Lee a Tie to Win...

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...
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
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...
Wrong. The ACW is not at all similar to the Vietnam War. The ACW is not similar to the French position in Algeria where the French public morale was worn down and France gave up Algeria even though they militarily.
The seccesionists fought for one reason and one reason only and that was to preserve and expand slavey. Johnson's strategy sucked since an outnumbered Union Army still took Atlanta.
Name a war that was won on the defensive ? It certainly wasn't Vietnam where North Vietnamese T-54 tanks crashed through the South Vietnamese Presidential Compound.
Kirk's Raiders
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
That was the price the South paid for having Robert E Lee, or so said the esteemed Shelby Foote. I've always supported Joe Johnston, Retreatin' Joe - and Sherman regarded him as the best general the South had. But he had only two speeds - slow and stop. Lee remade the Virginia army into one of the finest small armies in history. After some considerable weeding, he had an excellent set of subordinates. At the very beginning, Jackson was absolutely right - black flag all the way! Go all Old Testament on 'em. He understood that a blitzkrieg through the North before they realized there was even a war going on, before they geared up, instilling terror and rocking the new president - might have gotten independence quickly. It would have been especially impressive for possible European supporters and they may have gotten off the fence despite what the Union said. Trouble was, Lee hadn't gotten all the kinks out of his communications (don't think he ever wrote a clear order to anybody!) and Johnston was the general up until Seven Oaks. The aggressive nature of Lee and his top commanders (none of whom were especially noteworthy at this stage) would have been of great benefit if he'd been the general at the beginning.

However, we then go to Joe Johnston's strategy. Johnston understood politics, especially foreign politics, a whole lot better than did Lee. He wished to conserve life, resources and the state of Virginia - that was where the fighting would light most. He believed in a war of attrition - if he tread water long enough, the Union would allow the separation because the people would be tired of dying to keep them in the Union. Lincoln added the objective to eliminating slavery, which didn't inspire the North that much either. That played well into Johnston's military strategy - if Davis and company could keep the Southern people focused on independence, he could keep the North off their soil until recognition. All this with far less cost than Lee's strategy. Johnston's waltz through Georgia with Sherman was working well. Sherman was smart and knew his business, but Johnston was far better, and he knew the value of a retro maneuver. (Grant used this tactic frequently.) Atlanta - Johnston was actually winning but it looked so much like losing he was yanked right out of the saddle and Hood hopped in. Sherman was quite pleased with this - he knew he was being beat and he knew he could not conduct the operations in Georgia he wanted to conduct, with the dramatic effect they would have if Johnston simply stayed before him. That meant the Confederacy still had an army capable of protecting its citizens, fighting the enemy and Sherman's troops would not have been able to cut their logistics line. Johnston had shown what he would do when he retreated from Vicksburg through Mississippi. He was worse than a plague of locusts!
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
- Johnston was actually winning but it looked so much like losing he was yanked right out of the saddle and Hood hopped in
You are right Johnson should not have been pulled for some reason Lee doing the same tactics has Johnson but Johnson got a bad rep...

Name a war that was won on the defensive ?
One could say our Revolutionary war was a defensive war. Except for an odd battle here and there the British did as they wanted... Cromwell had held out for a few more days a relief force was on it way, on the high seas heading south from New York... The British army was not beaten but it thrown in the towel anyway... I would to point out the British had New York and Charleston and could take any city it wanted Like Philly once...

Johnson's strategy sucked since an outnumbered Union Army still took Atlanta.
Not so fast, Johnson was gone by then and Hood have squandered everything Johnson had achieved with the confederate army. I admit Atlanta would have fallen but maybe in December or later and there may not have been March to the Sea... Peach Tree has Johnson plan but executed by Hood...
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
I think you mean Cornwallis? The British didn't really want to commit a lot of troops to the colonies - the sugar plantations in the Caribbean were far more valuable to them. If it had not been for the very formidable French navy contesting the British off our coasts, it might not have gone well. However, the Atlantic coast was a difficult one. When the British sent a squadron to New York, the largest ship of the line they could send was 36 guns, not even a third rate, because of the lack of draft in New York harbor, particularly at the mouth of the Hudson. This is why Washington was able to make his spectacular escape from New York to New Jersey under cover of fog. The British ships could not get up the river close enough to see or hear them.

For naval power, we had the privateers and John Paul Jones was the most successful of them. He raided all over the coast of Britain and made a true pest of himself. The Americans had a navy and a Marine corps, but neither was notable until the Barbary Coast wars and Peebles Boys. By then we had things organized and proved ourselves to be a possible challenge to the British naval might. Britain ruled the seas for sure! There was a distinct strength in our ships as well that was simply not possible for any European power - live oak, which only grew in the southern US. Live oak was amazingly flexible and stout, with a certain give that made cannonballs literally bounce off our ships with little damage. (That's how the Constitution got the nickname Old Ironsides.) Jeffery Humphries was a genius shipbuilder who came up with a method of stepped keels, which enabled American ships to carry heavier cannon without the dreaded bowing of the keel. British ships had the heavy artillery in the center with the lighter going up the sides to carronades and stern chasers. Due to Humphries' innovative design, Americans could line the whole length of the ship with the heaviest cannon. The masts and rigging was also innovative - American sailors could maneuver much more quickly and the ships had greater speed. Horatio Nelson was watching the Constitution work its way around Gibraltar one day. They're going to kick our butts with those ships, he observed. (His next thought was likely - I gotta get me one!)

Mosquitoes? Yep! Washington DC was known for being the swamp before modern times! Washington magnanimously gave a section of land off the Potomac to the new country for the new capital...because he couldn't sell it for love ner money. Malaria country!
 
Top