Washington Post Article on ACW (1 Viewer)

[wadepat]

Gentle Friends,

As you can see, I have found it necessary to delete some of the recent discussion on this thread. The American Civil War was concluded on the battlefield 150 years ago. While it is a fascinating subject to study, it serves no useful purpose to re-enact it on this forum. It is time to lay down your verbal swords and silence your emotional guns or this thread will surely be closed.

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[UKReb]

I have always been a great admirer of Bobby Lee and will go as far as stating that I consider him one of the very great "American" generals. I've read a considerable amount on the gentleman from Douglas Southall Freeman's biography which as a Pulitzer prize winner became the standard book on Lee for many decades. But one must realise that Southall's tome only echoed most of the writings and well crafted quotes of the likes of Jubal Early and The Lost Cause advocates.
In later years I have also digested the revisionist versions such as Connelly's The Marble Man and Nolan's Lee Considered and although not destroying his reputation they direct the reader to take a closer look at what little we actually know about this enigmatic man. The Lee and slavery issue will always be contentious as will his decision to fight for Virginia instead of the Union these are irrefutable facts but they are also part of history which cannot be changed.

Instead of arguing over this scurrilous WP article it would be more prudent and interesting (well for me it would) to discuss why we believe he has gone into history as almost a Messianic figure
The ANV adored him- Why? he was a most aggressive commander.
Was he a good strategist? the war was lost in the western theater yet he hardly ever concerned himself with that part of the conflict.
He had very good days in the field and he had very bad ones. At Antietam (Sharpsburg) only good fortune by the timely arrival of Ambrose Hill saved his exhausted army from complete destruction.
And then there was the 3rd day at Gettysburg.

My take on Lee is that he was human and imperfect just llke all of us and a much better man for being so

Reb

 

[Rob]

Finally some sanity from an expert! Well said Bob , a great general with faults as we all have, the fact that in slavery terms he was on the ' wrong side' as it were does not detract from his skill nor from the bravery of the men under him.Whatever we think of the cause now he was obviously very driven and a very proud man, who I venture to guess was admired even on the other side of the argument, so Bob, would you say he was easily the best the South had or was it closer than that?


Rob

 

[jazzeum]

it would be more prudent and interesting (well for me it would) to discuss why we believe he has gone into history as almost a Messianic figure

One reason is because the Lost Cause advocates have raised him thus (while at the same time denigrating Longstreet).

 

[UKReb]

One reason is because the Lost Cause advocates have raised him thus (while at the same time denigrating Longstreet).

True but the denigration of Longstreet by Early & Co was primarily over Gettysburg.

Pickett's charge was reckless but any student of that battle would be within his rights to ask the question "What if Longstreet had followed Lee's orders diligently"? Who is to say Cemetery Ridge would not have been taken on the SECOND day of the battle.

No Lee's reputation as a completely untarnished and mythic figure in US history has been constructed by more than just the Lost Cause principles.

Bob

 

[UKReb]

so Bob, would you say he was easily the best the South had or was it closer than that?


Rob

As usual from you old friend a very good question. Lee's mentor the 75year old Union General-in-Chief Winfield Scott (Hero of the Mexican War) stated that Lee "was the best damm officer I ever saw in the field".

However, when Jefferson Davis sent him to West Virginia at the outbreak of war his efforts at command were no more than downright disastrous and Davis quickly gave him the role (as an Engineer) of building up the coastal defences of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

But come the hour come the man for when he took command of the ANV during what became known as the Seven Days his actions in defeating the Union army in a series of battles was not only remarkable they were brilliantly outstanding.

Bob

 

[jazzeum]

True but the denigration of Longstreet by Early & Co was primarily over Gettysburg.

Pickett's charge was reckless but any student of that battle would be within his rights to ask the question "What if Longstreet had followed Lee's orders diligently"? Who is to say Cemetery Ridge would not have been taken on the SECOND day of the battle.

No Lee's reputation as a completely untarnished and mythic figure in US history has been constructed by more than just the Lost Cause principles.

Bob

Central to the Lost Cause (well, maybe not central, but key) is making Lee a mythic figure. Obviously, if Longstreet is blamed for the loss at Gettysburg, then Lee's reputation is unsullied. Moreover, as a Republican, Longstreet was not too well viewed by the Lost Causers.

