I see that good 'ol Robert E. Lee is back in the news again, thanks to Donald-the-student-of-history-and-special-fan-of-Frederick Douglass-rap-songs-Trump, who tells us that Lee was one of the greatest American generals and that many generals (countless, no doubt) in Washington have told him that Lee is their "favorite". (Apparently, military men are inclined to have favorite generals in the way that children have favorite candy bars).
Well, it's got me to thinking about Lee again, as the Civil War period has long been of special interest to me. Was Lee a great general? Was he the greatest in American history?
I think not. What Lee had going for him was the great good fortune of facing Federal Army commanders who were incredibly, and dangerously, cautious at best to fairly perfectly inept at worst. From McClellen, to Pope, to McClellen again, to Burnside, to Hooker, and even, to some extend, Meade, the Union Army fielded an opposing general's dream.
Take a look. In the Seven Days campaign, for instance, McClellen acted boldly at the outset, sailing an entire Federal Army south of Lee to advance directly on the capital city of Richmond (taking Lee quite by surprise, btw). And then he dithered, oppressed and cowering before a tiny force guarding the Peninsula under a less than notable General Magruder, and giving Lee ample time to bring his army south to guard the safety of Richmond. During the ensuing battles, McClellen again, insisting that he was facing an army 2-3 times the size of his own, when it was in fact significantly smaller than his own, panicked and cowered, took to the defensive, made no use at all of the siege guns for which the Confederates had no match, and ultimately, and rather clumsily, slunk back toward the sea. No great prowess was needed from the victor. Rather, the victory was given on a silver platter. Nonetheless, when the opportunity seemed at hand for the final crushing victory--which Lee, a truly devoted killer, sought in every battle--the result was the unimaginative, even careless, mass frontal assault on an impregnable position at Malvern Hill (something Lee was to repeat later, especially at Gettysburg).
A great general? Well, not so far.
At Second Bull Run, much of the success must be rewarded to Stonewall Jackson, who, arriving far in advance of Lee, simply confused and bamboozled clueless General Pope--although, again, however, total annihilation of his foe escaped Lee.
Fast forward to the return of McClellen and the Battle of Antietam. Here, Lee had invaded Maryland with a woefully inferior force and was quickly caught with his pants down by an again boldly advancing McClellen. Pinning Lee's small army between the cornfields and the Antietam River, McClellen straightaway decided to discard all advantage and attack Lee's position in piecemeal fashion, allowing Lee to shift forces to meet each ongoing threat in turn. In short, Lee could not have survived this battle without McClellen's assistance.
Fredericksburg hardly need be mentioned. This was simply slaughter of World War I proportion, with wave after wave of Federal troops thrown against prepared positions and massed artillery. No foxy general needed, just the order to shoot and keep shooting.
Chancellorsville, often counted as Lee's great victory, again, as it seems to me, owes more to Stonewall Jackson's imaginative daring than to any grand strategy conducted by Lee. And of course we should not forget the sudden curious paralysis of "Fighting Joe Hooker", who had slyly maneuvered his army around the left flank of Lee's, and then found himself utterly without any idea of what to do next. It was Jackson who conceived and conducted the crippling assault on the hanging right flank of the Federal Army.
And then there is Gettysburg. And we all know that story, of a battle bumbled into, an accidental affair, not a showcase of grandly prosecuted strategy, nor of tactical merit when it came down to the brass tacks of the fight. Would a great general bluntly assault prepared positions on the right and on the left of the field and then, failing to succeed in that, order an assault on an impregnable position in the center? Sorry, but I can't see the military genius here.
If anything can be said of Lee, it is that he was greatly admired, almost worshipped by his soldiers, who would have gone to hell and back on his order. As Wellington once said of Napoleon, his presence on the field was worth 20,000 men. This was Lee's strength, and part in the ferocity behind the Confederate soldier's efforts. Because the Union army, or rather its generals, had lost so many battles, it was said therefore that Lee had won them. It was largely an accidental reputation, and not one that Lee could sustain with the eventual appearance of competent opponents such as Grant and Sheridan in the lead of able corps commanders. Lee inspired in his soldiers an almost maniacal will to fight and die to the bitter end. It was an inspiration that was not present in the western armies of the Confederacy, and that, in fact, was where the war was truly lost, by commanders equally as average as Lee.
