I persoally dont know jack about the civil war you americans had. But I sometimes watch the Dukes of Hazzard and theyre car is called "general lee". So on this basis, I pick Lee
that seems like a valid reason
Neither are all that impressive when you actually look at things critically.
Jackson had one good moment. In the Valley. It was masterful.
And yet a couple of weeks later, he suddenly lost all ability and never regained it. He was clumsy during the Seven Days and fell asleep instead of ordering an attack and lost a battle and then was a non-entity for the next year and his "turning maneuver" at Chancellorsville was poorly organized, executed in roughshod fashion and failed to achieve its objectives. And then he died--which is the only reason he's remembered so well.
Lee is single-handedly responsible for the defeat of the Confederacy.
In an era where the dominance of defense was obvious to anyone with a brain, Lee had this idea that he always had to attack. He would make wonderful defensive movements. And then attack from them and his men would ALWAYS be slaughtered. His caused his army to take higher casualty rates than his opponents--who were on the offensive. You can't win a war if you kill your army. And Lee killed his army. By the time he realized that defense was dominant, it was too late.
His "brilliance" is based upon a false assumption that he couldn't win in the first place. But, the Confederacy had a much easier task than the Union. They merely had to keep fighting, bleed the North dry, and they would win. But Lee refused to bleed the North dry--instead he bled the South dry.
There is no real reason why people should think Jackson was anything more than a capable general.
And the worship of Lee is a product of Lost Cause mythology.
You are correct, but.
When Together they were pretty much unbeatable if you attacked them. Once lee lost Jackson, you get the Pickets Charge stuff at Gettysburg.
And He could not bleed out the north, he knew he couldn't. The north had too many troops, industry, population, and money, and food.
To try to bleed out the north would be total suicide for the confeds, that is why towards the end he attacked more, but he made the dumbest mistake and lost a third of his men at Gettysburg.
plus since it was a lop sided war, lee did extraordinary job with what he had. He took a handful of soldiers and wiped out allot of union soldiers.
You are correct though, he did make mistakes later on in the war, but He had to push it. The south was getting tore up and running low on resources and men. Even Gettysburg was fought with them trying to get shoes. 15,000+ men dies on confed side alone, all because they where trying to steal shoes.
If you compare Lee to McClellan, its lee straight up. McClellan would not fight, I am glad Lincoln fired him. Grant needed help but like Lincoln said,"I can not afford to loose this man, he fights"!
Sorry if I got off topic.
~SM
Neither are all that impressive when you actually look at things critically.
Jackson had one good moment. In the Valley. It was masterful.
And yet a couple of weeks later, he suddenly lost all ability and never regained it. He was clumsy during the Seven Days and fell asleep instead of ordering an attack and lost a battle and then was a non-entity for the next year and his "turning maneuver" at Chancellorsville was poorly organized, executed in roughshod fashion and failed to achieve its objectives. And then he died--which is the only reason he's remembered so well.
Lee is single-handedly responsible for the defeat of the Confederacy.
In an era where the dominance of defense was obvious to anyone with a brain, Lee had this idea that he always had to attack. He would make wonderful defensive movements. And then attack from them and his men would ALWAYS be slaughtered. His caused his army to take higher casualty rates than his opponents--who were on the offensive. You can't win a war if you kill your army. And Lee killed his army. By the time he realized that defense was dominant, it was too late.
His "brilliance" is based upon a false assumption that he couldn't win in the first place. But, the Confederacy had a much easier task than the Union. They merely had to keep fighting, bleed the North dry, and they would win. But Lee refused to bleed the North dry--instead he bled the South dry.
There is no real reason why people should think Jackson was anything more than a capable general.
And the worship of Lee is a product of Lost Cause mythology.
On that note, I pick Lee. I'll just lure him out in attack.
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics