It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Rober E. Lee actually a great strategist???

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lee was crushing the north the majority of the war until the south could keep up with the north economic muscle and the scorched earth tactics they did on the south crippling their already weaker economy.

Lee's mistake was incompetent generals and not winning the war faster. Attrition was the Souths biggest enemy




posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

And then you guys went and named everything in your state after Robert Byrd?! For hating slavery and racism so much ...



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Winfield Scott.

Have you even really looked into the subject and tactics? Or are you just talking because you so want everything about it to be a loser that you are just making excuses.

The South was beating the North right and left because the northern generals weren't very good and the northern soldiers weren't very good. It took changing up to Grant and for there to develop a core of hardened northern veterans to start turning that tide. A lot of southern kids grew up shooting and riding.

But the South had the logistical weakness. They were mainly agricultural and didn't have the ability to withstand the wear and tear of a long war. The fatal presumption the South made was that Europe would enter the war on their side because of the access to cotton the South could provide. Then they assumed Europe would supply them.

The North had more men and better manufacturing and railroad networks. Once the war moved past its early years, it was only a matter of time especially once it become clear that Europe had no interest in backing the South.

Generalship can only take you so far without an army and material to fight with.
edit on 18-8-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That's not true the North had some great generals. If they didnt they would have lost gettysburg. Keep in mind the north was severely outnumbered. This is why they set up defensive positions and allowed the battle to come to them. John buford saved the north that day.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain saved the entire battle, when he gave the order to charge down Little Round Top and prevented the Northern Army from being flanked.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Pickett's charge was a disaster...and it put the final nail in the coffin for the South at Gettysburg.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Can you name a military achievement he had??? Some brillian maneuver that saved the day or snatched victory from the jaws of defeat??

I can't...

I can rattle off a dozen of Forrests..

A couple for stonewall.. though I find him overrated a hair too...



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

And 100% all Lees fault..



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The north was only out numbered part of the first day of memory serves. By the time they were charging the defensive positions the south was outnumbered in pretty sure.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Stonewall Jackson was killed the month before Gettysburg at Chancellorsville.

General Early replaced him, he was not near the aggressive, bold commander that Jackson was.

After the first day of fighting, he allowed the Yanks to retreat to high ground and fortify their position.

Many historians argue that if Jackson was around for Gettysburg, the Union would have been defeated on the first day, because Jackson would have had the foresight to not let the Yankees get the high ground outside of town and fortify their position. Gettysburg would have been a skirmish instead of a major pivotal battle.

Regardless, I think the fact that Lincoln could not find a commander to defeat Lee (until Grant came along later in the war, and Grant had no real military tactics, except to throw as many men at Lee as he could) answers your question.
edit on 18-8-2017 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The real difference about Gettysburg...was that THIS was the first time the North was actually fighting a battle on it's own home turf and defending it's territory.

Prior, the battles the North lost were in Southern territory.
This galvanized the North and forced it to take the battle more seriously than in the past.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Against a really crappy general in mcCellan who thought the had 300k soldiers...once grant took over though that shifted.

How does Lee fair if he had to go up against Forrest.. or Sherman???

Lee spent most of his time winning against someone with a greater force that was too scared to fight him..



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I think the "charging your troops up hill into a fortified position " AGAINST the advice of his advisors, was the main factor in Gettysburg..



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Maybe..

I've often heard that blamed on Lee as well for not giving a clear order to take the hill..

His order said something like.

"Take that hill as soon as it seems applicable..or as soon as you think best.. "

Which he decided that it was best to rest his exhausted troops first..

So even that gets laid at lees feet.


edit on 18-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Again, Lee should've heeded Longstreet.
Meade was also brilliant in being able to predict that Lee would attack the line's center...and fortified successfully.
edit on 18-8-2017 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

That was a reply to someone saying lee was an abolitionist.. or anti slavery.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


Still poops all over the narrative he was anti slavery..

Father or father in law doesn't change the variables concerning his political out look



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

I didn't call him stupid.. I don't doubt he was a FINE soldier and commander..

But I have yet to see a realistic case for him being a strategic genius..



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm confused are you saying Lee was incompetent and a really bad general?

I'll agree he's not a military genius

Sounds like you have an axe to grind



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I have always heard the path to Washington was clear..
That said I agree he never holds it, but the psychological effect and bargaining chip of holding the enemy capital does one of 2 things..

A) Creates th political capital for a truce..aka the south wins..

B) REALLY pisses the north off and they untie the hand behind their backs and crush them..


Pickett's charge had no chance for success and any good commander should have known that..




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join