04-02-2008 11:08 AM ET (US)
 
I'm a little late on this, but in response to the Jackson debate, I have to say I am in agreement with the argument from Group F-N. They presented convincing evidence in support of the fact that Jackson inspired the Confederates in the war effort. I especially agree with what Sarah wrote: "Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely."

General Robert E. Lee was a very distinguished and important figure in the American Civil War. In Nolan's book he writes that Lee pursued the war with such a spirit of aggression, he was determined to fight for his cause until the bitter end. Although he was not successful in the end, his "offensive defensive" strategy made sense. I am in agreement with Virginia and Ned, Lee wanted to save Confederate land from the brutality of fighting. It is possible to overanalyze and second guess Lee's actions from a modern viewpoint, but in the thick of the battle, he was doing what was right for that moment.

General Lee was a great general for the Confederate Army, he was asked to lead the Union Army, I think that says something about him. Of course he made mistakes that cost people their lives, which is sad, but that's part of what war was about. Lee was only able to make decisions based on the information that was provided to him and he did act rashly at times, but that is how he thought he could win the war. There were a few occasions where Lee didn’t want a battle to occur but it was inevitable in most cases. Lee did try to be careful and consider the options he had, but sometimes he had to make an aggressive move to attack the Union in an attempt to gain some ground. After reading the selection out of Nolan’s book it would seem that Lee did the best he could as did everyone else that fought in the Civil War.

As someone who grew up in the South and in a family of Civil War buffs, I grew up hearing stories of General Lee. Over a century later, many people still tell stories of General Lee, one of the greatest military leaders in history. While Lee was a remarkable leader, Nolan's "Lee Considered" gives some examples of why Lee's reputation is over-rated. Lee's grand strategy was to keep the South on the offensive, repeatedly attacking the Federal troops. This worked in the beginning, but the problem soon became clear that the Confederate troops were outnumbered to such an extent that remaining on the offensive was no longer a wise choice. Lee was more than aware of this problem. He often wrote about it. Piston commented that "Lee's offensive tactics were bleeding the army white, and many of those who remained with him during the Maryland excursion took 'French leave' as soon as they returned." In the Lee's first four months as Commander of Northern Virginia, nearly 50,000 troops were lost. The number of casualties under Lee were astounding. Still, Lee kept his troops on the offensive, he didn't like to "shy away from a fight." While he led his troops into many glorious battles, perhaps he could have led them in a way which would not have resulted in so many casualties. He was a great leader, but he has been greatly over-rated.

In the Roeyster debate I would have to agree with team F-N. They provided strong evidence to the heroism of Jackson and his ability to inspire and further the Confederate cause. I beleive Sarah highlighted some strong points when she said "Royster goes on to say that it was ultimately his commitment to the offensive that caused his death. Stonewall Jackson was a significant leader of the Confederate cause, and enabled the Confederacy to be strengthened and achieve success in the ways it did. Many Southerners believed that if Jackson had lived, the Confederacy would have won indefinitely."

Robert E. Lee has been seen throughout history as a great general of the Confederacy, but to call him a great leader would be a bit of a stretch. Though he won a number of battles for the South, he did it at the cost of great numbers of men he needed to win the war. His strategy included only offensive measures, and while this was important in winning some battles, Lee crippled the army of the C.S.A. in losing huge percentages of his men. He inflicted great numbers of casualties, but as Nolan states, "Federal casualties could be, and were in fact, made up with additional manpower. Lee's were irreplacable." For example, at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee lost 21 percent of his men, and at Gettysburg, the conservative estimate says he lost one-third of his men. These losses were so devastating to an army who had little or no reinforcements, and ultimately cost the Confederates the war. A great leader would have found a way around an offensive strategy as the sole measure to win the war. Lee knew he had to save as many men as possible to win the war, but chose instead to win small victories rather than save his men to win the war as a whole.

