Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question, not flaming. Are Southerners still sensitive about this [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the ones who refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question, not flaming. Are Southerners still sensitive about this [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you've never encountered anyone from south of Washington DC.

[/ QUOTE ]

About 10 years ago we took a vacation down to Myrtle Beach. One of the days, we took a side trip to Charleton SC, a beautiful historic city. We took a tour of the old homes and it was really funny because the guides were still like fighting the Civil War which they called the War between the States. I thought it was all an act though but maybe not.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]


I think a more interesting debate is whether Lee was actually a good general, as he has been lionized by popular culture as brilliant and out-maneuvering his opponents to preserve the South for several years. Some have said he was the best general in American history. But I think he had several major shortcomings:

1. He was tactically astute, but strategically he misunderstood the fundamental Southern necessity of staying on the DEFENSIVE. His greatest victories were defensive battles on Southern soil, such as Chancellorville, Fredericksburg, and Cold Harbor/Petersburg. In terms of ratio of casualties, those were astounding successes, and if he had stayed on the defensive he may have turned Union opinion through continued victories and high Union casualties.

2. However, he still believed in the Napoleonic tactics of a war of maneuver and offense, which was fundamentally based on the idea that a spirited offense (with bayonets and inaccurate muskets) would always defeat a defense. This was no longer true in the ACW with the advent of rifled muskets. This failure to adjust would lead to several major tactical errors, such as Pickett's Charge, or even fighting at Gettysburg at all despite the strong Union defensive positions (Longstreet said many times that Lee should've withdrawn after the first day to fight on ground of his choosing).

3. Therefore, his offensives in the north led to his greatest defeats. At Antietam, he only managed a draw because of McClellan's timidness and incompetence; at Gettysburg he suffered a defeat that crippled the Army of N. Virginia. He should not have wasted his initiative and manpower on those battles.

4. Also, he misunderstood the importance of the Western theatre, which was much more important in terms of the Southern economy. Several times he was asked to transfer to the Army of Tennessee or Vicksburg to prevent Grant/Sherman's advances. His failure to do so contributed to the South losing control of the Mississippi, which greatly hurt their ability to continue the war. Instead, rather incompetent generals like Bragg or Johnston were allowed to command the western theatre, leading to defeats at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.

5. Finally, the reason why the Union did not win in the first three years was not due to Lee's brilliance, but rather the incompetence of the Northern generals and THEIR misunderstandings of grand strategy. McClellan, and even Meade, did not understand that the Northern strategy had to be the opposite of the Southern strategy, that they had to go on the offensive and sustain higher casualties in order to break the Southern economy and ability to resist. McClellan especially understood the security environment of the time, that rifled muskets would lead to very high casualties on the offense, but he did not understand that the Union could withstand higher casualties enough to defeat the South even on the offense. Hence, his horrible execution in 1862 of the Chesapeake expedition, which should've taken Richmond by all accounts. Another example is Meade's failure to chase Lee after Gettysburg, which may have finished the war in 1863.

In my last class, War and Politics, we went over the above to decide that Lee did not deserve his reputation of being a great general. However, those in the South often think of him as such, because of several historical accounts that overplayed his skills. Read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for a good analysis of his short-comings.

As an aside, the best general in US history is still by far its first, George Washington. He was one of the few actors in any war whose presence was fundamental to the results; he helped to turn a very improbable rebellion into a victory against the greatest military power at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree with you more as to Lee's shortcomings as a commander. Had a man like Longstreet been in command throughout the war, I wonder what the outcome would have been. I'll bet you would have seen a lot more battles like Cold Harbor and Fredricksburg, which very well might have turned Northern public opionion against the war. Grant's approach would have eventually worked, but would the American public been able to accept the cost? Probably not.

Lee's reputation for brilliance is due largely to McClellan's/Hooker's imcompetence and timidness. Had Grant been in command of the Army of the Potomac during the Chesapeake Campain, Lee's aggressivness might have worked in an isolated battle, but Grant would have correctly regrouped Shilo-style and whipped him the next day.

