|
Post by Beth on Jan 17, 2017 16:56:23 GMT
The alternate LBH battle plans has been moved here
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Jan 26, 2017 17:53:14 GMT
Forum members,
I have read the posts on the Civil War and believe that there are some very knowledgeable people about this engagement. I believe that Robert E. Lee was a gentleman,a fine soldier, and a fine General. But, was he the right man to lead the Confederate Army. I base my thought on my opinion that from what I have read about him, it would appear that his concern was more about his love of Virginia than the Southern cause. I never mind being corrected, so I would like to know your honest answers to my question. Thank you.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 18:25:14 GMT
You are correct. Lee felt that his primary obligation was to his State, but that was not an uncommon sentiment in that day. The idea of united nationhood had not solidified, and that was especially true in the south, where the most common feeling was I am a Virginian, Floridian, whatever first, and secondly an American. The same existed in the north but to a lesser extent.
I don't know how one could measure the difference between love of State and love of cause. As far as I am concerned that cannot be determined at this date. You would have to go back and ask them for a truly honest answer.
I think Lee's record as a commanding general speaks for itself. If not Lee WHO. Joe Johnson is the only one who even came close to Lee's ability. Many Confederate general officers were probably superior to Lee as battlefield leaders. Jackson and Longstreet were two of the best in that regard, but it is a large gap between being a corps level subordinate Lieutenant General, and a theater commanding General.
Eisenhower, would have rings run around him on any battlefield performance when compared to Patton, Truscott, and even some of the corps level commanders like Ridgeway and Collins, but as a theater commander (the same role as Lee) he had no peer.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 26, 2017 18:41:45 GMT
Dan my boy you have opened the proverbial Pandora's Box!
The founders of The Southern Historical Society, the first and most ardent proponents of the "Lost Cause", along with most of the veterans of the Army of Northern Virginia are rising from their graves giving the piercing Rebel Yell. The various chapters of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Camps are getting out their pens and papers (or lap tops) to write verses of praise for Lee and assail all who would of questioned his leadership and abilities. You see Lee, the "Marble Man", was the infallible hero who had to be defended at any cost.
Longstreet was probably the most popular scapegoat for Lee's failure at Gettysburg but fortunately he lived a long time and fought back. Early and others who were better writers set up the narrative that is still believed, Longstreet was the cause of the South's loss at Gettysburg. General Longstreet seemed to be reluctant to follow Lee's orders and did not obey them with much fervor delegating much of the work arranging his men prior to Pickett's charge.
Lee was a complicated man and a true warrior who excelled at leading men. For a multitude of reasons, lack of provisions, allowing crops to be gathered, relieving the pressure of an occupying force etc, Lee and Jefferson Davis decided to move into Pennsylvania. The plans, strategies, placement of troops all are under Lee. He was combative and determined to attack the Union army where it lay instead of maneuvering around Meade's left flank as advocated by Longstreet. Whether that would have been the best move I am unsure but Lee was rigid in his planning and thinking and would not let go. He was like a pit bull once he was on the attack. The often quoted but never sourced comment about Lee having his "blood up" and spoiling for a fight sure sums up Lee's actions and behavior. When he greeted Pickett's soldiers as they retreated back behind Confederate lines with "It is all my fault men" he grasped that he had failed and realized he expected too much of his soldiers. Can not imagine how he must have felt.
Great topic and interested to see how others view Lee. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 19:15:28 GMT
I think, but am not sure that "blood up" comes from Longstreet's narrative of the war.
What would have been really interesting to see, is how Grant would have done against the pre-Chancellorsville Army of Northern Virginia, operationally and tactically. By the time Grant came east, the ANV had used up there best, and fielded a team led by second stringers, scrubs, and bench warmers. There were a few exceptions but not many. The test then of Lee as a commander came when the second string was all he had to work with, and I think he did fairly well, not great, but as well as could be expected in the circumstance
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 26, 2017 23:24:27 GMT
Grant had resources that he couldn't count while Lee was scraping the bottom of the barrel just to field an army. Emaciated men can not compete effectively against well fed opponents. When grant came East in 1864 the Army of Northern Virginia was a cornered foe that was extremely dangerous.
In this War the violence was inspired by sectarianism that demanded individual valor especially by leaders and consequently the best of Regimental and Brigade commanders were lost in battle. Lee's army had lost it best and most effective leaders from Antietam through the Mine Run battle. When the Overland Campaign began in May of 1864, the Army of Northern Virginia devoid of its best leaders though a hardy cast of soldiers were still fighting in the ranks.
