Robert E. Lee was a great tactician who often prevailed or endured against superior forces. As a strategist, even allowing for Jefferson Davis' control of grand strategy, Lee was an 1815 thinker whose Napoleonic ideas were outdated. Grant & Sherman were the men of the future.
-
-
(Of course, both Grant & Lee made crucial battlefield mistakes at times, from Pickett's Charge to Cold Harbor. Neither was perfect. Arguably the greatest general of the age was Moltke, although he had the chance to study & learn from the American experience.)
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Grant had a larger task, too: destroy enemy armies. Lee simply had to drag it out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Our country would be a better, greater and more prosperous one, if Robert E. Lee would have won. The issue was states sovereign rights to oversee and rule themselves. Without an ever~growing, controlling, oppressive and financially thieving federal central government's threat!!
-
“State Rights” which actually means S L A V E R Y. Robert E. Lee turned his back on the U.S. so he could defend the institution of S L A V E R Y
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Question: Didn't Lee achieve his masterpiece victory (Chancellorsville) by dividing his forces?
-
Dividing on the spot, yes. But he still had his whole army in the field.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your last sentence is the key one. Lee did what he could with what he had.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That may be the reason Lee twice went for the knockout blow - to crush Northern morale and bring England in as a mediator.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.