General Robert E. Lee. A Gentleman's Gentleman.

[bovw]

I think one of the biggest "what if's" of the war is what if Jackson had not been fatally wounded at Chancellorsville. It is quite possible that Gettysburg could have turned out much different.

I took a detour off rt 3 this morning and drove through Chancellorsville on my way to town. My wife and I were talking about that very subject.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[PA Reb]

Great post "ringo" on a truly great man!

Gettysburg, my favorite topic! The many modern theories made in hindsight about who lost that battle have made it a mind boggling subject. After the battle was fought and as beloved as General Lee was in the south, there was no way he was going to be made the scapegoat. Longstreet, who was himself one of the best generals to have ever lived, quickly became the prime target for the failure and carried that unfair title to the day he died. Longstreet was well aware that the plan for the third day's assault was doomed which of course is easy to see today as we look back at it. Here's my opinion of were the fault should rest;

July 1, 1863, the first day at Gettysburg. General Lee and the CSA forces definitely had the upper hand. Union forces met the CSA assault on the west and north of the town but the CSA quickly drove all of them back through the town and up onto Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge. It was then that Lee gave Lt. General Richard Ewell the "discretionary order" to "take that hill if possible." Ewell sent Maj. General Edward Johnson, commander of Ewell's third division to take Culp's Hill. The whole plan was carried out weakly in my opinion and to make a long story short, the hill remained in Federal hands at the end of the day. Meade could not have stayed in Gettysburg if Culp's Hill had ended up being occupied by CSA forces.

To end my post quickly, right there is where the fault for the CSA loss at Gettysburg is - Lee's "discretionary order" and Ewell's failure to secure Culp's Hill. IF Lee would have concentrated his forces right then and there and taken Culp's Hill and flank it on the CSA left the first day (which they could have if done in full force), the great battle of Gettysburg would have been over and Union troops would have had to retreat towards Washington to protect it. That would have sent shock waves through the north and we would be reading history much differently today!

I came back to this thread just to add this point > After studying the war and in particular Gettysburg for many years, I believe the CSA lost Gettysburg at Chancellorsville. IF the beloved and more than capable Thomas Jackson hadn't been handed his fate by members of the 18th N.C.I. at Chancellorsville, he more than likely would have been present at Gettysburg. If Lee would have given the order, no matter how vague, to "take that hill if possible" to Jackson at Gettysburg instead of his replacement Ewell, Gettysburg would have fallen to the CSA and Washington would have been under a tremendous threat. In turn, the people of the north would have had a much different view of the war and I believe it would have pressured the north to the bargaining table. These are all of course "big ifs" and just my opinion.

 

[the ringo kid]

On a personal level General Lee was by all accounts a most honorable and respected gentleman. But don't forget he made a choice to accept the leadership of the Confederate forces after first being offered command of the Union army. His loyalty to his state of Virginia was stronger than his loyalty to the United States, despite his oath of office as a commissioned officer in which he pledged his loyalty to the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. As such he became an enemy of this country. You might not be aware that the U.S. Army War College is currently considering the removal of his official portrait from the college, along with that of General "Stonewall" Jackson, on the basis of them being enemies of this country and who took up arms against the United States.

They are wanting to remove their portraits to appease a tiny group--all in the name of being pc. Patton even kept a portrait of Rommel, as well as a few other Generals he was up against. I read somewhere years ago, that that was even frowned upon then.

 

[the ringo kid]

Should we remove this too?

Don't give them any other ideas.

 

[the ringo kid]

Great post "ringo" on a truly great man!

Gettysburg, my favorite topic! The many modern theories made in hindsight about who lost that battle have made it a mind boggling subject. After the battle was fought and as beloved as General Lee was in the south, there was no way he was going to be made the scapegoat. Longstreet, who was himself one of the best generals to have ever lived, quickly became the prime target for the failure and carried that unfair title to the day he died. Longstreet was well aware that the plan for the third day's assault was doomed which of course is easy to see today as we look back at it. Here's my opinion of were the fault should rest;

July 1, 1863, the first day at Gettysburg. General Lee and the CSA forces definitely had the upper hand. Union forces met the CSA assault on the west and north of the town but the CSA quickly drove all of them back through the town and up onto Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge. It was then that Lee gave Lt. General Richard Ewell the "discretionary order" to "take that hill I possible." Ewell sent Maj. General Edward Johnson, commander of Ewell's third division to take Culp's Hill. The whole plan was carried out weakly in my opinion and to make a long story short, the hill remained in Federal hands at the end of the day. Meade could not have stayed in Gettysburg if Culp's Hill had ended up being occupied by CSA forces.