Well, it's got me to thinking about Lee again, as the Civil War period has long been of special interest to me. Was Lee a great general? Was he the greatest in American history?
I think not. What Lee had going for him was the great good fortune of facing Federal Army commanders who were incredibly, and dangerously, cautious at best to fairly perfectly inept at worst. From McClellen, to Pope, to McClellen again, to Burnside, to Hooker, and even, to some extend, Meade, the Union Army fielded an opposing general's dream.
Take a look. In the Seven Days campaign, for instance, McClellen acted boldly at the outset, sailing an entire Federal Army south of Lee to advance directly on the capital city of Richmond (taking Lee quite by surprise, btw). And then he dithered, oppressed and cowering before a tiny force guarding the Peninsula under a less than notable General Magruder, and giving Lee ample time to bring his army south to guard the safety of Richmond. During the ensuing battles, McClellen again, insisting that he was facing an army 2-3 times the size of his own, when it was in fact significantly smaller than his own, panicked and cowered, took to the defensive, made no use at all of the siege guns for which the Confederates had no match, and ultimately, and rather clumsily, slunk back toward the sea. No great prowess was needed from the victor. Rather, the victory was given on a silver platter. Nonetheless, when the opportunity seemed at hand for the final crushing victory--which Lee, a truly devoted killer, sought in every battle--the result was the unimaginative, even careless, mass frontal assault on an impregnable position at Malvern Hill (something Lee was to repeat later, especially at Gettysburg).
A great general? Well, not so far.
At Second Bull Run, much of the success must be rewarded to Stonewall Jackson, who, arriving far in advance of Lee, simply confused and bamboozled clueless General Pope--although, again, however, total annihilation of his foe escaped Lee.
Fast forward to the return of McClellen and the Battle of Antietam. Here, Lee had invaded Maryland with a woefully inferior force and was quickly caught with his pants down by an again boldly advancing McClellen. Pinning Lee's small army between the cornfields and the Antietam River, McClellen straightaway decided to discard all advantage and attack Lee's position in piecemeal fashion, allowing Lee to shift forces to meet each ongoing threat in turn. In short, Lee could not have survived this battle without McClellen's assistance.
Fredericksburg hardly need be mentioned. This was simply slaughter of World War I proportion, with wave after wave of Federal troops thrown against prepared positions and massed artillery. No foxy general needed, just the order to shoot and keep shooting.
Chancellorsville, often counted as Lee's great victory, again, as it seems to me, owes more to Stonewall Jackson's imaginative daring than to any grand strategy conducted by Lee. And of course we should not forget the sudden curious paralysis of "Fighting Joe Hooker", who had slyly maneuvered his army around the left flank of Lee's, and then found himself utterly without any idea of what to do next. It was Jackson who conceived and conducted the crippling assault on the hanging right flank of the Federal Army.
And then there is Gettysburg. And we all know that story, of a battle bumbled into, an accidental affair, not a showcase of grandly prosecuted strategy, nor of tactical merit when it came down to the brass tacks of the fight. Would a great general bluntly assault prepared positions on the right and on the left of the field and then, failing to succeed in that, order an assault on an impregnable position in the center? Sorry, but I can't see the military genius here.
If anything can be said of Lee, it is that he was greatly admired, almost worshipped by his soldiers, who would have gone to hell and back on his order. As Wellington once said of Napoleon, his presence on the field was worth 20,000 men. This was Lee's strength, and part in the ferocity behind the Confederate soldier's efforts. Because the Union army, or rather its generals, had lost so many battles, it was said therefore that Lee had won them. It was largely an accidental reputation, and not one that Lee could sustain with the eventual appearance of competent opponents such as Grant and Sheridan in the lead of able corps commanders. Lee inspired in his soldiers an almost maniacal will to fight and die to the bitter end. It was an inspiration that was not present in the western armies of the Confederacy, and that, in fact, was where the war was truly lost, by commanders equally as average as Lee.
No comments:
Post a Comment