I liked much he noted the import of "The Lost Cause." Great lecture despite some family letters that have emerged that make General Lee out as a less benevolent slave holder the service of General Lee in the Mexican war and hs success with Jackson n the Civil War are notable studies in strategy and tactics that can not be ignored for bias any more than we should not learn from Erwin Rommel or even General Giap. I was at Chancellorsville today and I often drive Brock road between the Wilderness and Spotsylvania, where my Great Grandfather's Regiment lead the Army of the Potomac from on e field of battle to the next combined incurring more casualties than any single battle of the war. 12th Mass. "Webster's Regiment.
@@francisdrake6622 No I don't. Just because you i not like what I wrote doesn't mean you didn't understand it. Or don;t you know the basic issues like the "Lost Cause" and what it means? and are you unaware that for years proponents of the Lost cause held onto the myth Lee didn't technically own or abuse slaves, which has been disproved by the release of letters held in a family deposit box only released to the public that debunks that?. I can not be held responsible for what you do not know or do not want to know.
jeb stuart Do you have.cognitive issues? No one said they disagreed with you, we just could not understand a thing you said. Your argument was disjointed, unintelligible, and nothing more than a word salad. Work on your syntax, grammar, spelling, and sentence structure next time so that a reader can understand you.
Ultimately Lee is a overrated but good tactical general who like a regional rebel warlord today can win many battles and hold back the enemy for a time but doesn't have a plan beyond that nor the next season. The majority of his success was achieved in a small window of 13 months after taking command in June of 62'. His ability to go on the offensive ended forever in Gettysburg in July of 63'. Also he never affected the war outside a narrow area of Virginia, and some of Maryland and Pennsylvania. He never evolved pass the Napoleonic mindset of a single victory or capturing the political center was all that was needed to win. The biggest mystery to me is why he didn't learn this in Mexico under Scott while Grant did allowing him to become a true National commanding General with a strategic plan. Possibly being a quarter master allowed Grant to see the overall strategy involved that Lee missed while scouting from battle to battle.
He was not the national commander, Jeff Davis was. For his part, Lee tried, correctly, the best available strategy, attack Northern morale, just as General Giap did successfully. It was a close run thing, up to Sherman's capture of Atlanta, which facilitated the reelection of Lincoln. Thank God for Grant and Sherman.
Lee invented trench warfare by making sure each Confederate soldier carried a shovel starting in 1864 and pioneered the kind of trenches that European observers didn't associate with what was to be in their continent 50 years later. Had he seen a Gaitlin gun and understood his potential the Confederacy would have probably needed 20 of these to secure the St-Petersburg trenches and make them impossible to take by the Union. So many ifs and so many things Lee could be backward on but also progressive in other areas. What he lacked in being still rooted in a Napoleonic mindset he made up by being recognizant of new things that had potential, including finding in Jackson the perfect sidekick. In that sense Lee was imperfect as a human being but still one of the greatest general to have ever lived, besides Hannibal and Caesar.
Trashy title. At what point was the south close to winning the war? They won one major battle in the western theater. 1. Jackson and Lee did well for a while in the eastern campaign with 1 army. It was far from the only army or area of fighting. Did they ever crush the union army? No. Did they ever threatened DC? Nope. Did they ever have any decent campaigns in enemy turf? No. So how did they almost win a war? Lee came the closest anyone came in the east to have a whole army destroyed at Antietam and the days after.
The way the presenter explained the Pennsylvania campaign makes it reek of desperation. Akin to the Spring offensive of 1918. From a strategic perspective by this point the only way they could win is by capturing the Potomac Army and occupying Washington . . . an unlikely occurrence. It would have been more feasible to pull that off if they made the newly appointed Potomac commander think on the fly. The Pennsylvania campaign thus made sense in this regard.
No, the point was to bring a force capable of threatening Washingtion with destruction, or capture to force Lincoln to sue for peace. Lee never once thought of "capturing the Army of the Potomac.
The title of this video is simply absurd. At no time during the war did the Confederates come even remotely close to "winning". The Confederate victories in the east were all of an indecisive nature. Startling victories though they were, they did no more than prevent Union forces from capturing Richmond. And with one exception (at Fredericksburg), they came at a cost in manpower which the Confederacy could not afford. In the west, the Confederates were placed on the clear defensive by the end of April of 1862, when the largest city in the Confederacy (New Orleans) was captured by Union forces, and when they were defeated at Shiloh earlier in that month.They lost every major battle which they fought in the west until Chickamauga- three months after Gettysburg.
Very interesting. Validated many perceptions I've come to believe over the years. Would be interested in your thoughts on Jackson early on by Gen Porter Alexander. Especially his opinion of how Jackson's religious beliefs affected his speed of action in the overall results in some early engagements. Thanks!
