How Did Lee Rate as a Commander?

[marc]

From the politics board....

As far as his recklessness goes, that's likely a subject for the History board, as secession has been in the past.  On the one hand, Longstreet was ostracized after the war for suggesting that Lee had made these very mistakes at Gettysburg.  otoh, it has always seemed to me that Lee acted against his best judgment because he understood that he commanded inferior forces and needed lightning to strike in order to win (either that or--more likely--he needed wear down Northern support.) Up until Gettysburg, fate seemed to be on his side.  What changed at Gettysburg was that the Union had finally found a competent commander (Meade) who knew which of his generals to listen to (Hancock, whom he allowed to establish position at the end of day one even though he wasn't the most senior general on the field, and who acted in ways throughout the battle that brought victory.)  Because he was no longer facing the cowardly McClellan, the Incompetent Burnside, or the (literally) addled Hooker, Lee's mistakes regarding Pickett's Charge, his losing contact with JEB Stuart, and the absence of Stonewall Jackson were amplified.

Then came the rest of the war with Grant moving east....

[Arkstfan]

I was thinking of Lee earlier this month while in Alexandria, Va visiting Christ Church. Lee I think was overly influenced by his hero Washington. He fought much the same bob and weave campaign of Washington, picking battles where he had advantages. Gettysburg really sort of found him though he was seeking to make a decisive action (and forage off home turf).

Unlike Washington, time was not his friend. Washington was fighting a distracted foe with long unreliable supply lines required to sustain the equipment and manpower advantages. Lee on the other hand wasn't likely to outlast the Union and once they had a commander looking to engage on any field and fight a war of attrition his fate was sealed.

The Pennsylvania campaign was likely a mistake, regardless of what happened in Gettysburg because the war came home for the Union and revived flagging support. Once the quick strike opportunities were missed early the Confederacy was doomed.

[jainfl]

I was thinking of Lee earlier this month while in Alexandria, Va visiting Christ Church. Lee I think was overly influenced by his hero Washington. He fought much the same bob and weave campaign of Washington, picking battles where he had advantages.

How did Lee pick and choose his battlefields except when he was on the offensive?  The first two times that Lee went out of his way to choose when and where to have a battle he lost- Antietam and Gettysburg.  Most of the time Lee was simply reacting to U.S. action against him and what southern apologists take for Lee's brilliance was merely Lee's desperation.

If Lee had been any kind of strategist at all he would have abandoned the defense of Richmond and then made an effort to make the American army chase him south.  Early in the Rebellion U.S. forces would not have been likely to live off the land the way Sherman did going through Georgia.  According to Bruce Catton even Sherman complained about the destruction of civilian property by U.S. forces in the South early in the War.  A Union army chasing Lee in 1862 may have been unwilling to live off the land, thus the Union would have faced long supply and communication lines.  Lee could have fought a war of attrition in the Carolinas and Georgia, but not on the Union's doorstep in Virginia.

[jainfl]

Part of Lee's problem was the same problem with the early commanders of the Army of the Potomac: all were "classically" trained in Napoleonic tactics.  Battles were fought to capture enemy capitals, etc.

Grant learned that, if one destroys the enemy's army, taking the enemy's capital - and the rest of its territory - takes care of itself.  Lee vs. Grant and, by extension, the Confederacy vs. Grant and Sherman pitted the last of the Napoleonic generals vs. the first modern generals.  Every successful general since 1865 emulates Grant, not Lee.

One would think that America's experience fighting the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War would have taught military commanders here that classical, European tactics don't work here.

[k-pappy]

I was thinking of Lee earlier this month while in Alexandria, Va visiting Christ Church. Lee I think was overly influenced by his hero Washington. He fought much the same bob and weave campaign of Washington, picking battles where he had advantages.

How did Lee pick and choose his battlefields except when he was on the offensive?  The first two times that Lee went out of his way to choose when and where to have a battle he lost- Antietam and Gettysburg.  Most of the time Lee was simply reacting to U.S. action against him and what southern apologists take for Lee's brilliance was merely Lee's desperation.

If Lee had been any kind of strategist at all he would have abandoned the defense of Richmond and then made an effort to make the American army chase him south.  Early in the Rebellion U.S. forces would not have been likely to live off the land the way Sherman did going through Georgia.  According to Bruce Catton even Sherman complained about the destruction of civilian property by U.S. forces in the South early in the War.  A Union army chasing Lee in 1862 may have been unwilling to live off the land, thus the Union would have faced long supply and communication lines.  Lee could have fought a war of attrition in the Carolinas and Georgia, but not on the Union's doorstep in Virginia.