To end my post quickly, right there is where the fault for the CSA loss at Gettysburg is - Lee's "discretionary order" and Ewell's failure to secure Culp's Hill. IF Lee would have concentrated his forces right then and there and taken Culp's Hill and flank it on the CSA left the first day (which they could have if done in full force), the great battle of Gettysburg would have been over and Union troops would have had to retreat towards Washington to protect it. That would have sent shockwaves through the north and we would be reading history much differently today!

Thank you sir, as well as this mighty fine post. Im hoping to find more time to do so real research on some of these Gents and to add some real info about General Lee. Others I want to do are, Stuart, Longstreet, Jackson, the Hill Brothers, and especially now--about Forrest.

Ive never liked revisionist history and dislike it even more now.

Something id especially want to do, is a good posting about the fighting that took place between the 4th Alabama and the 69th New York at: Marye's Heights. I looked at a new so-called ""history book" for high-school aged kids. No mention of that battle at all--when I remember reading in the 7th grade--from the then current history book we were issued. That book couldnt spend more than a few lines written about that battle-when they were talking about the Battles of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania. I remember being intrigued reading how our boys respected a "game" enemy when they stood up and cheered the 69th for their bravery. Nothing like that mentioned these days.

A fine painting by Mort Kunstler on that subject including Sergeant Kirkland: the: Angel of Marye's Heights:

Another of Sergeant Richard Kirkland (aka) the Angel of Marye's Heights."

Sergeant Kirkland's grave:

A photo of our dead behind the stone wall at Marye's Heights:

The: Fightin' 69th.

Sorry I get carried away--back to General Lee.

 

[Faulkner]

Great post "ringo" on a truly great man!

Gettysburg, my favorite topic! The many modern theories made in hindsight about who lost that battle have made it a mind boggling subject. After the battle was fought and as beloved as General Lee was in the south, there was no way he was going to be made the scapegoat. Longstreet, who was himself one of the best generals to have ever lived, quickly became the prime target for the failure and carried that unfair title to the day he died. Longstreet was well aware that the plan for the third day's assault was doomed which of course is easy to see today as we look back at it. Here's my opinion of were the fault should rest;

July 1, 1863, the first day at Gettysburg. General Lee and the CSA forces definitely had the upper hand. Union forces met the CSA assault on the west and north of the town but the CSA quickly drove all of them back through the town and up onto Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge. It was then that Lee gave Lt. General Richard Ewell the "discretionary order" to "take that hill I possible." Ewell sent Maj. General Edward Johnson, commander of Ewell's third division to take Culp's Hill. The whole plan was carried out weakly in my opinion and to make a long story short, the hill remained in Federal hands at the end of the day. Meade could not have stayed in Gettysburg if Culp's Hill had ended up being occupied by CSA forces.

To end my post quickly, right there is where the fault for the CSA loss at Gettysburg is - Lee's "discretionary order" and Ewell's failure to secure Culp's Hill. IF Lee would have concentrated his forces right then and there and taken Culp's Hill and flank it on the CSA left the first day (which they could have if done in full force), the great battle of Gettysburg would have been over and Union troops would have had to retreat towards Washington to protect it. That would have sent shockwaves through the north and we would be reading history much differently today!

I am very much inclined to agree with you. General Ewell was no General Jackson, or even Longstreet. Had General Lee given Jackson a "discretionary order" to take that hill, the hill would have been taken.

 

[redneckemt]

I think one of the biggest "what if's" of the war is what if Jackson had not been fatally wounded at Chancellorsville. It is quite possible that Gettysburg could have turned out much different.

What would have happened of we had pressed the Yankees after the victory at 1st Bull Run? The whole Yankee army was in in a panic running full speed back to Washington chasing their Commanders the roads we choked with DC citizens who had come to watch the Battle. The South failed to take advantage of one of the Greatest opportunities of the War.

