Current Events > Robert E. Lee is a bad and overrated general

(+) Yeah! (+)

CMV racists

---

Yep

---

A bad General? Not really. I mean he did pretty well considering his army was a bunch of underfunded farm boys. I think his problem was that he was too traditional in his fighting tactics but hindsight for us is 20/20.

---

He won quite a few battles despite being pretty significantly outnumbered.

But okay

---

Lee was a good strategist and tactician but not a very good general.

He was actually a brilliant general. And after losing the war to Grant he flipped to the union's way of thinking. But he fought for a terrible cause and spearheaded a treasonous movement that cost thousands of lives, not to mention the whitewash version of history paints him as some sort of tragic hero. I'm not sure he deserved the pardon he got after losing just on the basis that the south clearly needed to learn a more heavy handed lesson.

---

He was actually pretty good. They tried to get him to lead the Union army, but he had too many family ties to the Confederate side. Had he led the Union, the war would have ended fairly quickly.

---

yep

total POS

amazing how white revisionists try to paint him tho

scorpion41 posted...

He was actually pretty good. They tried to get him to lead the Union army, but he had too many family ties to the Confederate side. Had he led the Union, the war would have ended fairly quickly.

I'm not sure you can easily say anything would have ended quickly.

---

P4wn4g3 posted...

I'm not sure you can easily say anything would have ended quickly.

The Union had the resources to overwhelm them, they just lacked the leadership until Grant took over. Had Lee accepted the offer to lead the Union army it wouldve been a much shorter war,

---

Tactitically, he was a great general, usually effectively and efficiently deploying inferior numbers and resources in fashions sufficient enough to defeat superior forces on more occasions than not. He was far from perfect in this effect, and his insane decision to launch Pickett's Charge after having seen the devastation that such an attack would suffer just months previously at Fredericksburg was inexcusable and proof that his own legend got to his head. All being said, easily still one of the top-tier generals tactically in frame of the conflict.

Strategically though, he was a knob. He never grasped his role as being akin to Washington's, that keeping an army in the field at all costs was paramount to succeeding. Both of his invasions of the North, and especially the Antietam Campaign, were launched with woefully insufficient manpower and resources and banked on the Union effectively fucking up itself to death. During the Wilderness Campaign, he let himself get locked in a continuous battle of attrition that he knew he couldn't win and allowed himself to get encircled to needlessly protect Richmond. As the siege continued, his army was out of the field for months on end allowing the Union to utterly gut the Confederacy without menaingful threat elsewhere, and his last ditch effort to escape by that point was too little, too late.

All things being considered, he would've been a phenomenal corps commander but needed a direct superior in charge of strategy to take plans out of his hands.

---

scorpion41 posted...

The Union had the resources to overwhelm them, they just lacked the leadership until Grant took over. Had Lee accepted the offer to lead the Union army it wouldve been a much shorter war,

Grant tried taking over sooner but there was a lot of resistance, mostly from within the ranks of the Union military. His COs kept getting moved to the Eastern theater where they were conveniently out of the way. Not convinced it would have been much different for Lee, even if Lee and Grant had been working together.

---

Robert E. Lee was a fantastic battlefield general and you're out of your damned mind if you think otherwise.

---

K181 posted...

insane decision to launch Pickett's Charge

Now I want to watch Gettysburg.

---

Lee was the equivalent of a League player who has great mechanics but runs it down mid.

P4wn4g3 posted...

He was actually a brilliant general. And after losing the war to Grant he flipped to the union's way of thinking. But he fought for a terrible cause and spearheaded a treasonous movement that cost thousands of lives, not to mention the whitewash version of history paints him as some sort of tragic hero. I'm not sure he deserved the pardon he got after losing just on the basis that the south clearly needed to learn a more heavy handed lesson.

ya i always thought it was odd how they treated him after the war was all said and done. like ok you lost but now we're cool, just go teach somewhere seems real fucked up to me...

---

He ee-ehz a distinguished gentle-mun who fought for the Lost Cawse, suh!


---

scorpion41 posted...

The Union had the resources to overwhelm them, they just lacked the leadership until Grant took over. Had Lee accepted the offer to lead the Union army it wouldve been a much shorter war,

It's pretty amazing how often the Union failed to strike decisive blows in the war prior to Grant just strictly because the Union generals in the East were too timid to push their advantage, and this was AFTER Lincoln was begging his generals to be more aggressive. More than many wars the difference in military leadership played a HUGE role in the American Civil War.

---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

Now I want to watch Gettysburg.

Gettysburg is pretty good but Gods and Generals is the better of the Shaara book adaptations

Not a bad general but not as good as his legend, McClellan was a coward.


---

Off topic side note I recently located the owner of my great great great great grandfathers Enfield Rifle that he used during the Civil War and am in the process of trying to buy it or have it gifted upon the collectors death.

He should have spent the rest of his life in prison after the war

Lmao did someone really recommend gods and generals lmao

---

Blue_School posted...

Off topic side note I recently located the owner of my great great great great grandfathers Enfield Rifle that he used during the Civil War and am in the process of trying to buy it or have it gifted upon the collectors death.

thats cool for historical record. how did you find him and know it was your families?