 

[lancer]

Longstreet at Gettysburg. A guaranteed hot topic. I don't think that anyone disputes that Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg, and a petulant Longstreet only made a bad situation worse. Not all the criticism of Longstreet's performance is unwarranted. -- Al

 

[Terp152]

Longstreet at Gettysburg. A guaranteed hot topic. I don't think that anyone disputes that Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg, and a petulant Longstreet only made a bad situation worse. Not all the criticism of Longstreet's performance is unwarranted. -- Al

Added to that was Longstreet stating after the war in one of his books that after three days of battle (Gettysburg) enough blood was shed to satisfy Lee's bloodlust enraged the south. Porte Alexander, I Corps artillery chief, took him to task for creating enemies with such statements.

Also, Confederate generals performed poorly all around. Ewell should share as much blame for failure on first day to take Cemetary Hill. AP Hill's conduct was not up to his usual aggressive stds. Anderson failed to support the second day attack,etc. Lee stated after the war, that if he had Jackson at Gettysburg, he should have won, as far man can judge. Chris

 

[lancer]

As the results obviously show, Lee was poorly served by his major subordinates at Gettysburg. Several factors influenced the poor performances. First and foremost was the loss of Jackson and the resulting necessary restructuring of the ANV. Going from a two corps system with trusted commanders (Jackson and Longstreet) to a brand new three corps system with untested commanders at corp level (Hill and Ewell), changed the command dynamics. The way Lee liked to command, a giving of general orders and leaving the subordinate to achieve the goals as he saw fit, would prove to be a weakness in this first battle under the three corps system. Hill and Ewell would prove to need a firmer hand, a more direct form of supervision, than Lee had to practice with Jackson and Longstreet. Ewell, in particular, was not up to the aggressive standards that Lee was used to with Jackson, and this was to prove particularly costly on the first day. As for Longstreet's sub-par performance, it is hard to argue that his troops weren't up to the task, but rather it was Longstreet's dragging his feet on the second day and starting the assault so late that hurt so much on the second day. Then Longstreet failed to prepare the grand assault on the third day properly, failing to oversee dispositions of the attacking troops closely enough and just not being the rock that Lee expected of him in terms of executing the assault. With Lee not at his best, physically or perhaps even mentally, a poor job by his corps commanders were a recipe for disaster. The ANV had several opportunities to grab victory but the combination of command failures and especially the unexpected tenacity of the Union Army doomed the ANV to defeat. -- Al

 

[Terp152]

As the results obviously show, Lee was poorly served by his major subordinates at Gettysburg. Several factors influenced the poor performances. Ewell, in particular, was not up to the aggressive standards that Lee was used to with Jackson, and this was to prove particularly costly on the first day. As for Longstreet's sub-par performance, it is hard to argue that his troops weren't up to the task, but rather it was Longstreet's dragging his feet on the second day and starting the assault so late that hurt so much on the second day. The ANV had several opportunities to grab victory but the combination of command failures and especially the unexpected tenacity of the Union Army doomed the ANV to defeat. -- Al

Very thorough summary Al. Have you read Coddington's book on Gettysburg? I enjoyed it after growing up reading all of the ex-Confederate versions. Seemed like only B&L had anything from Union writers prior to his book. Chris

 

[lancer]

Very thorough summary Al. Have you read Coddington's book on Gettysburg? I enjoyed it after growing up reading all of the ex-Confederate versions. Seemed like only B&L had anything from Union writers prior to his book. Chris

Hi Chris. I have read Coddington's book, but like so much of my reading, it was many moons ago. I have read many books on Gettysburg and still think the Coddington book ranks right at the top, although I really enjoyed Sears' book a great deal. The Pfanz books are really good, too. I seem to gravitate towards Gettysburg and Franklin as my favorite battles/campaigns and that it where most of my reading centers. -- Al

 

[Terp152]

Hi Chris. I have read Coddington's book, but like so much of my reading, it was many moons ago. I have read many books on Gettysburg and still think the Coddington book ranks right at the top, although I really enjoyed Sears' book a great deal. The Pfanz books are really good, too. I seem to gravitate towards Gettysburg and Franklin as my favorite battles/campaigns and that it where most of my reading centers. -- Al

I also read the three books by Pfanz and they are outstanding. I was sometimes overwhelmed with the detail but found them to be the best tactical descriptions. Wish he had done "Pickett's Charge" as well. Just finished listening to S Foote's narrative on CD driving to work. He has the best overall history of the war IMO. Read the books yrs ago and have re-read parts from time to time. Chris

