VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:05:40 10/31/05 Mon
Author: Sunshine
Subject: Re: Lee's strategy
In reply to: Sophist 's message, "Lee's strategy" on 13:39:16 10/31/05 Mon

The war was won in the West; Lee's failure as a strategist is demonstrated by his focus on VA
I think you ignore the political situation in the Confederacy. Lee was not really commander in chief of all the southern forces. The power of the individual states was more of a factor in the south than the north and decisions always were influenced by this fact. After all, in the south, the war is known as “The War Between the States” and grand strategic considerations were often a prisoner to more local interests.

This whole debate is interesting but difficult to really get a handle on. Superiority in what sense: strategic, operational, tactical? How do you account for the differences in resources? What about the goals? A Confederate victory was a real long shot due to the lack of population, industrial might, maritime resources etc. How would the south have done if Grant had been in charge of the Confederate forces during the initial Peninsula campaign in 1862? Lee made mistakes, all generals do. The problem was that Lee had virtually no margin for error. He needed something big to change the course of the war; he gambled at Gettysburg and lost (and I have to say that I am glad he lost as his cause was not just – of course, I wouldn’t mind living in a country that was not a political hostage to the reactionary south). Even if he had won his gamble, I do not think it would have changed the outcome unless it a victory had created such a political storm that the north was politically unable to continue the war. I compare Grant’s abilities to Eisenhower (and I am a great admirer of Ike). If you have the overwhelming advantage in resources, all you need do is competently bring those resources to bear, avoid making that really big mistake, remain calm and fixed on your purpose and you will prevail. Not what I would consider a definition of brilliance (although in the political arena, I think Eisenhower was brilliant – just not as an operational commander). In a political sense Grant was brilliant, he understood what needed to be done. On a purely military sense, I would say he was competent. I am afraid we are destined to disagree on this matter and I see no way to really resolve this dispute.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.