Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[civilwarwest] Lee

Expand Messages
  • darthcarl13@hotmail.com
    In my opinion, Lee was a brilliant general who knew what he was doing. At Gettysburg I feel that he had a sense of this is the final battle, no matter what.
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 20, 1999
      In my opinion, Lee was a brilliant general who knew what he was doing.
      At Gettysburg I feel that he had a sense of "this is the final battle,
      no matter what." A year earlier in his life, I doubt that he would
      have ordered the horrible assaults that he ordered. Lee was a tired,
      old, and slowly weakening man. A genius in all respects, he had a pair
      of bad days in July of 1863. Had Jackson been there...

      Grant, on the other hand was overrated. His tactics (I use the term
      loosely) at Vicksburg and Petersburg were siege tactics devoid of
      tactical skill. His record against Lee is unimpressive and shows that
      Grant's only skill was a fighting spirit matched by no one.

      Sherman was a general who not only knew the tactical side of the
      battle, but the psychological one as well. His march to the sea was of
      little military value but was a massive blow to what was left of the
      south's morale.

      By the way, I am writing a scholarship essay on how Jackson would have
      effected the outcome of the Civil War. It is a bit lengthy and a not
      perfect, owing to the fact that I am only 17 and this is my first
      draft, nor is the document finished. It has little to do with the
      western theater yet but y'all might find it interesting.

      Respectfully,
      Carl Stanley Thames
    • darthcarl13@hotmail.com
      In my opinion, Lee was a brilliant general who knew what he was doing. At Gettysburg I feel that he had a sense of this is the final battle, no matter what.
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 20, 1999
        In my opinion, Lee was a brilliant general who knew what he was doing.
        At Gettysburg I feel that he had a sense of "this is the final battle,
        no matter what." A year earlier in his life, I doubt that he would
        have ordered the horrible assaults that he ordered. Lee was a tired,
        old, and slowly weakening man. A genius in all respects, he had a pair
        of bad days in July of 1863. Had Jackson been there...

        Grant, on the other hand was overrated. His tactics (I use the term
        loosely) at Vicksburg and Petersburg were siege tactics devoid of
        tactical skill. His record against Lee is unimpressive and shows that
        Grant's only skill was a fighting spirit matched by no one.

        Sherman was a general who not only knew the tactical side of the
        battle, but the psychological one as well. His march to the sea was of
        little military value but was a massive blow to what was left of the
        south's morale.

        By the way, I am writing a scholarship essay on how Jackson would have
        effected the outcome of the Civil War. It is a bit lengthy and a not
        perfect, owing to the fact that I am only 17 and this is my first
        draft, nor is the document finished. It has little to do with the
        western theater yet but y'all might find it interesting.

        Respectfully,
        Carl Stanley Thames
      • Nonums@aol.com
        Dear Carl: We are very much in agreement on the topics touched. I would be very please to read your work. Will you please send it to me? Hope you ve read
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 20, 1999
          Dear Carl:
          We are very much in agreement on the topics touched.
          I would be very please to read your work. Will you please send it to me?
          Hope you've read Robertsan's excellent book "The Man They Called Stonewall"
          I believe. First rate writer and historian who was also seventeen at one
          point.
          Let me hear from you re: your work, please.
          All the best,
          Jack O'Connor Nonums@...
        • Nonums@aol.com
          Dear Carl: We are very much in agreement on the topics touched. I would be very please to read your work. Will you please send it to me? Hope you ve read
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 20, 1999
            Dear Carl:
            We are very much in agreement on the topics touched.
            I would be very please to read your work. Will you please send it to me?
            Hope you've read Robertsan's excellent book "The Man They Called Stonewall"
            I believe. First rate writer and historian who was also seventeen at one
            point.
            Let me hear from you re: your work, please.
            All the best,
            Jack O'Connor Nonums@...
          • Enjolras31@aol.com
            Well, I thought I d throw my two cents into the ring: I still believe that Lee was the best commander, north or south, in the entire war. I also think that he
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 21, 1999
              Well, I thought I'd throw my two cents into the ring:
              I still believe that Lee was the best commander, north or south, in the
              entire war. I also think that he was considerable better when he dictated the
              fight, like during the Penninsular Campaign and at Chancellorsville. A Union
              general simply could not allow himself to slow down the offensive. This being
              said, Lee made several errors that probably should have cost him his army.
              The first one was staying to fight at Antietam. Up until the batle, the
              campaign had been a successful one, with the boosting of southern morale,
              scaring the northerners, and capturing Harper's Ferry. But to fight against
              2:1 with your back to the Potomac seems quite ignorant. Had McClellan thrown
              his entire force into the fight September 17, or if Burnside and his
              suboordinates not been so inept, the war was over. There were several others,
              but I'll skip ahead to Spotsylvania. When the Mule Shoe was constructed, it
              was simply not a sound position, although Lee seemingly did not have
              knowledge of how weak it was. He was assured the next morning that if there
              was enough artillery in the area, it could be held. The night before the
              union assault on the angle, as Grant shifted several corps to the south-east,
              Lee misinterperetted this as another slip to the south-east by Grant. In
              order to speed the movement oif his amry, Lee removed all of the artillery
              from the Mule Shoe, without properly verrifying the reports he had. When the
              Union assault came, the artillery should have been able to repulse the union
              assault, but instead Hancock's and Wright's corps pushed past the Bloody
              Angle and it took the good individual fighting of several southern units to
              stop Lee's army form being split in two.
              Okay, so I hope I made my point, because this the last I will speak on Lee.
              Thank you,
              Nick Rosen
            • Enjolras31@aol.com
              Well, I thought I d throw my two cents into the ring: I still believe that Lee was the best commander, north or south, in the entire war. I also think that he
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 21, 1999
                Well, I thought I'd throw my two cents into the ring:
                I still believe that Lee was the best commander, north or south, in the
                entire war. I also think that he was considerable better when he dictated the
                fight, like during the Penninsular Campaign and at Chancellorsville. A Union
                general simply could not allow himself to slow down the offensive. This being
                said, Lee made several errors that probably should have cost him his army.
                The first one was staying to fight at Antietam. Up until the batle, the
                campaign had been a successful one, with the boosting of southern morale,
                scaring the northerners, and capturing Harper's Ferry. But to fight against
                2:1 with your back to the Potomac seems quite ignorant. Had McClellan thrown
                his entire force into the fight September 17, or if Burnside and his
                suboordinates not been so inept, the war was over. There were several others,
                but I'll skip ahead to Spotsylvania. When the Mule Shoe was constructed, it
                was simply not a sound position, although Lee seemingly did not have
                knowledge of how weak it was. He was assured the next morning that if there
                was enough artillery in the area, it could be held. The night before the
                union assault on the angle, as Grant shifted several corps to the south-east,
                Lee misinterperetted this as another slip to the south-east by Grant. In
                order to speed the movement oif his amry, Lee removed all of the artillery
                from the Mule Shoe, without properly verrifying the reports he had. When the
                Union assault came, the artillery should have been able to repulse the union
                assault, but instead Hancock's and Wright's corps pushed past the Bloody
                Angle and it took the good individual fighting of several southern units to
                stop Lee's army form being split in two.
                Okay, so I hope I made my point, because this the last I will speak on Lee.
                Thank you,
                Nick Rosen
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.