Quote:
|
Originally Posted by polishshooter
INSTEAD, he squanders the GREATEST assets of the Confederacy, interior lines, manpower, and wealth, defending an "artificial" capitol 50 miles from his enemy's STRENGTH???? That was only MADE the capitol to "buy" his LOYALTY???? And then goes on the OFFENSIVE????
|
Polish, y'all need a T-shirt which says, "I'm just jealous 'cause the Rebs had a man like Lee, and all we Yanks got was a sloppy ol' drunk."
Your reasoning is in error, Polish. Let me begin by stating for the record that locating the Confederate capitol at Richmond was strategically foolish for the Confederates. Yet it must be remembered that the decision to do so was POLITICALLY based, not militarily founded. Secession of Virginia was an absolute necessity to the formation of the CSA as a viable state. The little industry the South possessed was located in Virginia, mostly in and about Richmond. Once Richmond was chosen, the necessity of defending it as the symbolic home and center of the Confederacy naturally followed. Lee, as commander of the primary Confederate field army in the eastern theatre, had no choice but to govern his strategy--in large degree--around that key city. If Richmond had fallen to the Union, it is likely the Confederacy would have fallen to with it. It is hardly reasonable to chastise Lee for strategic decisions over which he had no control.
I must also disagree with your reasoning on another implied issue, Polish. In your argument it seems you are committing one of the gravest errors any historian can commit; i.e., you are thinking anachronistically. You argue that Lee should have fought the kind of campaign we might fight today, but that was simply not done in the 19th century, at least not in the United States. Guerrilla tactics and terrorism were anathema then, and no respected commander--North or South--would have employed them. Armies fought armies, and let the chips fall where they may when the smoke cleared. Honor was still more than just a word to such people. Yes, there were such incidents during the Civil War, but those occurred later and were committed by irregulars like William Quantrell, not honorable men like Lee and Grant. Even Sherman in his "march to the sea" concentrated on destruction of militarily useful property, not the killing of innocent civilians.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by polishshooter
WHY isn't Winfield Scott on the list?
|
Because he was so old and fat that he couldn't even mount a horse, Polish, much less command an army, and indeed he didn't for any significant length of time!
Granted, Scott did see much earlier than most that the Civil War would ultimately be won through attrition, but that does not qualify him as a tactical thinker, nor allow for the possibility that the Union might loose by a brilliant military thrust from the other side.