Robert E Lee

[Rath]

Doing some research on him for an essay and am after a few opinions of the man.

A lot of readings make him out as one of the greats...but i'm just reading JFC Fuller's work and he's quite scathing of Lee's ability as a general.

So how do you rate him ?

[Tachikaze]

Within the last year, Smithsonian magazine did a great bio of him, focusing on his contorversial image in history. I recommend searching it out.

I think he was a skillful general who made some serious mistakes at Gettysburg against the advice of his generals. Socio-politically, he was a bastard, but had some good qualities thrown in.

[Spino]

I won't comment on Tach's wacky socio-political comment but Lee really was one of the best generals of his time. He was by no means perfect (his call for Pickett to attack the Union center on the 3rd day at Gettsburg was a huge blunder) but people conveniently overlook the fact that he consistently beat opponents who possessed superior numbers and were better equipped than his Army of Virginia.

Interesting enough, Lee's shortcomings on the battlefield were common to all generals of that age as nearly every officer in the western world at that time was heavily schooled in the study of the master himself, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon constantly stressed the power of the offensive vis a vis tactics of aggressive flanking and deception to keep the enemy off balance, even when facing superior numbers. While those tactics proved effective in an age of muskets, smoothbore cannon and cavalry it could sometimes prove to be disastrous in an age where the cavalry charge all but disappeared and rifled muskets and artillery could routinely wreak havoc at ranges considered extreme during Napoleon's time. Many critics believe Lee should have assumed the defensive and drawn the Union armies deep into Southern territory where he could conduct an efficient guerilla warfare campaign, threaten their supply lines and seriously improve his chances of fighting them on ground of his choosing. Assuming the defensive and drawing the enemy into a wall of accurate lead, shot and canister (see the battle of Fredericksburg) was always a sensible tactic but it railed against the widely accepted method of waging war as established by Bonaparte and his peers.

Much like Napoleon Lee also enjoyed the luxury of having some excellent subordinates under his command. The loss of Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson was a massive blow to the Confederate war effort, moreso than the loss of Lannes was to Napoleon's efforts from 1809-1815. The loss of Jackson cannot be underestimated; imagine if Napoleon had lost Lannes AND Davout in the same day

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Well, with what little I have read about him and the US Civil War, my € 0.02.

Robert E. Lee was a superb commander and IMHO on par with Grant. He had the luck though to have some superb subordinates (like Jackson, Longstreet), and some incompetent, or at least flawed opponents.

McClellan should have destroyed his army at Antietam, should have beaten him to Richmond, Burnside should have never attacked him at Fredericksburg (though Burnside had him beaten strategically initially, but was hampered by bureacrats as far as I know) , and Hooker simply lost his nerve when something unexpected happened.
When Meade arrived the Army of the Potomac finally had a commander that knew how to use his numerical superiority and superiority in equipment. Meade had shown good military skills, as his units were among the more succesfull at South Mountain, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, as well.

Also, as the war progressed, Lee was facing odds that were too big. It is IMHO quite amazing that he held out as long as he did.

I do not know for sure, but IIRC he actually caught Grabt at Wilderness. Only the terrain prevented him from reaaly exploiting it.

IMHO Grant was the lucky guy during the war. Yes he got Donelson and Henry, a superb achievement. Yet he almsot got his army killed at Shiloh (what saved him, IMHO was Johnson getting shot and some of Johnson's subordinates messing up his battleplan). IIRC this almost happened again at Wilderness. When Grant took over the Army of the Potomac, he inherited an army that had already gottten rid of many of the incapable officers earlier in the war. He inherited an army in fairly high spirits, under a commander who had beaten Lee decisively. He also fought an opponent that was, in virtually all respects, inferior by quite a large margin to his own army. And yet he had a lot of trouble defeating the Army of Northern Virginia.

My guess as to why Lee ordered Picket's charge is that he knew it was the last chance for the Confederacy to gain a decisive victory against the Army of the Potomac. That, he actually might have thought, or realised, that by that time a new breed of commanders had taken over the Army of the potomac, and the other Union armies.... and that the advantage in size and equipment the Union armies had was going to tell a lot more.
Also, J.E.B Stuart was supposed to swing around the AoP.

Grants biggest contribution is laying down the foundation for US military doctrin. Keep presure, and use advantages in size and equipment. And try to make these advantages as large as possible.