This may seem like semantics, but Lee did not start out as a "Confederate" General.  He started out as a "North Virginia" Gengeral.  He was actually againts secession, but he was loyal to his home state.  He thought seceding was a "revolution" and a betrayal of the efforts of the Founders.  Lee did not care for the CSA so much as he did VA, and he fought to defend VA, his home.  40% of the war was fought in and around VA, so Lee is commonly associated with the confederate general and his surrender the end of the Civil War, but he was actually the first to surrender his army, "The Army of Northern Viriginia."

In Christ,
KP

[jgilbert]

IMO, R. E. Lee was a bit overrated.  The reason I say that is that Lee was an AWESOME defensive commander (ie: the slaughter at Fredericksburg) and had his moments as an offensive commander (ie: Chancellorsville, though mostly Jackson's doing), but overall was too inconsistant to warrent the great status his generalship has accumulated.  I live in the area of his first campaign of the war in West Virginia, and his performance there was atrocious.  Cheat Mountain was a fiasco, but in all fairness weather, poor communication, and sick troops made things much more difficult.  Early on in the Virginia campaigns and even the Maryland campaign, Lee had great morale amongst the troops as well as superior subaltern commanders: Jackson, Longstreet, A.P. Hill, Jubal Early, Edward Johnson, Dick Ewell, etc.  This led him to great victories and much praise.  Once Jackson was wounded at Chancellorsville, however, Lee's army was never the same.  Alot of Lee's reputation came, and rightfully so, from his concern and good treatment of his troops and his "nobility."  Robert E. Lee was a great man, and people respected him, revered him, and held him in high regard.  Even the disaster of Pickett's Charge couldn't fully sway opinion against him.  "Granny" Lee from the WV campaign became the Gray Fox of ANV fame.  Anyway, I'm done rambling.  My main point is that while Gen. Lee was a very good general, very capable and all, he just didn't have that "spark" that most seem to attribute to him.

[marc]

Good post.  Thanks.

[zoonance]

He makes a pretty good Global Moderator.

[dale1257]

From the politics board....

As far as his recklessness goes, that's likely a subject for the History board, as secession has been in the past.  On the one hand, Longstreet was ostracized after the war for suggesting that Lee had made these very mistakes at Gettysburg.  otoh, it has always seemed to me that Lee acted against his best judgment because he understood that he commanded inferior forces and needed lightning to strike in order to win (either that or--more likely--he needed wear down Northern support.) Up until Gettysburg, fate seemed to be on his side.  What changed at Gettysburg was that the Union had finally found a competent commander (Meade) who knew which of his generals to listen to (Hancock, whom he allowed to establish position at the end of day one even though he wasn't the most senior general on the field, and who acted in ways throughout the battle that brought victory.)  Because he was no longer facing the cowardly McClellan, the Incompetent Burnside, or the (literally) addled Hooker, Lee's mistakes regarding Pickett's Charge, his losing contact with JEB Stuart, and the absence of Stonewall Jackson were amplified.

Then came the rest of the war with Grant moving east....

On this, I can only give an opinion.  I am not a historian, but I have read alot on the subject.  When you consider some of the traits of great commanders of history, in addition to ability to manover and lead his troops, the great commanders also 1) Have a good idea of what their adversaries will do, ie, getting inside their heads.  Lee was a master at this.  By war's end, few Union Commanders did not have a great deal of respect for Lee, if not fear him outright.  2) Have the complete adoration and loyalty of his troops.  Lee, despite virtually having no army left, still had this from his troops.  Based on this, as well as the fact that, despite being out manned and out gunned by like a bizillion to one, despite having what amounts to no supply or logistical support, he still managed to fight the Union Army to a standstill.  And, his pre Gettysburg record speaks for itself.  The truth is Robert E. Lee was, and frankly still ranks as one of, if not the best Military commander in our history.

Were mistakes made?  Absolutely.  And, looking back, even as armchair generals, its easy for us to criticize, and pick apart.  He should have listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg.  He should never have allowed himself to get pinned down at Petersburg.  You have heard them all, I'm sure.  Heck, in my own opinion, I think generally speaking, he was more offensive minded than he needed to be.  I view the Civil War as one the South did not have to win.  Just not loose.  As long as he could keep an army in the field, the South would emerge as winners. (my own opinion by the way)  No man is perfect.  But as far as his ability as a Commander?  Few have, or will ever equal it.