Author Topic: American Civil War (Read 20599 times)

Feanor Fire Heart · « **Reply #150 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:03:58 PM »

as I said, such a tragic figure. I wonder what happened to him after the war. he kinda disappears in the history books after the surrender.

Inarticulate · « **Reply #151 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:05:09 PM »

Ooh, I read it as 1875. Weird.

wissenlander · « **Reply #152 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:42:25 PM »

He died a few years after the war, in 1870. President Andrew Johnson said he wasn't liable for treason, so I think that's where the confusion may have come from. He became president of Washington and Lee college, that was about the biggest thing he did that I can recall.

jlutin · « **Reply #153 on:** October 27, 2009, 01:33:25 AM »

Lee's ancestral home, sitting on a hill overlooking Washington DC was taken and turned into a military cemetery and his home a hospital. Arlington.

Feanor Fire Heart · « **Reply #154 on:** October 27, 2009, 01:55:03 AM »

Quote from: jlutin on October 27, 2009, 01:33:25 AM

Lee's ancestral home, sitting on a hill overlooking Washington DC was taken and turned into a military cemetery and his home a hospital. Arlington.

yup, but thats just his property. Also if you ever visit DC, totally check out the arlington cemetery. Do other countries have military, government run, cemeteries?

Inarticulate · « **Reply #155 on:** October 27, 2009, 01:59:05 AM »

Feck loads in france.

t12161991 · « **Reply #156 on:** October 27, 2009, 02:04:01 AM »

Even more in Russia.

Von Kurst · « **Reply #157 on:** October 27, 2009, 03:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Union General on October 26, 2009, 08:48:07 PM

He was a very tragic figure! He had taken the oath to defend his nation, but his heart rested with his home state. And he proved to be more than excellent as a general, though he was an engineer during the Mexican War and had never led troops before. The man was a genius... Easily one of the greatest generals of American History and probably the most well-known...
-The General

Lee was a staff officer during the Mexican War, he saw combat and received a commendation for bravery. His actions had a direct impact on several engagements. After serving as commander of West Point, he commanded cavalry in Texas against the Comanche. He and Stuart are the officers in direct command of the troops who capture John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

Gustavus Magnus · « **Reply #158 on:** October 27, 2009, 05:33:29 AM »

Lee was a good army general and while I won't argue that he might be one of the most famous, I'm not sure where he would rank overall. It is a bit pointless, though, to try to compile comparative lists as each general had completely different armies and circumstances.

I do think that Lee was a decent man and did the best he could for a cause that he did not completely support, which is very much like a protagonist in a Greek tragedy. I have wondered if the reason why his offensive campaigns in the north were not his best because he had a conflict of conscience. Defending Virginia was easy but launching an attack against his the country he had sworn an oath to protect was difficult.

t12161991 · « **Reply #159 on:** October 27, 2009, 05:48:34 AM »

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I think more than a few Southerners might have faced that dilemna.

Union General · « **Reply #160 on:** October 27, 2009, 09:10:17 PM »

Quote from: Gustavus Magnus on October 27, 2009, 05:33:29 AM

Lee was a good army general and while I won't argue that he might be one of the most famous, I'm not sure where he would rank overall. It is a bit pointless, though, to try to compile comparative lists as each general had completely different armies and circumstances.

I do think that Lee was a decent man and did the best he could for a cause that he did not completely support, which is very much like a protagonist in a Greek tragedy. I have wondered if the reason why his offensive campaigns in the north were not his best because he had a conflict of conscience. Defending Virginia was easy but launching an attack against his the country he had sworn an oath to protect was difficult.

He invaded Maryland, where he ended at Antietam, primarily for two reasons....

1. He believed that he could sway the Confederate sympathy present in the State.

2. He saw Marylanders as similar to Virginians like himself.

He invaded the North a second time to demoralize the Union with a victory on Northern soil.

-The General

wissenlander · « **Reply #161 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:01:18 PM »

Having an army's worth of men stationed in the state had a fair amount to do with that.

Bringing this over here:

Quote from: Gustavus Magnus on October 27, 2009, 09:07:00 PM

The Conferates may have won the field/woods at Chancellorsville, but I'm sure Lee would have traded a dozen losses for Stonewall Jackson if he could have done so.

