5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 10,626
- Reaction score
- 4,544
Lee lost the war by following the wrong strategy during the war:
Lee's strategy was to destroy the union army to win the war so he fought an aggressive war trying to achieve this aim. Instead of winning the war he most likely hasten the end of the war for the Confederacy. He should have fought a war a attrition and conservation of the army. Remember, Lee did not have to fight for a win. He only needed to fight for a tie. He only needed to win over Northern opinion by taking away the hope of a easy victory and short war. He forgot how his hero Washington won our nation freedom not with victory on the battle but by ending any hope of victory in the British hearts. Yorktown was just a battle win but it was a psychological victory that broke the British government's will to fight on. The Ted offensive in Vietnam was a military loss for the communist but a psychological victory that broke American people's will to fight on.
Lee's aggressive style was all wrong for the war the South needed to fight against a bigger opponent. Lee could never invade or conquer the Northern States. The South did not have the resources to occupy and hold Northern lands. The South was too small and Southern army was too small to achieve such goal. The South needed to fight a war attrition and conservation until the people in the North lost hope. Their war plans should have to drag the war out 10 plus years that seems to be breaking point in the population will of the aggressor(North). Instead, Lee hands the aggressors(North) victory on a silver platter by burning up the Confederacy military resources instead of conserving them.
I have brought up casualty rates before and I am doing it again the South could not support Lee's Casualty rate of 20 plus percent.or Bragg's 19 plus percent either. The problem is Lee's incredible and Historic victories over the larger union army with his aggressive tactics blinds or enamored by them. Its like boxing everyone loves Pacquiao and Tyson's aggressive displays of boxing skills but we yawn at boxers like Mayweather and Holmes for their counter boxing displays of skills. Lee needed a lower his casualty rate and have a higher kill ratio to drag out the war for the tie and for the victory over the North.
Lee was the wrong man for the job because he had the wrong strategy but one man did have the right strategy to fight the war for the south. He is frowned upon today because he was ahead of everyone else in his day about warfare in the mid 19th century. He was General Joe Johnston. He seems understand give up ground kill many more of them than you and strike when they less expect it and the man power ratio are closer.
AtlantaCampaign:
Johnston had started the Atlanta campaign outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 by the Northerners. After a "fighting retreat" from the Tennessee border, through northern Georgia, Johnston arrived in Atlanta outnumbered less than 5 to 4, because his policy of defensive attrition had cost the South fewer casualties than the North had suffered, and because Sherman had to detach troops to guard his lengthening supply lines (Johnston picked up a few thousand troops on his way back to Atlanta.)
Johnston did the same against McCLellan in the Peninsula campaign. If he could have stayed in command Atlanta would not have fallen for many more weeks later or even months later. The delay fall of Atlanta could have changed the outcome of the Election and war in 1864. I like to point out: Was Johnston ever defeated in battle or in a campaign? I could go no but you can tell Lee fought the wrong war...
ALL LEE NEEDED WAS A TIE FOR VICTORY BUT HIS HUBRIS GOT THE BETTER OF HIM...
Lee's strategy was to destroy the union army to win the war so he fought an aggressive war trying to achieve this aim. Instead of winning the war he most likely hasten the end of the war for the Confederacy. He should have fought a war a attrition and conservation of the army. Remember, Lee did not have to fight for a win. He only needed to fight for a tie. He only needed to win over Northern opinion by taking away the hope of a easy victory and short war. He forgot how his hero Washington won our nation freedom not with victory on the battle but by ending any hope of victory in the British hearts. Yorktown was just a battle win but it was a psychological victory that broke the British government's will to fight on. The Ted offensive in Vietnam was a military loss for the communist but a psychological victory that broke American people's will to fight on.
Lee's aggressive style was all wrong for the war the South needed to fight against a bigger opponent. Lee could never invade or conquer the Northern States. The South did not have the resources to occupy and hold Northern lands. The South was too small and Southern army was too small to achieve such goal. The South needed to fight a war attrition and conservation until the people in the North lost hope. Their war plans should have to drag the war out 10 plus years that seems to be breaking point in the population will of the aggressor(North). Instead, Lee hands the aggressors(North) victory on a silver platter by burning up the Confederacy military resources instead of conserving them.
I have brought up casualty rates before and I am doing it again the South could not support Lee's Casualty rate of 20 plus percent.or Bragg's 19 plus percent either. The problem is Lee's incredible and Historic victories over the larger union army with his aggressive tactics blinds or enamored by them. Its like boxing everyone loves Pacquiao and Tyson's aggressive displays of boxing skills but we yawn at boxers like Mayweather and Holmes for their counter boxing displays of skills. Lee needed a lower his casualty rate and have a higher kill ratio to drag out the war for the tie and for the victory over the North.
Lee was the wrong man for the job because he had the wrong strategy but one man did have the right strategy to fight the war for the south. He is frowned upon today because he was ahead of everyone else in his day about warfare in the mid 19th century. He was General Joe Johnston. He seems understand give up ground kill many more of them than you and strike when they less expect it and the man power ratio are closer.
AtlantaCampaign:
Johnston had started the Atlanta campaign outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 by the Northerners. After a "fighting retreat" from the Tennessee border, through northern Georgia, Johnston arrived in Atlanta outnumbered less than 5 to 4, because his policy of defensive attrition had cost the South fewer casualties than the North had suffered, and because Sherman had to detach troops to guard his lengthening supply lines (Johnston picked up a few thousand troops on his way back to Atlanta.)
Johnston did the same against McCLellan in the Peninsula campaign. If he could have stayed in command Atlanta would not have fallen for many more weeks later or even months later. The delay fall of Atlanta could have changed the outcome of the Election and war in 1864. I like to point out: Was Johnston ever defeated in battle or in a campaign? I could go no but you can tell Lee fought the wrong war...
ALL LEE NEEDED WAS A TIE FOR VICTORY BUT HIS HUBRIS GOT THE BETTER OF HIM...