You're wrong to group Chancellorsville in with Fredricksburg and Cold harbor. At Chancellorsville, Lee divided his smaller army and attacked Hooker; Fredricksburg and Cold Harbor were hopeless Union assaults on Condederates dug in on ridges.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3. I fully appreciate the fact that Lee was a central figure in healing the post-war U.S.A. However, long after that time has passed, I am wondering why history has not been more critical to Lee. I cannot shake the notion that a great man could have made the extraordinary decision to give up a lost cause.

4. I certainly agree with you about Forrest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more interesting debate is whether Lee was actually a good general, as he has been lionized by popular culture as brilliant and out-maneuvering his opponents to preserve the South for several years. Some have said he was the best general in American history. But I think he had several major shortcomings:

1. He was tactically astute, but strategically he misunderstood the fundamental Southern necessity of staying on the DEFENSIVE. His greatest victories were defensive battles on Southern soil, such as Chancellorville, Fredericksburg, and Cold Harbor/Petersburg. In terms of ratio of casualties, those were astounding successes, and if he had stayed on the defensive he may have turned Union opinion through continued victories and high Union casualties.

2. However, he still believed in the Napoleonic tactics of a war of maneuver and offense, which was fundamentally based on the idea that a spirited offense (with bayonets and inaccurate muskets) would always defeat a defense. This was no longer true in the ACW with the advent of rifled muskets. This failure to adjust would lead to several major tactical errors, such as Pickett's Charge, or even fighting at Gettysburg at all despite the strong Union defensive positions (Longstreet said many times that Lee should've withdrawn after the first day to fight on ground of his choosing).

3. Therefore, his offensives in the north led to his greatest defeats. At Antietam, he only managed a draw because of McClellan's timidness and incompetence; at Gettysburg he suffered a defeat that crippled the Army of N. Virginia. He should not have wasted his initiative and manpower on those battles.

4. Also, he misunderstood the importance of the Western theatre, which was much more important in terms of the Southern economy. Several times he was asked to transfer to the Army of Tennessee or Vicksburg to prevent Grant/Sherman's advances. His failure to do so contributed to the South losing control of the Mississippi, which greatly hurt their ability to continue the war. Instead, rather incompetent generals like Bragg or Johnston were allowed to command the western theatre, leading to defeats at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.

5. Finally, the reason why the Union did not win in the first three years was not due to Lee's brilliance, but rather the incompetence of the Northern generals and THEIR misunderstandings of grand strategy. McClellan, and even Meade, did not understand that the Northern strategy had to be the opposite of the Southern strategy, that they had to go on the offensive and sustain higher casualties in order to break the Southern economy and ability to resist. McClellan especially understood the security environment of the time, that rifled muskets would lead to very high casualties on the offense, but he did not understand that the Union could withstand higher casualties enough to defeat the South even on the offense. Hence, his horrible execution in 1862 of the Chesapeake expedition, which should've taken Richmond by all accounts. Another example is Meade's failure to chase Lee after Gettysburg, which may have finished the war in 1863.

In my last class, War and Politics, we went over the above to decide that Lee did not deserve his reputation of being a great general. However, those in the South often think of him as such, because of several historical accounts that overplayed his skills. Read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for a good analysis of his short-comings.

As an aside, the best general in US history is still by far its first, George Washington. He was one of the few actors in any war whose presence was fundamental to the results; he helped to turn a very improbable rebellion into a victory against the greatest military power at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. It so happens I ordred "Battle Cry of Freedom" a few days ago.

I agree that Lee shold have sought better gound once he was unable to take Culp's Hill on Day one at Gettysburg (Of course Ewell should have been able to take it).

It is interesting to consider what may have happened if Grant (assuming he still relieved Meade) undertook his war of attrition against a non-decimated, army.

[five4suited]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Civil War was about slavery too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess slavery had a little bit to do with it, but not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be smarter than this.

I'm surprised but not shocked that some southerners still get upset about this (I don't know if you fall into that category or not).

"States' rights?" A state's right to do what, exactly?

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]


"States' rights?" A state's right to do what, exactly?