Shelby Foote expressed the reality of matters best when he stated:
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War. "
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2017 23:54:19 GMT
I think you missed half my point Dave. What I would find interesting is Grant taking the field with the bench warmers and scrub leadership, with a few exceptions of the Army of the Potomac of 1862-Early 63, against Lee's ANV with all of those really good first teamers commanding those brigades and divisions of his. That would be a contest, and from an operational point of view it would even the playing field considerably.
Foote was correct, and insanity ruled in the South for even thinking for an instant they would prevail. Not against Lincoln they couldn't. You combine those industrial advantages with a man who would not quit, and you could fight him until doomsday and still lose. The only way the south could win is with the north having a leader with no spine.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 27, 2017 1:47:56 GMT
Fortunately for America George McClellan was defeated in a resounding fashion by Lincoln in 1864. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 27, 2017 3:16:57 GMT
Depends. What I will say is that a man like Forrest showed that he was more prone to adaptation than not. Please keep in mind that Forrest was good, but he never crossed swords with the First Team, only the second stringers, scrubs, and water boys, and the same is also true of a man I admire more Joe Wheeler. Sir: General Forrest did enough to enrage General Sherman to the point where General Sherman said: "We must catch that devil Forrest if it costs 10,000 lives and bankrupts the Treasury." He must have done something right......... Respectfully Submitted, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 27, 2017 3:34:40 GMT
Don't think I ever said that he wasn't good. What I said was that he never crossed swords with the first team.
Forrest employed combined arms, which is an adaptation that ultimately led to the armored division.
Forrest earned his place in the books.
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 27, 2017 3:37:12 GMT
Beth Fitzhugh Lee is buried in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, VA one of the most famous resting place for many historic figures. If you have never been to Hollwood, you must make the trek to visit it and Museum of the Confederacy to complete your education about the most tumultuous era of out history as a nation. Regards Dave www.hollywoodcemetery.org/ I've spent many an hour at The Arlington of the Confederacy. (AKA Hollywood Cemetery) The historical figures at rest there are as incredible in their number as they are in their fame. J.E.B. Stuart, George Pickett, Harry Heth, Fitzhugh Lee, and Presidents Monroe, Tyler and Davis. General John Pegram(CSA) is also there. His story is heartbreaking. He was in love with a Richmond Belle by the name of Hetty Cary, and they became engaged in early 1862. But he put off the wedding until after the War because he didn't want to leave his fiancé a widow. Seeing the writing on the wall, General Pegram married Miss Cary on 19 January 1865. Three weeks later, General Pegram was killed at the battle of Hatcher's Run. His funeral was held in St. Paul's Church in Richmond, were he was married 3 weeks earlier. I find that incredibly sad. Also interred in Hollywood Cemetery is Dr. Hunter Holmes McGuire, General Jackson's Physician. And allegedly; lying in a mass grave of Confederate Soldiers KIA at Gettysburg and later repatriated to Hollywood Cemetery , are the supposed remains of General Richard B. Garnett(CSA) I like to think he's there, with his men. Sorry 'bout the rant, but I spent hours touring Hollywood Cemetery with my Grandfather (currently standing Eternal Watch at Arlington National Cemetery) before he passed. I know it sounds strange, but Hollywood Cemetery is a very special place for me. Respectfully, Duane
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Jan 27, 2017 3:44:38 GMT
Don't think I ever said that he wasn't good. What I said was that he never crossed swords with the first team. Forrest employed combined arms, which is an adaptation that ultimately led to the armored division. Forrest earned his place in the books. Forrest vs. Custer would have been interesting; say at Gettysburg on that Third Day. Respectfully Submitted, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 27, 2017 3:57:56 GMT
I don't think it would be all that interesting, and I can guarantee you that Georgie would not find it a bit interesting either.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 27, 2017 4:46:48 GMT
Duane I understand your fascination with Hollywood Cemetery as I have always felt drawn to cemeteries both military and civilian. It is an eerie feeling standing over the mortal remains of notable figures of history. Visiting the tomb of Woodrow Wilson in Washington DC was as dramatic as gazing upon Robert E Lee's at Lexington.
Still the most moving of sites for me is the National Cemetery at Shiloh standing among the thousands of unknown soldiers. It sits on a bluff overlooking the Tennessee River and is a beautiful vista. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 27, 2017 18:59:52 GMT
Cemeteries are always interesting-they contain some of the best public art-and worse. It's great place to experience nature, especially birds.
One of the things I find most interest are the stone especially the older ones in cemeteries that don't have draconian rules about size, shape and type. You get an idea in an instant about how people viewed their place in the community as well as how the community viewed them. There is an actual language to gravestones with the various symbols holding meanings that have been become lost to most people over time.
|
|