Probably true. Tying in with the Lutzen thread, do you see Chancellorsville as a loss because of the loss of Jackson?

t12161991 · « **Reply #162 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:03:05 PM »

An overall strategic loss, yes for sure. A tactical loss for that campaign, not so much.

Union General · « **Reply #163 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:17:10 PM »

Quote from: t12161991 on October 27, 2009, 11:03:05 PM

An overall strategic loss, yes for sure. A tactical loss for that campaign, not so much.

Well, it got Hooker out of command of the Army of the Potomac...

-The General

t12161991 · « **Reply #164 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:32:57 PM »

And the guy who followed him was just so much better...

Union General · « **Reply #165 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:38:49 PM »

Quote from: t12161991 on October 27, 2009, 11:32:57 PM

And the guy who followed him was just so much better...

Meade?!? He was actually competent!

Inarticulate · « **Reply #166 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:40:36 PM »

Well most of the Union Generals *cough* were quite dire.

Union General · « **Reply #167 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:43:44 PM »

Quote from: Inarticulate on October 27, 2009, 11:40:36 PM

Well most of the Union Generals *cough* were quite dire.

READY!
AIM!
FIRE!
*Opens volley into Inart's screen*

Anyways......
We had far better generals in the Western theater, but Meade was a decent general. Anyone who says otherwise is free to voice their opinion....

-The General

Feanor Fire Heart · « **Reply #168 on:** October 27, 2009, 11:47:20 PM »

Oh Sherman Sherman Sherman Sherman!

t12161991 · « **Reply #169 on:** October 28, 2009, 12:43:22 AM »

Oh it was Meade? I thought it was Hooker for some reason...

Yes, Meade was at the least competent, if not great.

jlutin · « **Reply #170 on:** October 28, 2009, 03:19:25 AM »

One of the problems in the East was too many generals. The troops were very close to DC and you had endless trains of Congressmen and Senators who tried to "help" run the war.

I think that Lee was clearly the best general of the war (at least on defence) and he has some good generals under him. But beyond that, the North had far more (numbers) capable men. It just took a while to identify them and get them in the battle against Lee.

Big Time · « **Reply #171 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:52:51 AM »

Ironically, if I remember correctly (far too lazy to google it right now), Arlington National Cemetary is built on his land, seized after the war. If so, it is both awesome and tragic.

Lee was a great leader, but I think his subordinates deserve a shout out.

Longstreet was unfairly maligned after the war for criticizing Lee, but his criticism was deserved. Longstreet was also a forward-thinking genius of defensive warfare.

Lee has gotten a lot of credit for Jackson's early war action, also. If Jackson hadn't been capped by his own boys, the war would have had a much different tune.

I'm not trying to discredit Lee, just trying to point out that he had some great help.

Gustavus Magnus · « **Reply #172 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:31:51 AM »

I think Longstreet was a very good general and likely would have done well in Lee's place. Lee was good and he had some very capable generals below him. It took the North a couple of years to weed out the incompetent ones. Well, most of them.

Chancellorsville clearly was a tactical victory for the South. However, the loss of Jackson was tremendous, especially just prior to the the invasion of Pennsylvania. If Jackson had been at Gettysburg, then he might have been able to succeed where Longstreet wasn't able; to convince Lee not to launch an assault against the Union Center on the 3rd day. He also might have pushed his troops harder on the days proceeding the battle and likely wouldn't have been as sluggish as Dick Ewell, which could have ended the battle before the 3rd day.

wissenlander · « **Reply #173 on:** October 28, 2009, 12:17:50 PM »

I'm in agreement with everything on this page, so there's no need for me to reiterate it.

The Lee estate was captured early on as the beginning of the buffer around DC. For his treasonous acts against the Union, someone saw it fitting that Union soldiers be buried there. Don't remember the year, though.

t12161991 · « **Reply #174 on:** October 28, 2009, 01:30:23 PM »

I have a lecture on Lee's High Command it's quite good and quite interesting.

News:

Author Topic: American Civil War (Read 20599 times)