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Lmao did someone really recommend gods and generals lmao

Yup it has flaws but its infinitely better than Gettysburg was.

Odoylerules posted...

thats cool for historical record. how did you find him and know it was your families?

My family has an extensive family tree record that spans back to the 1500s. I was recently trying to find more information about this particular grandfather and stumbled across a video of an extremely distant relative who collects civil war relics. He had found an Enfield rifle for sale with my 4x great grandfathers name and it has been deemed authentic by a few different historical publications. We've emailed back and forth a bit but it seems he wants to keep it for a while.

I see most history figures as I see most rappers I listen to. They probably did 10-20% of the things that they/people around them say they did.

Look how much people today lie even when there is cameras everywhere >_>.

Even if my inner circle with people I respect. I see old stories changing as time goes on and they tell them. Like it's just a subconscious thing people do, when they insert themselves more and more into events they were around for.

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

I see most history figures as I see most rappers I listen to. They probably did 10-20% of the things that they/people around them say they did.

Yes the entire Civil War and the battles that happened were fabricated.

Robert E. Lee wasn't really a general he was a actually a sergeant but a few of his boys pumped him up and people fell for it. The Battle of Antietam was actually just a few dudes out target shooting one day.

Blue_School posted...

Yes the entire Civil War and the battles that happened were fabricated.

Robert E. Lee wasn't really a general he was a actually a sergeant but a few of his boys pumped him up and people fell for it. The Battle of Antietam was actually just a few dudes out target shooting one day.

This guy gets it. No but really, I just think the big events are true and a lot of the rest are extras thrown on it. People do that shit all the time in front of my face. I can only imagine how much people felt they could get pass everyone else back when the average person was way dumber.

Imagine they're talking to Trump Supporters. You can literally make up anything.

---

The whitewashing of American history is real, but there is definitely truth to be found in history and the Civil War wasn't so long ago that historians can't find that truth. Grant wasn't perfect himself, and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation less to free the slaves and more as a military tactic to destroy the southern economy.

---

Lee is a terrible person but to say he wasn't a good general is factually incorrect. Lincoln tried extremely hard to convince Lee to join the Union and failed. If he wasn't a good general Lincoln wouldn't have gone after him. If Lincoln had both Lee and Grant working together the Civil War would have been over much faster.

---

Blue_School posted...

Yup it has flaws but its infinitely better than Gettysburg was.

The FUCK did you just say?

Gods and Generals was absolute trash. Literally the only thing it has on Gettysburg is that Duvall is a better actor than Martin Sheen. Fuck outta here with that mess.

---

To put this in today's perspective, if today we had a Robert E. Lee on either side of the race protests, that side would be organized and would be holding key positions of economic wealth around the US and the capitol of the other side would be besieged. Lee was constantly on the verge of victory during the Civil War until Grant finally made progress south in the western theater. His tactics are still studied at westpoint today.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Lee is a terrible person but to say he wasn't a good general is factually incorrect. Lincoln tried extremely hard to convince Lee to join the Union and failed. If he wasn't a good general Lincoln wouldn't have gone after him. If Lincoln had both Lee and Grant working together the Civil War would have been over much faster.

I mean he was a good general against less skilled generals and defending which is pretty easy to do


---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I mean he was a good general against less skilled generals and defending which is pretty easy to do

Defending is definitely not easy to do. Pushing the attack is arguably easier. The Union had more soldiers but fewer competent generals. All the competent ones eventually ended up by Grant's side.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

I mean he was a good general against less skilled generals and defending which is pretty easy to do

"He was better than people worse than him" is the most statement anyone ever said.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

and defending which is pretty easy to do

Defending? You've show how ignorant you are about this subject.

Lee was an aggressive and reckless general if anything.

Bob Lee is frankly up there with Napoleon and Chinggis Kahn.

Fun fact, currently experts have decided Chinggis is a better romanization than Ghengis.

---

Blue_School posted...

Defending? You've show how ignorant you are about this subject.

Lee was an aggressive and reckless general if anything.

TC is understating Lees history as a military commander because Lee fought for the south. Thats really all there is to it. You know immediately there was no attempt at a good faith discussion to debate the facts and nuances of combat and command, when the thread starts off with change my view, racists.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

TC is understating Lees history as a military commander because Lee fought for the south. Thats really all there is to it. You know immediately there was no attempt at a good faith discussion to debate the facts and nuances of combat and command, when the thread starts off with change my view, racists.

I know but pointing it out whether or not he believes it shows how little credibility he has. His ego will never allow him to be wrong but as long as others perception of him is tanked that's all that matters.

Blue_School posted...

I know but pointing it out whether or not he believes it shows how little credibility he has. His ego will never allow him to be wrong but as long as others perception of him is tanked that's all that matters.

Ok, I see. Well, carry on.

---

Should've been burnt alive tbh

P4wn4g3 posted...