Meade's main contribution was, IMHO, not losing the battle of Gettysburg, and not squandering the victory. In a way similar to what Montgomery had to do and did at El Alamein.

Note: This is just my opinion, based on quite limited reading, seeing documentaries and following discussions on the internet. And to that my own logic applied. I am quite sure that there are quite a few on this board with a much greater knowledge. I do intend to learn a lot more on the US Civil War though.

[Dhepee]

IMO Grant was an adequate general in fortunate cirumstances. He was able to fight a war of attrition, knowing full well that the North could supply him with an endless supply of material and immigrant conscripts and that every battle Lee won brought the South closer to defeat. Every man lost in a Southern victory was another nail in the coffin because the South couldn't replace their losses. All Grant did was drive the South away from their lines of supply and wait for the inevitable. He never really had to fight a battle to win it, he only had to fight to kill, and in the long run that was enough. Fighting to win and fighting to kill are very different, if you fight to win you try to maximize effect while minimizing losses. If you fight to kill you can ignore your own losses in favor of inflicting casualties on the enemy. Russians often do the same thing. Sometimes just showing up is enough and that does not make you much of a general.

[Oaty]

1 nice thing to note. I'm sure I'm right on this and Robert E. Lee's homestead was arlington, now called Arlington national cemetary. He was a graduate of 1 of the military academies, can't think of the name of it right now, and had the decision to side with the union or the confederates wich if I'm right Lee had pondered wich side to side with since he was from Virginia but also had strong feelings for the union. I don't know but state pride could have been a bigger factor back then than it is now and either way he would be looked down upon by the other side

[The Scourge]

Some very good posts ,so I'll not even try adding anything exept that .Do you think Lee might have been suffering from a touch of megalomania at gettysburg?
It's just that I read the book Gods and Generals ,or was it Killer Angels?
Anyway ,after the defeat,Lee turns to his men and says"I thought you were invincible."
Did he really say this?

[econ21]

I think Lee was rather like Napoleon in his military talents - very good strategically, but with a sometimes dubious understadnding of tactics. Unlike Napoleon, he seems to have a been a rather fine man. Wasn't he offered command of the Union armies at the start of the war? I thought I read somewhere he did not support slavery, but fought to defend his state. I most admire his conduct at the close of the war, when he surrendered his army rather than heed calls to disperse it to fight a pointless guerilla campaign.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Some very good posts ,so I'll not even try adding anything exept that .Do you think Lee might have been suffering from a touch of megalomania at gettysburg?
It's just that I read the book Gods and Generals ,or was it Killer Angels?
Anyway ,after the defeat,Lee turns to his men and says"I thought you were invincible."
Did he really say this?

I don't know if it's fair to characterize Lee's decisions at Gettysburg as being inspired by a 'touch of megalomania' but I do believe he seriously underestimated the Union's overall morale and the strength of their position on the third day. Personally I think Lee believed that Pickett's charge would be the straw to break the camel's back.

I do not recall reading that Lee said "I thought you were invincible" to the remains of Pickett's division as they returned from their ill fated charge. This may or may not have been embellishment on the part of the author. However, it is widely accepted that Lee did say, "This is my fault, this is all my fault" or something to that extent. Keep in mind Killer Angels and Gods and Generals are works of fiction that take certain liberties with the actual events.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I know of a number of psychologists whe have suggested that Napoleon, and also Lee, were suffering from, among other things, battle-fatigue... being under great stress for such a long time on an almost continuous basis, and having to perform at the top of your ability...

The effect it can have is that commanders become lethargic, and often lose that what made them so good.. they lose that touch they had, and it only returns on occasions...

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] ]He was a graduate of 1 of the military academies, can't think of the name of it right now

West Point


Quote[/b] ]I thought I read somewhere he did not support slavery, but fought to defend his state

He called slavery a "moral and political evil in any country" and was resolved to aid its abolition with "his prayers and all justifiable means in our power" tho he didn't believe that war was the way to do it

"The abolitionist must recognise that he has neither the right nor the power of operating except by moral means and suasion; and if he means well to the slave, he must not create angry feelings in the master".

After the war he also tried to promote forgiveness and understanding between North and South

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were trying to wrest from the South dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them".

So I don't know what Tachikaze has against him, unless its the fact he was a Bible believing Christian?

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Robert E. Lee was completely over-rated.

Basically, he had the enemies' play book and he did Great.

Later in the war, when he didn't, well, he was average.

