Is Robert E. Lee overrated as a general?
>both invasions of the North failed
>The Confederacy really didn't need to invade to begin with when it would've been much more advantageous to fight an unorthodox defensive war and break down the North's will to fight, the invasions may have had great outcomes had they been successes but the gambles were ultimately too great and too extreme
>aggressive battle strategies often led to high casualty rates which the resource-strapped South couldn't afford
>while those strategies scored some impressive victories his greatest successes came against cautious, ineffective generals who frequently made asinine mistakes that were easy to abuse
>never could meaningfully capitalize on big victories (both failed invasions of the North came after victorious campaigns) and his other victories came more so due to the mistakes of Union command and having a strong defensive position than any strategy (most notably Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, and The Crater)
I'm not saying he was a horrible commander, no way. He was the Confederacy's best commander and was a primary catalyst for the South holding out alone as long as it did against the overwhelming numerical and logistical and economic superiority of the North and he scored many impressive victories against the odds and defeated an army of the United States on the field of battle more times than any other general in history. It just seems like people here (I live in the South) venerate him as a near-flawless god of the field who lost only because of his resource disadvantage when it seems to me his strategic shortcomings and costly over-aggression only really worked against incompetent generals. Had McClellan pressed Lee with his huge force so close to Richmond in 1862 like Grant in 1864-65 I think Richmond would've fallen and Lee would be forgotten for the most part.
He's overrated as both a general and a man. Jackson and Forrest were both superior commanders on the confederate side and grant was a superior commander overall
Damn good looking fellow though
>>1396976
I mean, he was the best general of the Civil war.
This is because the Northern generals were criminally incompetent the entire way through. Nobody outside of the U.S. Navy even remotely did their jobs in the war to any extent that they can be called competent.
>>1397009
Just a quick little specification, whenever I say best commander I mean in terms of commanders of whole army. I agree that there are scores of Rebel generals who I think would've made great leaders of whole armies or large corps commanders had they had the chance, Patrick Cleburne comes to my mind personally.
But yeah I think that Lee being the stoic, gentlemanly Virginian made him very easy to romanticize and idolize, which Lost Causers to this day never fail to do so. He was by all accounts a respectable man but one whose reality is not so glorified or bloated as his celebrity status paints him.
Speaking of Grant, people call Grant a butcher who used sheer numbers to win but while he did have some bloody offensive failures, that's just not true. His campaigns in the West, especially in Mississippi capturing Vicksburg prove otherwise. A man who entrenched and besieged his foe into submission on two huge occasions is not a mindless butcher. That being said he did what McClellan wouldn't do, and that was use his resources to his advantage to press Lee. He'd get in a bloody brawl and sometimes get straight beat but still keep on the offensive, since he knew that he could replace his losses but Lee couldn't.
>>1397013
Ehhhh, I think Grant, Sheridan, George Henry Thomas, Chamberlain and a good number of others in the Union ranks exceeded "competent", it was just a matter of getting the right generals in command and at the forefront after cycling through dunce after dunce in the East. On the flip side there were plenty of great and successful Northern leaders who fought atrocious Southern generals in the West, which is why the North was largely able to steamroll their way through everywhere outside of Virginia.
>>1396976
>It just seems like people here (I live in the South) venerate him as a near-flawless god of the field who lost only because of his resource disadvantage
well there's your problem OP. If you hold him to the standard that a lot of muh heritage fags hold him to, then he's definitely overrated. He's overrated in the same way that Lincoln or Sherman are overrated in the North, people deify them without proper inquiry. That said, I think he's actually underrated in modern academia as most have let their anti-csa bias seep into their work, McPherson is especially guilty of this. I have no doubt that Grant would not have been able to replicate what Lee did if he was put in his position.
Yes, the only reason the Confederacy was actually winning until 1863 was because Union generals sucked incredibly until that point. His strongest point was his ability to boost morale, but the reason the South had the highest morale was because they were fighting a defensive war for their homeland. By going on the offensive he hindered the thing he was best at, and also he let Pickett (only a major general) lead the charge. Pickett was also pissed off at Lee afterwards because of his firsthand experience with the real Lee instead of the one pictured by the distorted popular view, and never forgave him.
>>1396976
Lee certainly made questionable judgement calls, especially with the Maryland and Gettysburg campaigns, but there was a method to his madness. Lee understood that a decisive victory on Northern soil would force Lincoln to recall his armies from the West to deal with him, this would have allowed the Confederacy to regain the initiative and possibly liberate the parts of the Deep South that had fallen early in the war (i.e. New Orleans, Corinth etc.) and retain control of the Mississippi. Of course, Lee also had to win said victory quickly lest the other Union Armies make a march on Richmond, hence he didn't just cut his losses at Gettysburg on Day 1/2.
Lee was hampered by both the fact that his army was consistently undersupplied/undermanned as well his physical aliments (chronic diarrhea severely affected his decision making at Gettysburg and prevented him from following up his initial success at North Anna).