The "victory" at Chancellorsville by Jackson and Lee has been almost glorified the fact i it was a tragic victory, the South won a victory no doubt but the cost was horrible nearly 1 to 1 . The question is if Lee drew some wrong conclusions about the his forces capabilities against uneven odds would Jackson's presence at Gettysburg have added or balanced Lee's assessments? It has taken over 100 nearly 150 years to question the merit of the victory at Chancellorsville considering how it bled Lee's forces worse than the Army of the Potomacs. I don't know how anyone could assume Jackson would have been any wiser. Other issues can be traced to that battle loss of ey leaders while the Unions leaders were becoming more professional and the fact the Army of the Potomac was grossly under rated because of a succession of Commanders who lacked merit. The assumption that had Jackson been there things would have gone better may be outweighed on the scales that things could have gone worse.
Jeb, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm terribly sorry. I really didn't understand your first post, and I was too harsh. Again, I apologize. It's obvious you are well versed in this subject. And for what it's worth, I don't think the Civil War had very much to do with slavery.
@@francisdrake6622 No problem thank you for this response. I appreciate your candor the other guys not so much. We should be about learning from each other I'm sure you have read things that peak your curiosity and interest and sometimes we are just trying to put together all the facts and in this age of information it ain't always easy. Thanks.
@@jebstuart1475 Yes sir, thank you for the cordial reply. My first degree was in history - couldn't make a living at it, so I switched to environmental science. I've been studying history since I was 8. I'll get historical insight and knowledge from whomever has it and thank them heartily!
Lee, and most of the Civil War generals, would have been quite competent in Napoleon's army. Only Jackson and Longstreet, on the Confederate side, and Grant and Sherman, on the Union side, thought in strategic / operational terms.
Possibly. If there were no political leader like Lincoln who wanted total victory, it might have ended differently. Another President might have cut a deal to avoid casualties or the involvement of another nations.
General Lee and Thomas Jackson will be honored in our New “Army.”
I liked much he noted the import of "The Lost Cause." Great lecture despite some family letters that have emerged that make General Lee out as a less benevolent slave holder the service of General Lee in the Mexican war and hs success with Jackson n the Civil War are notable studies in strategy and tactics that can not be ignored for bias any more than we should not learn from Erwin Rommel or even General Giap.
I was at Chancellorsville today and I often drive Brock road between the Wilderness and Spotsylvania, where my Great Grandfather's Regiment lead the Army of the Potomac from on e field of battle to the next combined incurring more casualties than any single battle of the war. 12th Mass. "Webster's Regiment.
"Jeb" that didn't make a damn bit of sense. You're going to have to rewrite your post so that I can understand it.
jeb stuart huh?
@@francisdrake6622 No I don't. Just because you i not like what I wrote doesn't mean you didn't understand it. Or don;t you know the basic issues like the "Lost Cause" and what it means? and are you unaware that for years proponents of the Lost cause held onto the myth Lee didn't technically own or abuse slaves, which has been disproved by the release of letters held in a family deposit box only released to the public that debunks that?. I can not be held responsible for what you do not know or do not want to know.
jeb stuart Do you have.cognitive issues? No one said they disagreed with you, we just could not understand a thing you said. Your argument was disjointed, unintelligible, and nothing more than a word salad. Work on your syntax, grammar, spelling, and sentence structure next time so that a reader can understand you.
@@nicholasgiokas3111 Actually I think the cognitive issue is yours as I explained sorry it was too complicated for you.
Excellent learned a lot
Ultimately Lee is a overrated but good tactical general who like a regional rebel warlord today can win many battles and hold back the enemy for a time but doesn't have a plan beyond that nor the next season. The majority of his success was achieved in a small window of 13 months after taking command in June of 62'. His ability to go on the offensive ended forever in Gettysburg in July of 63'. Also he never affected the war outside a narrow area of Virginia, and some of Maryland and Pennsylvania. He never evolved pass the Napoleonic mindset of a single victory or capturing the political center was all that was needed to win. The biggest mystery to me is why he didn't learn this in Mexico under Scott while Grant did allowing him to become a true National commanding General with a strategic plan. Possibly being a quarter master allowed Grant to see the overall strategy involved that Lee missed while scouting from battle to battle.
He was not the national commander, Jeff Davis was. For his part, Lee tried, correctly, the best available strategy, attack Northern morale, just as General Giap did successfully. It was a close run thing, up to Sherman's capture of Atlanta, which facilitated the reelection of Lincoln. Thank God for Grant and Sherman.
❤
Lee invented trench warfare by making sure each Confederate soldier carried a shovel starting in 1864 and pioneered the kind of trenches that European observers didn't associate with what was to be in their continent 50 years later. Had he seen a Gaitlin gun and understood his potential the Confederacy would have probably needed 20 of these to secure the St-Petersburg trenches and make them impossible to take by the Union. So many ifs and so many things Lee could be backward on but also progressive in other areas. What he lacked in being still rooted in a Napoleonic mindset he made up by being recognizant of new things that had potential, including finding in Jackson the perfect sidekick. In that sense Lee was imperfect as a human being but still one of the greatest general to have ever lived, besides Hannibal and Caesar.