 

[Jay]

Regarding Jackson. I read somewhere once, couldn't tell you where nor put my finger on it, that the reference uttered by Bee at Bull Run about Jackson standing there like a stone wall was not meant to be a compliment. Supposedly, and others may have heard this, that it was more a complaint that Jackson and his troops were needed at a particular place in the fight, and they stood there like a stone wall, not moving, but rather staying put and letting others fight.
Again, I didn't make this up, but, the few times I've tried to find the source, had no luck.
(follow up. just checked the wikipedia article on TJ and it's mentioned there. Interesting.)

 

[Rob]

Going back to Doug's original post Just for a second, it states that the South 'embraced a mythology of victimhood'. Do the experts on here think this is actually the case?. The loss of slavery and the right to live as they saw fit was obviously a huge blow, but did they really consider themselves the losers? Also do you guys think if slavery had not been in the equation and it had only been about states rights or withdrawing from the Union that War was still inevitable? . Finally did I also read that having escaped their slavery in the South and fled North one union General ordered slaves to be sent back, I am sure I heard this on a docu but can't think of his name, perhaps Bob or Al could help here??

Rob

 

[nysoldiers]

Many fail to mention that most of Lee's successes were greatly enhanced by the ineptness of the Union generals he opposed (i.e. McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, etc.).

 

[trooper]

With regard to Gettysburg it can be said that Lee had this battle forced upon him when the initial contact with Buford's cavalry escalated into a full blown action. Lee was still left blind due to Stuart's absence and had therefore to react to circumstances rather than fight a planned action. I wonder what the outcome would have been had there been no move towards the fictional supply of shoes at Gettysburg, no contact with the Union forces and Stuart had eventually rejoined and carried out his proper duties. Armed with knowledge of Union dispositions and free to pick his own ground Lee could have fought on his own terms with far better chance of success. Trooper

 

[UKReb]

Going back to Doug's original post Just for a second, it states that the South 'embraced a mythology of victimhood'. Do the experts on here think this is actually the case?. The loss of slavery and the right to live as they saw fit was obviously a huge blow, but did they really consider themselves the losers? Also do you guys think if slavery had not been in the equation and it had only been about states rights or withdrawing from the Union that War was still inevitable? . Finally did I also read that having escaped their slavery in the South and fled North one union General ordered slaves to be sent back, I am sure I heard this on a docu but can't think of his name, perhaps Bob or Al could help here??

Rob

Careful here Rob you are beginning to unearth more land mines. But it's a fair question and I will answer it as a Brit's take on the subject and wait for any incoming flak.

The mid-nineteenth century's demand for cotton, which today you can perfectly align with our need for oil created immense fortunes in the South, which then produced three-quarters of the world supply-almost all hand picked by slaves. Only a few thousand Southerners owned a hundred slaves or more in 1860 and the typical white slave owner possessed no more than ten-the small farmers, artisans, clerks and laborers who comprised the men in Lee's army-owned no slaves at all in fact many of them had never seen a colored person.

Lee and his officers, many of whom did own slaves, were uncomfortable-or at least in denial-on the subject. Most of them insisted they were fighting to uphold states rights; preserving slavery was almost an afterthought. This then is a paradox: The officers and men of the South believed passionately in freedom-they kicked our butts Rob in a hard won victory in 1783 to gain their freedom-but not in freedom for the African American slave. They did fervently believe in the Southern way of life-political, social and economic-that turned a blind eye to the slavery issue exactly as the Founding Fathers-both North and South-likewise had been forced to ignore in order to achieve nationhood. Lee and his army simply reflected the prevailing Southern way of life in 1860.

Lee and his army was composed of very moral men fighting to preserve an immoral system but they tried not to see it that way.

Bob

 

[Rob]

Excellent post Bob, you see we can talk about all these issues behind the conflict without it causing rows etc. No land mines here mate just a desire to learn more about it and your help is appreciated. There can be no doubt how passionate those in the south about defending their way of life,

Cheers mate

Rob

 

[Scott]

In that area of Pennsylvania, you "can't get there from here" without going through Gettysburg. It's the hub of the spokes to Harrisburg, Washington, Harpers Ferry, etc.