The Army of Northern Virginia was fighting an uphill battle from Day 1, often barely one ahead of it's foes. If Lee had access to half the vast resources and men Grant had or if the Confederacy had found a way to cut off the Northern Armies from their supplies and reinforcements (i.e. let's say Forrest is somehow able to take his entire corps into the North and goes full Sherman, destroying so many railroads and factories that it permanently handicaps the Union Army's ability to supply it's men), his strategies could've worked.
There was also of course, the fact that the Civil War was the swan song of Napoleonic Warfare. Lee was the master of Napoleonic Warfare, but even he was ill-prepared for the horrors of trench warfare.
>>1396976
Also, no matter brilliant of a general Lee was, none of that matter if the Confederacy could not hold the West. And the Jefferson Davis simply could not find a man that could match Lee in the West.
>>1397048
Grant had severe limitations as a general and was slow to learn from his mistakes, but if he had in command in the aftermath of Antietam or Gettysburg, Lee's Army would've never escaped. Grant would've chased them into the Potomac and probably destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia. Problem was that by the time Grant was sent East, the Confederacy had already begun to realize the obsoleteness of Line Battle and started digging instead, meaning that Grant's aggressive conduct and massed assaults that would've been the deathblow at Gettysburg were easily blunted.
>>1397063
>No mention of Israel "Fightin' Dick" Richardson, Francis Barlow, or Winfield Scott Hancock
Those three put the Union on the verge of total victory at Sharpsburg (after overcoming a well entrenched position mind you) and it would've been if Richardson and Barlow hadn't fallen victim to a Confederate artillery battery.
Lee was phenomenal at grand strategy but mediocre at battle tactics, particularly when he did not have or chose not to listen to more tactically capable lieutenants.
In actual battle Lee was too old school in his thinking (at least until 1864) to win in either of the strategically important invasions of the North. Lee put far to much importance on offensives/counter-offensives and was not the kind of general to dig in and defend unless forced. Most of Lee's greatest victories came from battles in which he was forced on the defensive and his offensive battles were dismal failures.
If Lee had been a Union general, I think he would have run into many of the same problems that actual Union generals were prone to. He would have ordered the same costly assaults that they did and he would have probably failed in many cases. While he at least understood the value of speed and coordination on the battlefield, it would take until Gettysburg for Lee to drop the idea of full frontal assaults.
And at battles like Chancellorsville the ANV won more by the total incompetence of their enemy than because of the effectiveness of their flank attack.
So yes, Lee is quite overrated I think. He was still one of the better Generals in the war (like I said, absolutely brilliant on a strategic and command level), but he is not perfect.
>>1397340
>Barlow
Most severely underrated and forgotten General in the war imho.
Lee was very very good with a few major errors. Sort of like Napoleon.
Though hampered by lack of materials and by political necessities, his strategy was daring always, and he never hesitated to take the gravest risks. On the field of battle he was as energetic in attack as he was constant in defense, and his personal influence over the men whom he led was extraordinary.
>>1396976
>He was the Confederacy's best commander
He was not, he even said the south was domed after the death Jackson, and even said he would give his life for Jackson if he could so the south would have a fighting chance. Also Johnson was probably their best general.
The south killed most their best generals with friendly fire.
>>1397451
>Most severely underrated and forgotten General in the war imho.
The war had a particularly high personal cost for him as well. His beloved wife, whom he wed the day before he joined the Union Army wound up getting Anne Frank'd (Typhus) while he was sitting in the trenches around Petersburg. The despair ruined his health and he did not hold another command until the Army of Northern Virginia's last stand at Saylor's Creek.
>>1396976
Robert E Lee's heart was never really into the war.
Imagine fighting for southern aristocrats, yokels and a delusional leader when all your friends are on the other side of the war.
>>1397009
>Damn good looking fellow though
Would you cuddle with him?
>>1397707
Albert Sidney Johnston was THE star of the Confederate Army until his death at Shiloh. Lee was a minor figure and not a particularly successful commander until Mcclellan threatened Richmond in the Summer of 1862.
Strange thing. Even though Johnston had his faith in the Union shaken by the appalling violence the U.S. used against the Mormons in the late 1850s, he was opposed to secession and despite his decision to leave the Army, had little interest in serving the Confederacy. He was pretty much forced into it after the local state officials accused him of being a Confederate sympathizer and ordered his arrest (which he evaded by hours).
If they had left him alone, he could have just easily decided to remain in Los Angeles with his family and would otherwise been a footnote in some US Army record book.
>>1396976
>>The Confederacy really didn't need to invade to begin with when it would've been much more advantageous to fight an unorthodox defensive war and break down the North's will to fight, the invasions may have had great outcomes had they been successes but the gambles were ultimately too great and too extreme
gotta love armchair generals who know nothing