[/ QUOTE ]

Own people darker than themselves like cattle, obv.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Civil War was about slavery too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess slavery had a little bit to do with it, but not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be smarter than this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should read some history then. The civil war was to 'preserve the union'. If it wasn't, why didn't the north just let the south seceed after freeing the slaves? How come slavery in Europe magically vanished without a horrific civil war that brought death to 900,000 people and destruction to numerous cities?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised but not shocked that some southerners still get upset about this

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not from the south. I learned about this suff on my own. The civil war was about ending any right for state seccession, any state rights whatsoever, and a power grab for central government.

In the constitution very often federal government is given power over the state governments. Such instances include the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the commerce clause. This was done under the condition that, if a state was unhappy with the current rules of the national government, it could leave voluntarily, just as it came into the union voluntarily.
[ QUOTE ]
"States' rights?" A state's right to do what, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you ask whoever taught your highschool American government class, he should have told you the first time. A state's right to seceed for one, a right that me and bcpvp have already cited founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson to agreeing with.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Civil War was about slavery too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess slavery had a little bit to do with it, but not much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be smarter than this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should read some history then. The civil war was to 'preserve the union'. If it wasn't, why didn't the north just let the south seceed after freeing the slaves? How come slavery in Europe magically vanished without a horrific civil war that brought death to 900,000 people and destruction to numerous cities?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised but not shocked that some southerners still get upset about this

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not from the south. I learned about this suff on my own. The civil war was about ending any right for state seccession, any state rights whatsoever, and a power grab for central government.

In the constitution very often federal government is given power over the state governments. Such instances include the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the commerce clause. This was done under the condition that, if a state was unhappy with the current rules of the national government, it could leave voluntarily, just as it came into the union voluntarily.
[ QUOTE ]
"States' rights?" A state's right to do what, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you ask whoever taught your highschool American government class, he should have told you the first time. A state's right to seceed for one, a right that me and bcpvp have already cited founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson to agreeing with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Author Kenneth C. Davis disagrees with you:

[ QUOTE ]
When I was in school in the sixties, I recall that it became fashionable to say that the Civil War was not about slavery. Instead, "The War of Northern Aggression" was brought on by other issues, such as "states rights," "nullification," and "preservation of the Union." There are still people who cling to the idea that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. ... These critics often point to the fact that soldiers on both sides were fighting neither to free the slaves nor defend slavery. ... But this argument confuses two issues. The many reasons why men fought the Civil War do not explain why there was a Civil War. ... As many men on both sides say it, their homeland had been attacked. "God and country" called and they answered.




Even so, the Civil War was clearly a war fought because of African slavery. All the other justifications come down to political differences, reflecting the social and cultural gulf between the free and slave states that might have been bridges if not for the deeply divisive issue of slavery. One way to approach this issue is to turn the quetion around: Without the division slavery caused, would the Confederate states still have left the Union?"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShakeZula06]

Well, among others, Lord Acton (known for the power currupts, and absolute power currupts absolutely quote) disagree with you, having wrote this letter to Lee-
[ QUOTE ]
I saw in States' Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . I deemed that you [i.e., Lee] were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is taken from this this article by Tibor Machan. An excerpt-
[ QUOTE ]
contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery. It certainly did not begin because of slavery, but, instead, because of the different economic policies of the Northern and Southern states, some of them related to the institution of slavery but others independent of it. Furthermore, it appears that most Northerners had no objection to slavery and acted accordingly, as they dealt with Southern slave-owners in trade and other matters, without protest.


[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a 23 page paper by Thomas J DiLorenzo entited The consolidation of state power via reconstruction 1865-1890 and another one by him called The great centralizer: Lincoln and the war between the states.

He also has a book out called The real lincoln where he talks about the fact that Lincoln didn't even believe in racial inequality, and promoted sending them back to africa.

Also here's an old politics thread over this topic.

I'm also sure if BCPVC comes back to this thread he will have some of his own.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, among others, Lord Acton (known for the power currupts, and absolute power currupts absolutely quote) disagree with you, having wrote this letter to Lee-

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not disagreeing with me; I am undecided on the matter. I never stated that I support one position or the other.