Trashy title. At what point was the south close to winning the war? They won one major battle in the western theater. 1.
Jackson and Lee did well for a while in the eastern campaign with 1 army. It was far from the only army or area of fighting.
Did they ever crush the union army? No. Did they ever threatened DC? Nope. Did they ever have any decent campaigns in enemy turf? No. So how did they almost win a war?
Lee came the closest anyone came in the east to have a whole army destroyed at Antietam and the days after.
The way the presenter explained the Pennsylvania campaign makes it reek of desperation. Akin to the Spring offensive of 1918. From a strategic perspective by this point the only way they could win is by capturing the Potomac Army and occupying Washington . . . an unlikely occurrence. It would have been more feasible to pull that off if they made the newly appointed Potomac commander think on the fly. The Pennsylvania campaign thus made sense in this regard.
No, the point was to bring a force capable of threatening Washingtion with destruction, or capture to force Lincoln to sue for peace. Lee never once thought of "capturing the Army of the Potomac.
@@robertdubois2917 your right about that. Capturing could be replaced with destruction or forced retreat enabling washington to be occupied.
The title of this video is simply absurd. At no time during the war did the Confederates come even remotely close to "winning". The Confederate victories in the east were all of an indecisive nature. Startling victories though they were, they did no more than prevent Union forces from capturing Richmond. And with one exception (at Fredericksburg), they came at a cost in manpower which the Confederacy could not afford.
In the west, the Confederates were placed on the clear defensive by the end of April of 1862, when the largest city in the Confederacy (New Orleans) was captured by Union forces, and when they were defeated at Shiloh earlier in that month.They lost every major battle which they fought in the west until Chickamauga- three months after Gettysburg.
Very interesting. Validated many perceptions I've come to believe over the years. Would be interested in your thoughts on Jackson early on by Gen Porter Alexander. Especially his opinion of how Jackson's religious beliefs affected his speed of action in the overall results in some early engagements. Thanks!
The "victory" at Chancellorsville by Jackson and Lee has been almost glorified the fact i it was a tragic victory, the South won a victory no doubt but the cost was horrible nearly 1 to 1 . The question is if Lee drew some wrong conclusions about the his forces capabilities against uneven odds would Jackson's presence at Gettysburg have added or balanced Lee's assessments? It has taken over 100 nearly 150 years to question the merit of the victory at Chancellorsville considering how it bled Lee's forces worse than the Army of the Potomacs. I don't know how anyone could assume Jackson would have been any wiser. Other issues can be traced to that battle loss of ey leaders while the Unions leaders were becoming more professional and the fact the Army of the Potomac was grossly under rated because of a succession of Commanders who lacked merit. The assumption that had Jackson been there things would have gone better may be outweighed on the scales that things could have gone worse.
Jeb, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm terribly sorry. I really didn't understand your first post, and I was too harsh. Again, I apologize. It's obvious you are well versed in this subject. And for what it's worth, I don't think the Civil War had very much to do with slavery.
@@francisdrake6622 No problem thank you for this response. I appreciate your candor the other guys not so much. We should be about learning from each other I'm sure you have read things that peak your curiosity and interest and sometimes we are just trying to put together all the facts and in this age of information it ain't always easy. Thanks.
@@jebstuart1475 Yes sir, thank you for the cordial reply. My first degree was in history - couldn't make a living at it, so I switched to environmental science. I've been studying history since I was 8. I'll get historical insight and knowledge from whomever has it and thank them heartily!
Lee, and most of the Civil War generals, would have been quite competent in Napoleon's army. Only Jackson and Longstreet, on the Confederate side, and Grant and Sherman, on the Union side, thought in strategic / operational terms.
Don't forget Winfield Scott. His strategy ultimately won.
Lee was only unbeatable for a year and was successful in all but destroying his army during this time.
Interesting idea, except the south could never have won the war. The North would have eventually worn it down.
Possibly. If there were no political leader like Lincoln who wanted total victory, it might have ended differently. Another President might have cut a deal to avoid casualties or the involvement of another nations.
@@generalripper1964 For Luncoln restoration of the Union was his point of honor
If they had taken D.C. and/or Lincoln himself, they might have made the North sue for peace.
@@francisdrake6622 they coudn't do it, because fortifications of Washington were very strong, too strong in 1862-63
@@Duseika72 Yah, you're right. You're right. Even if they had seiged it, DC could have been resupplied through the Potomac.
I thought "almost" only counts in Horseshoes and grenades.
Almost? The south never came close to victory.
If Davis had listened to Jackson and followed up on 1st Manassas then the war would have never really gotten started.
@@vemmaguy1977 Woulda coulda shoulda. We could do that till the cows come home.
I thought "almost" only counts in Horseshoes and grenades.