Or what would have happened if that fool Pillow had held the River Forts in Tennessee? Or if Bragg had never been given a Command?

 

[the ringo kid]

What would have happened of we had pressed the Yankees after the victory at 1st Bull Run? The whole Yankee army was in in a panic running full speed back to Washington chasing their Commanders the roads we choked with DC citizens who had come to watch the Battle. The South failed to take advantage of one of the Greatest opportunities of the War.

Or what would have happened if that fool Pillow had held the River Forts in Tennessee? Or if Bragg had never been given a Command?

It would have been a complete rout and destruction of their Army just like happened to Napoleon in Russia after the Russians counterattacked, chased him to the river and destroyed most of his Army there.

 

[vito]

There is nothing at all wrong with honoring leaders of the CSA, as a reflection of the history and culture of the South, but revering them as "American" heroes is another matter. If the Army War College posted portraits of Lee and others in admiration of their leadership and soldierly abilities, that of course makes sense (if you ever have the chance to visit the US Military Academy at West Point, there are statues of some of the great generals in human history in the Board Room (I don't recall what the official name of this room is, where the Superintendent presides over the Academy leadership) but this is not acclaiming them as anything more than that, i.e., their military greatness. If the Army War College's intention is displaying portraits of generals who were heroes to this county's conflicts, then there is no place for Lee, Jackson, Longstreet or any of the others who fought against the Union.

You will not find, in a similar vein, any monuments to Benedict Arnold at West Point or in Washington, D.C. despite the fact that he was a hero early in the Revolution. Once he became a traitor to the cause, and served the British, he no longer deserved the honor of being considered an American hero.

 

[bovw]

There is nothing at all wrong with honoring leaders of the CSA, as a reflection of the history and culture of the South, but revering them as "American" heroes is another matter. If the Army War College posted portraits of Lee and others in admiration of their leadership and soldierly abilities, that of course makes sense (if you ever have the chance to visit the US Military Academy at West Point, there are statues of some of the great generals in human history in the Board Room (I don't recall what the official name of this room is, where the Superintendent presides over the Academy leadership) but this is not acclaiming them as anything more than that, i.e., their military greatness. If the Army War College's intention is displaying portraits of generals who were heroes to this county's conflicts, then there is no place for Lee, Jackson, Longstreet or any of the others who fought against the Union.

You will not find, in a similar vein, any monuments to Benedict Arnold at West Point or in Washington, D.C. despite the fact that he was a hero early in the Revolution. Once he became a traitor to the cause, and served the British, he no longer deserved the honor of being considered an American hero.

I could maybe agree with this, but if they are removed a bunch of US Army bases, named earlier in the thread, need name changes as well. No cherry picking, all in or go home.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[the ringo kid]

I just wanted to thank you Gents before I forgot to do so? for giving General Lee a 5 Star rating.

 

[K_Mac]

I always heard the only bad things that could be said about Robert E Lee was he received demerits while attending West Point. It's a mute point because everyone does but he received very few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OFT II]

He must have been a very humble man. In most pictures where he is in uniform he wears the rank of Colonel as shown by the three stars on his lapel. The rank insignia of a Confederate General is three stars inside a wreath with the middle star being larger than the other two.

Of course, I'm sure that any soldier in his command would know who he was if he displayed no rank at all.

 

[the ringo kid]

Another thing I really admire about him, one of many) was that his personal Chef--was a black Gent by the last name of Lee. General Lee promoted him to Sergeant, made him his personal Chef--all the other Generals loved his cooking as well, and Lee made sure that his chef got paid the same wages as Sergeants got paid. Sergeant Lee, loved general Lee and made sure the rest of his life-that others knew how he felt about his General. Sergeant Lee after the war, went to College and graduated and he became a Minister who had his own Church--which was popular with both blacks and whites.

For Sergeant Lee:

 

[Hodgin]

I think it's well-accepted that Lee was one of the greatest generals. What's a bit strange about his reputation is that he fought against the USA, as did many other CSA combatants who have been honored in one way or another.

This is a bit odd. Shelby Foote providedwhat I consider to be the best explanation of this. He called it the Great Compromise.

