SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the June 1969 issue of Civil War History — Volume 5, Number 2, pages 116-132 — a renowned Southern historian attacked the legacy of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
"No single war figure stands in greater need of reevaluation than Lee," wrote Thomas L. Connelly, the late University of South Carolina professor. "One ponders whether the South may not have fared better had it possessed no Robert E. Lee."
Connelly's essay was among the first academic musket shots fired on Lee's standing as an outmatched but not outwitted military genius presiding over a Lost Cause — a reputation celebrated in fawning biographies and monuments like the one removed Friday in New Orleans.
Was General Lee overrated? Get your armchair historian on...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Truth About Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee: He Wasn’t Very Good at His Job
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 110 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Life is not for everyone.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @06:25AM (3 children)
Let me add a little to your perspective.
The Grand Old Army, that is the Union Army, was infested with incompetent officers who were appointed for political reasons, and due to family connections, when the war began. Incompetent fools were dismissed and replaced repeatedly for the first couple years of the war. One after another, generals took command of various parts of the army, only to disgrace themselves. This kept happening, until Grant came along. Even then, Grant wasn't a very spectacular general. Grant and Sherman were the winning combination. I must point out that by himself, Sherman wasn't all that very spectacular. It was the combination of the two generals that won the Civil War for the Union.
If, and when, one truly understands how truly incompetent all of the preceding Union generals were, then a case might actually be made that Lee was less competent than we have always believed. If Lee were as good as his most zealous supporters claim, he should have kicked the Union's ass soundly within the first two years.
But, like yourself, I have little but contempt for this attempt to belittle him. Lee was a damned good military leader.
Bottom line, for me, is that Lee was a great man, and a great officer. He was great enough that his enemy officers showed him great respect when he was finally defeated.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
Well, you got 2 of the words right.
G.A.R. == Grand Army of the Republic
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @11:33AM
http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/ruby/040218.html [genealogytoday.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic [wikipedia.org]
"The "Grand Army of the Republic" (GAR) was a fraternal organization composed of veterans of the Union Army"
Please don't confuse a fraternity with the old Regular Army.
This article, written in 1865, refers to the Grand Old Army - or more specifically, to the Grand Old Army of the Potomac. http://www.nytimes.com/1865/04/08/news/the-grand-old-army-of-the-potomac.html [nytimes.com]
Another reference to Grand Old Army here - http://uptownhistory.compassrose.org/2007/12/grand-old-army-of-republic-graceland.html [compassrose.org]
There doesn't seem to be a lot on the Grand Old Army on the internet, and I'm not about to start chasing down references in dead tree books for you. You may take my word, or not, that career officers in the Regular Army referred to their army as such. The NYT article cited above should convince you that the civilian population knew and understood the term.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:46PM
This right here. He held his own very well and gave more than he got against an in all ways superior force that was being woefully mismanaged. The problem the Lincoln administration had was the Army he inherited was a political thing not a fighting force. That took time to fix. Ironically, Lee was one of the ones who shaped his very own adversaries. So the 'less competent' is not without merit. Also at the time being a general usually meant you had money and power and land and a good amount of political connections. It was a cush job meant to bring prestige. Lee took it a bit more serious than that. It is somewhat different now. A lesson we learned the hard way in the civil war.
History is written by the victors. For example England considers Washington to be one of their great enemies. They hold him in high regard even though they were defeated by him and his cadre.