He was actually a brilliant general. And after losing the war to Grant he flipped to the union's way of thinking. But he fought for a terrible cause and spearheaded a treasonous movement that cost thousands of lives, not to mention the whitewash version of history paints him as some sort of tragic hero. I'm not sure he deserved the pardon he got after losing just on the basis that the south clearly needed to learn a more heavy handed lesson.

Something to consider. You say that what the South did was treasonous. What about the Colonists then? They rose up and separated from King George. The South had separated from the North/Union. Not really a difference there.

As far as the "whitewash version of history" that you claim, that is not a version that is taught nationwide. It is only a small section of the South that teaches that. Where I am,Lee was shown to be a competent general who had nearly won the war for the South, but ultimately lost in the end for many reasons. Far from a tragic hero.

Now, TC, if you want to say that Lee was a bad general because he fought for what he believed in, then that means that every president who went to war is a bad president, all the generals were bad generals, and every soldier is a bad soldier.

---

blackthunder329 posted...

Something to consider. You say that what the South did was treasonous. What about the Colonists then? They rose up and separated from King George.

This isn't entirely accurate. Colonists were regarded as tenants of the British Crown not citizens.

Odoylerules posted...

yep

total POS

amazing how white revisionists try to paint him tho

Yeah we were always taught basically, "Well he was against slavery and the causes of the Confederacy, but he was loyal to his state so he agreed to be the lead general!" like it was a good and noble thing that he did that, lol. Uh, no, he was a terrible person for (according to that logic) going against his principles because of geography of where he was from.

---

Blue_School posted...

Defending? You've show how ignorant you are about this subject.

Lee was an aggressive and reckless general if anything.

Seriously wtf lmao

Lee was one of the most aggressive generals in history, as most of the greatest generals in history are. He would regularly force fights against larger and better equipped Union armies.

---

blackthunder329 posted...

Something to consider. You say that what the South did was treasonous. What about the Colonists then? They rose up and separated from King George. The South had separated from the North/Union. Not really a difference there.

You didn't exactly think too hard about this, did you?


---

Say what you will about him, Robert E. Lee was absolutely nothing but a racist, traitorous little rat who turned guns on his fellow Americans and fought purely to keep African American slaves. Anyone who celebrates him, defends his actions or protests the removal of his statues is not a single bit less racist than he was.

---

blackthunder329 posted...

Something to consider. You say that what the South did was treasonous. What about the Colonists then? They rose up and separated from King George. The South had separated from the North/Union. Not really a difference there.

People always try to make this claim. The Colonists left Crown because they were not getting represented. The South Tried to leave because they lost a fair election that they were literally a apart of. If Lincoln lost they would not have complained. So the two things are nothing a like.

---

cjsdowg posted...

People always try to make this claim. The Colonists left Crown because they were not getting represented. The South Tried to leave because they lost a fair election that they were literally a apart of. If Lincoln lost they would not have complained. So the two things are nothing a like.

Blue_School posted...

This isn't entirely accurate. Colonists were regarded as tenants of the British Crown not citizens.

Interesting thought on that. The Colonies were called "The British Colonies" for a reason. And what I had stated is factual based on the very definition of the word treason.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

You didn't exactly think too hard about this, did you?

Actually, what I stated is more thought out that the OP's statement.

cjsdowg posted...

People always try to make this claim. The Colonists left Crown because they were not getting represented. The South Tried to leave because they lost a fair election that they were literally a apart of. If Lincoln lost they would not have complained. So the two things are nothing a like.

Here's the thing, the very definition of the word treason is exactly what the Colonists had done.

For anyone who thinks this country was founded by any means other than treason, remember this. The very definition of the word treason is "The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."

Now, the Colonists did exactly that by telling King George that he had no power over the people of the British Colonies. The "Revolutionary War" as it is called was no revolution. No one knows who fired the first shot. And the colonists had been attacking the soldiers for quite some time.

The South did the same, but in a more peaceful way. They just simply cut ties with the North and formed their own government. The North fired the first shot during the start of the Civil War. People want to call out Robert E. Lee for being such a terrible general, but seem to forget about General Sherman who burned and killed everything and everyone in his path to Atlanta.

Consider this. King George wanted to keep control of the British Colonies, land that was "owned" by Great Britain. The North wanted to keep control of the South to keep a complete "Union" of the growing nation.

Both used what would be called excessive force by military according to the way people act and think today.

Here's something even bigger. Are people going to go after the Washington Monument? Are they going to protest his accomplishments? No. He owned slaves. Just because he kept them well fed should not distract from the fact that he still had them.

How about any of the politicians up to, and beyond Lincoln? The have all ordered mass genocide of the Native tribes of this land. Yet people want to complain about something that was abolished at the end of the Civil War. That's right, the "Emancipation Proclamation" was done after the war was all but settled.

Keep in mind that the African peoples of the United States are allowed to live, work, go, etc. wherever they want. The slaves who came from Africa to the Colonies/United States were sold by their own people. The Native tribes are still being forced to live on land that the government controls. It is still in the books (laws) that in order for them to live outside of the Reservations, they have to give up their way of life, and live like the people who forced them from their land with the threat of mass genocide.

---