"The Civil War, there's a great compromise, as it's called. It consists of Southerners admitting freely that it's probably best that the Union wasn't divided, and the North admits rather freely that the South fought bravely for a cause in which it believed. That is a great compromise and we live with that and that works for us. We are now able to look at the war with some coolness, which we couldn't do before now, and, incidentally, I very much doubt whether a history such as mine could have been written much before 100 years had elapsed. It took all that time for things to cool down."

Things seem to work out better when supporters of the Union as well as the Confederacy recognize the compromise. The Civil War was a terrible event and the compromise certainly made living with the aftermath easier.

 

[Faulkner]

There is nothing at all wrong with honoring leaders of the CSA, as a reflection of the history and culture of the South, but revering them as "American" heroes is another matter. If the Army War College posted portraits of Lee and others in admiration of their leadership and soldierly abilities, that of course makes sense (if you ever have the chance to visit the US Military Academy at West Point, there are statues of some of the great generals in human history in the Board Room (I don't recall what the official name of this room is, where the Superintendent presides over the Academy leadership) but this is not acclaiming them as anything more than that, i.e., their military greatness. If the Army War College's intention is displaying portraits of generals who were heroes to this county's conflicts, then there is no place for Lee, Jackson, Longstreet or any of the others who fought against the Union.

You will not find, in a similar vein, any monuments to Benedict Arnold at West Point or in Washington, D.C. despite the fact that he was a hero early in the Revolution. Once he became a traitor to the cause, and served the British, he no longer deserved the honor of being considered an American hero.

I suppose us southern Americans may disagree with you because we believe citizens of the Confederate States of America were just as American as citizens of the United States of America. Confederate Americans believed they were defending their homeland from outside aggressors. They may have been rebels, but they weren't traitors to their homeland.

Benedict Arnold was a traitor who was influenced by the whims of his 18 year old bride for personal gain and glory. Big difference.

 

[sheepdawg]

The Civil War, a three volume set by IMHO number one authority on the Civil War of the middle to late 20th Century, Shelby Foote. He said his two favorite people associated with the American Civil War were Lincoln and Forrest.

From Memphis TN, like me. His name was always listed in the phonebook. Imagine calling him up to discuss Longstreet or Forrest, he'd answer questions you'd pose if he had time. Sadly he passed away a few years ago. If you wanted to learn about the various major players of the American Civil War that set would be my choice. I understand it takes months, years to read. Far longer than my attention span.

If you don't know who he is this may help remind you.



He was the best part of the Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War.

 

[the ringo kid]

Thank you for the reminder. Ive read books by him before and fully agree that he is most likely the best authority on the Civil War.

 

[25elk]

Unquestionably, Robert E. Lee and his place in the history of war is secure. His tactics have been studied and praised by many great generals that lived and fought long after his passing. I have to respectfully disagree that he was an enemy of the United States solely because he commanded the Confederate army. The Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression as it is still known in many locales today, was basically a war about states rights as set out in the Constitution of the United States. Slavery might have provided the impetus but was really peripheral to the main issue, as there were as many, if not more, slaves in the north as there were in the south at the time of the outbreak of the war. A real unbiased study of history contemporary with the times will verify this fact.

To think that this is a dated concept...states rights versus overarching federal control...is naive, as it continues to this day. Without tripping a hidden wire controlling the claymore of forbidden political discourse, suffice it to say that currently there are several states exploring the process of secession and several portions of states wanting to secede from the balance of their state, northern California being a prime example. The impetus behind these efforts remains the same after more than 150 years, the right of the individual states to govern to the best advantage of their citizens. The past does not bode well for this concept, but it is a noble one nevertheless.

Robert E. Lee was a great general and a great American and his sacrifice and those who followed him into battle is no less than any other American who has made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve and protect this great nation and the principles it was founded upon.

 

[mwtdvm]

When one considers Lee's training.. He fell short...

On a personal level General Lee was by all accounts a most honorable and respected gentleman. But don't forget he made a choice to accept the leadership of the Confederate forces after first being offered command of the Union army. His loyalty to his state of Virginia was stronger than his loyalty to the United States, despite his oath of office as a commissioned officer in which he pledged his loyalty to the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. As such he became an enemy of this country.

(truncated)

DUTY HONOR COUNTRY.... West Point

"To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"..... oath of office

To quote Meatloaf, Two out of three ain't bad...