~BW

[ElGascon]

IMHO; Lee's approach to the strategic assault on the North was correct. He was after inspiring the overthrough of Lincoln (who was hanging on by a thread.) One of the best ways to do that would have been to threaten Union Commerce in a way never imagined.

He was well on his way but lost site of the enemy. His armies were just outside Harrisburg, when word came that the entire Union Army was hurrying North.

He was hamstrung.

From then on, he was fighting a losing battle...and did well with what he had. He was a trained Engineer, and responsible for the Levy system that protects most of the Missippi lowlands near St. Louis. He was also a Union military man nearing the war, and was asked by the war department to lead some part of their gathering storm. But, his family held to southern ideals, and as such, so did he.

So...Honorable, and logically intelligent. He was being driven to go North, and it was a miracle that he actually pulled the AoNV out of there. But he knew all was lost. And that Gettysburg was the moment of truth.

So did Meade, afterwards...

As a General I would say he was a good strategian; paths of advance, methods of encirclement, selection of ground. As a Tactical General, I'm not sure he cut the mustard. His engineering background helped him establish solid defences, and defensible manuevers.

The old saying goes..."General's start the battles, soldiers win them."

It was Lee's decision to engage the Union at Gettysburg. Apparently on his grounds of choice, but when the Union pulled back into defensible grounds of their choosing, HE PURSUED After the first day, I'm not sure I would have continued.

It was Lee's decision NOT to change plans of attack for the second day, even though initiative was lost, and the Union was now behind Breastworks/Entrenched. Not sure I would have done the same.

It was also Lee's decision to try and STORM the center line, in a failed attempt to run a coordinated feint/flank. You never STORM the center, unless you are ASSURED of a crushing defeat.

He engaged an enemy without intelligence about their strength. 50,000 dead later, he knew his error...and he said "I thought you were invincible." Not as a criticism, but undoubtedly as a revelation of an error having been made.

GREAT QUESTION

[DojoRat]

Two things.
1. Lee's big mistake at Gettysburg was that he failed to follow the offensive/defensive strategy that had worked so well for him in the past. After the first day he should've manuevered around the Union Army and set himself up in a position threatening Baltimore or DC and forced the Union to attack his defensive position. Pickett's charge was an attempt to force the issue brought about by this strategic error.

2. Grant was a great general. His campaign against Vicksburg was brilliant (odd no one mentioned it ). It's capture, along with Gettysburg, were crushing blows that doomed the confederacy. In N. Virginia he did what he had to do against a determined and skillful opponent. Lee had the interior lines. I don't see what else he could've done besides sit around and wait for Sherman to come up from the south, but political necessity forced him to bring home the attack.

[Mega Dux Bob]

Quote[/b] (DojoRat @ Oct. 02 2003,15:56)]In N. Virginia he did what he had to do against a determined and skillful opponent. Lee had the interior lines. I don't see what else he could've done besides sit around and wait for Sherman to come up from the south, but political necessity forced him to bring home the attack.
By attacking Lee Grant pinned down the ANV so Lee couldn't reinforce Johnson for an attack against Sherman. Something that was done the previous year at Chickamonga (sp?).

One of the intresting things about Grant and set him appart from other Union commanders was Grant was more afraid of not winning than of losing.

[ShaiHulud]

Lee was undone several times, Antietam being one, Gettysburg the second. Each battle was an occasion in which Lee was forced to act spontaneously, with an inferior force in both numbers, equipment, and supply.

His victories were battles in which he decided the where he would fight and the manner. His Wilderness Campaign, while he didn't overcome Grant, was a series of battles that stymied Grant's purpose.

His defeat at Richmond was the culmination of the long attrition Grant had forced upon him. Lee was, at last, forced to stand still, vastly outnumbered and with an exhausted army.

What we can draw from this is that Lee showed exceptional ability to create winning situations despite always facing a superior force.

Part of his ability came in his understanding of the opposing generals. Civil War generals were very often former classmates from West Point. Those Lee fought were generally quite well known to him and he had a accurate picture of their strengths and weaknesses.
Sun Tzu would applaud him.

His defeats of McClellan and Pope were largely because he could count on them to be indecisive while he maneuvered. He held Burnside in contempt and, rightly, counted on him to plan poorly and be incapable of recognizing his errors.

It can be said that Lee was fortunate in his opposition, but, understanding where advantage lies is the key to victory's door.

