were at as much as you could. If you didn't your army would starve. Hence Napoleon's comment about stomachs.

Consider how long the south had fought on southern soil. It was decimating. Supplies had to be taken from somewhere and it was best to not be from the south. The already starving south.

Sure. At the very least Lee picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...

Would you tell an American general he picked the wrong side in Vietnam? Not so easy to fight against one's home.
 
stonewall50 said:
Are you aware Gettysburg was an act of desperation and he was handicapped by not having his best scout?

Losing does not make one an inferior General. I suppose you would say Rommel was inferior?
Click to expand...

Lee usually chose the battlefields to maximize his advantages. Gettysburg was not the location where he wanted to fight, but he was forced to fight on ground that he was unfamiliar with.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Lee usually chose the battlefields to maximize his advantages. Gettysburg was not the location where he wanted to fight, but he was forced to fight on ground that he was unfamiliar with.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is why Stuart was such a big deal for Lee, and not having him was devastating.
 
He was a hero (though not a general) in the Mexican War.

He as so many others of the time (and before, and since) didn't understand that the evolution of weaponry had changed the ways wars were fought. He fought very aggressively, and it was only a matter of time before he stuck his boys in the wrong spot, and they got torn to shreds. The correct tactics were to defend then attack, or to force an enemy to move out of a defensible site by moving aggressively towards their supply lines or capitol.

It is to his credit he lasted as long as he did, but he was using an outdated model of warfare. I've read Stonewall Jackson did everything in his power to make Lee realize this but failed, and when he was lost, Lee's best chance went with him.

Sherman is my pick for best general of the war, in terms of understanding the situation and making moves towards winning the war.
 
stonewall50 said:
And Grant was better?
Click to expand...

Demonstrably better. He was given overal command of the US forces because he kept winning, something he continued to do until the end of the war, which he won.

Also.

What was his bad strategy?
Click to expand...

He rarely had much of a strategy except to hang out.
 
stonewall50 said:
At that point in the war he did. You clearly don't have a grasp on how armies of the time worked. You didnt get your food flown in on helicopters and planes and driven in by trucks. You had to get supplies from where you were at as much as you could. If you didn't your army would starve. Hence Napoleon's comment about stomachs.

Consider how long the south had fought on southern soil. It was decimating. Supplies had to be taken from somewhere and it was best to not be from the south. The already starving south.
Click to expand...
At that point the war was already lost. So, I would have broken up my "army" and fought a guerrilla style warfare like Quantrill. Strike and retreat. Strike and retreat.


Would you tell an American general he picked the wrong side in Vietnam? Not so easy to fight against one's home.
Click to expand...
They did pick the wrong side. Anyone could see the NV were unbeatable. See Quantrill above. But, I am being glib.
 
apdst said:
General Lee was the best general of the Civil War and one of the best generals in American history. Anyone that says otherwise is handicapped by their political ideology and/or ignorance of historical facts.
Click to expand...

Any one who thinks that the losing general who had a mixed record in battle was the best general of the way and one of the best in American history is handicapped by the political ideology and/or ignorance of historical facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom