Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Truth About Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee: He Wasn’t Very Good at His Job

posted by cmn32480 on Monday June 12 2017, @12:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the south-shall-rise-again dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

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...

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:52AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:52AM (#524263)

    Not only is charging a dug-in opponent stupid, by 1914 the generals STILL hadn't figured out that it was stupid and now there were MACHINE GUNS.

    As long as commanders were actually -leading- their forces, the stupidity had a natural limiting factor.
    (The stupid commanders were killed in battle.)

    The leading-from-the-rear thing got militarism a century of unparalleled stupidity, stretching from rifled barrels up until battle tanks.

    .
    Jeb Stuart's cavalry[1] and Quantrill's Raiders[1], with hit-and-git tactics were effective on a limited scale.
    The let's-slog-this-out-with-massed-forces Confederates weren't at all.

    [1] ...and the ethics of those bunches were on par with weasels.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 12 2017, @11:56AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 12 2017, @11:56AM (#524296) Journal

    Not only is charging a dug-in opponent stupid

    Hence, why the cavalry attack from behind was so important. No point to second-guessing military decisions unless you take into account what they were actually doing and trying. There's a huge difference between charging a dug-in opponent and charging a formerly dug-in opponent that is running for their lives because they just got attacked from behind.

    Jeb Stuart's cavalry[1] and Quantrill's Raiders[1], with hit-and-git tactics were effective on a limited scale.

    The battle of Gettysburg would have been at that scale. And it wasn't a hit-and-git. From the Wikipedia article, Stuart's group toughed it out until they were surrounded on three sides. The "git" part would normally have happened long before that point.

    [1] ...and the ethics of those bunches were on par with weasels.

    Because we care about the ethics of our cavalry officers. Can't have unethical pillaging and burning.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:59PM (#524594)

      That last sentence just explains so much about you.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:16AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:16AM (#524729) Journal

        That last sentence just explains so much about you.

        You have a name?