In his defeat at Gettysburg, Lee understood the weaknesses in the Union positions immediately and called for an attack on the Union right (Culps Hill), but, the attack was feebly executed and the opportunity to dislodge Meade's forces was missed. The same opportunity existed, for a while, on the Union left (Little Round Top), but, Meade was fortunate in the activity of some junior officers and, at the last moment, his left was secured.

Lee's attempts to exploit the flanks declare that he was cognizant of his enemy's weakness, much more so than Meade was. The orders for the charge in the center is, rightly, denounced. Lee realized afterward that he'd asked for too much.

Yet, when he'd attempted what WAS possible and could have been decisive, his luck had been against him. His supply line would have been severed had he then moved his army AND he had no idea what lay beyond the Union left. That due to Stuart's criminal abscence with Lee's entire cavalry force, depriving him of intelligence on the enemy and, indeed, the cause of the meeting engagement which developed into the battle at Gettysburg. Lee may have felt he had no choice but to decide the issue quickly and, thus, ordered the failed attack in the center.

So, was Lee a great general? Decidedly Like Hannibal, he inflicted loss and defeat on superior forces by his understanding of tactics and maneuver and his enemy. Like Hannibal, Lee was, in the end, defeated by the exhaustion of his nation and his army.

[MrWhipple]

Lee, like Grant and Lincolon, suffered from severe migrane. He was is a lot of pain at Gettysburg and many other battles. There is some evidence to show that he was also bi-polar and may have been having a manic episode at Gettysburg. That would account for the grand idea of the charge up the middle. (However, in all fairness, if it would have worked, he and Pickett would have been heroes and the outcome of the war may have been quite different.) I also suffer the same afflictions and can sympathise with him. It can mess up ones ability to think clearly.

[Major Robert Dump]

The outcome of the war would have never been different because the Union fought the war with one hand. The only reason it took as long as it did is because, until Grant, Lincoln did not have a general with the will to use the massive Union army. Grant was persistent, which is all that was needed.

I respect the fact that Lee, despite being anti-slavery, refused to fight for the North when his homestate of Virginia joined the Confederates. It's highly understandable. Nonetheless, he fought for the side which I consider traitorous and advocated certain treatments of prisoners -- especially black ones -- which were wholly inexcusable.

He did indeed deserve that Union cemetary at his back door, and I hoped he enkoyed the move.....

[Nelson]

Lee was a fine commander when counter punching on the defensive. His defense of Richmond vs Little Mac in 1862 was excellent. The repulse of Pope and Hooker were also nicely handled. Anyone could have defended Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg the way Burnside attacked. So Marse Robert looked good defending in northern Virginia. Lee’s two offensives northward were big mistakes that discredit his strategic acumen. Either could easily have (and in fact SHOULD have) resulted in the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. Had Grant or Sherman been in the east at the time Lee’s army would never have survived to cross the Potomac back to the Confederacy.

Grant was nothing short of brilliant in the west from the beginning. After reducing Forts Henry and Donaldson he saved the day at Shiloh when many other men would have packed up and retreated. Crossing the Mississippi to attack Vicksburg took incredible balls and foresight. In doing so he set aside any advantage of supply or numbers the Union is always said to have enjoyed during the war and which are used all to often to denigrate the accomplishment of Federal commanders. He even had the brains to cooperate well with the navy. The Chattanooga campaign was artfully executed as well. Grant understood the strategic situation, acted with the big picture in mind at all times and was able to orchestrate large theater operations to a successful conclusion deep in enemy territory amid terrible terrain. I believe that Grant’s ability to communicate clearly was instrumental in his success. Lee was more vague when issuing instructions and so was more likely to get results he did not desire.

Lee and Grant were both coolheaded field commanders on the day of battle. USG’s tactical ability is said to be marred by the Union charge at Cold Harbor but Grant didn’t risk his army to launch that attack so it is not really analogous to Picket’s Charge, a spectacular blunder if there ever was one. Both were mistakes as both men admitted but the latter might have been fatal. Each man expected subordinates do their jobs and did not micromanage. Seeing as Grant and Lee did fairly well in this regard we must assume that they were good judges of talent for the most part given the protocols of the army and the political world in which they labored.

Robert E. Lee inspired his men to go beyond the call of duty in a war that was the North’s to lose but never the South’s to win. This was his finest achievement and why he deserves to be remembered as great. However Uncle Robert was not a better general than US Grant, who IMO fought a smarter war.