General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gen. Robert E. Lee - Not that good at his job [View all]malthaussen
(17,204 posts)As for the overall strategy, I disagree with the interpretation that "all the CSA had to do to win was not lose." They were competent enough to figure that a long war of attrition would have only one conclusion, so went for an aggressive strategy in hopes of shaking up the USA and maybe securing some foreign intervention. Whether the latter would have been of much practical use is a separate question. Personally, I doubt it.
As for Lee as tactician, I have always pretty much agreed that he pulled off a lot of things he should not have been able to get away with against more competent opponents. How much of the credit goes to him for recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing armies and commanders, and how much of it was blind luck is open to question, but one notes the same tactics didn't work all that well in the Western theatre, so other things being equal, Lee must have had something on the ball. He did tend to throw his people forward relentlessly and rely on their valor and the enemy's confusion to win the day, which tendency Michael Shaara recognized as far back as 1974 in The Killer Angels.
Ultimately, you can't argue with success, and Lee's main job, of keeping Richmond clear of blue bellies, is one at which he was successful for several years when any rational analysis of the odds would have had him down and out. There must be something there, one might think.
-- Mal