Lee was greatly overrated as a leader and tactician. His successes were due in large part due to an immense amount of great subordinate talent. His tactics were outdated from the advances in military technology and he was willing to accept severe casualties in sticking with his largely Napoleonic doctrine. His orders were rarely clear and concise and his great successes were due to the flexibility and competence of his Corps commanders more than any brilliance on his part. His contribution came as a symbolic figurehead and not as a tactician and General. If his actions at Gettysburg are viewed as an example, it would be justified to say the casualties resulting from his lack of direction and stubbornness dealt a blow to the ANV from which they and the Confederacy would never fully recover.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 11:38 AM
I am going to reiterate Stephen's point that the goal of a general is to win the war. It is ridiculous that people still praise Robert E. Lee as a great general when it was his tactics that ruined the Confederacy's chance of victory. General Lee's offensive strategy was extremely inconsistent with the resources of the South. The Confederacy began the war with a severe disadvantage in numbers of men; this disadvantage grew worse and worse for General Lee as the war moved on. The offensive strategy proved to be very costly and produced high casualty rates. An offensive strategy was the worse possible strategy that Lee could have deployed with the disadvantages that he had. After a series of large offensives including the Seven Days battles on the Peninsula, Second Bull Run, and Antietam, Lee's troops were undeniably exhausted. It was Lee's tactics that cost the Confederacy's the war. "Lee's efforts were unsuccessful, costly, and destructive to the South's chances of victory in the war."(98)

I am going to have to agree with group O-Z. They argue the point very well that Lee's strategy was not the best strategy according to the south's resources. More importantly, he exhausted his resources in the beginning of the war with his offensive strategy as Billy pointed out.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 01:18 PM
I apologize for this delayed entry. I fell victim to the missing book dilemma. So here is the posting for tuesday 4/1. Again I apologize.

To restrict the influence of General Stonewall Jackson upon the confederate war effort to the level of simply a “distinguished leader” verges on the boarder of an understatement. In minds of southern confederates Stonewall Jackson was a divinely appointed deliverer who would carry the confederacy upon his shoulders and establish independence through a military exodus. In his discussion of Jackson, Royster articulates on the southern perception of Stonewall as divine medium serving to establish the will of God, “His aggressiveness embodied his confidence that , when the destruction to which he committed himself stopped at last, his cause would prove to have been God’s.” (p.69) In the public eye Jackson embodied the ideal confederate leader. Coined as a “Christian Patriot” Jackson shunned all public esteem for the mastery of his virtuoso military successes claiming, “You must not over-estimate me in the work. I have been but the unworthy instrument whom it pleased God to use in accomplishing His purpose.” After the war confederates began to assess how the situation might have been different had Jackson lived, and they even went as far as to assert the Battles of Gettysburg and Wilderness would have been won if Jackson had been at the helm to command the Confederate forces. The impact of Jackson’s death was described by General Robert E. Lee as the equivalent to “loosing his right arm”, a comparison not usually attributed to an insignificant loss.

I will have to agree with group O-Z. While Lee won a great many victories for the CSA, this group does a good job arguing Lee's overall strategy was unsuccessful. His aggressive tactics caused his army to sustain a proportionally enormous amount of casualties, and his failure to fight a defensive war when possible overstretched both the resources and the manpower of the Confederate States.

I agree with group O-Z. I think they effectively argue that Lee’s efforts were inconsistent with the realities of the Confederacy’s position, and his strategy of maintaining the offensive at all costs resulted in larger numbers of casualties than if other means were employed.

Edited by author 04-02-2008 04:32 PM
I agree with group A-E, despite strong agruments for group O-Z. Group O-Z effectively pointed out that the Confederates were short on men, but I'm not convinced that Lee only fought an offensive war or that his strategy was the worst strategy the Confederates could have followed. I can't think of any man that could have replaced Lee as the Confederate military leader and done a better job.

Lee's overall strategy and mindset that "annihilation of the enemy army" was necessary for Southern victory, while being great for the stuff of legends was grossly counterproductive given the limited resources of the Southern armies. Lee himself even recognizes the "necessity to increase our armies if we desire... effectual resistance". Knowing his army and resources lacked the numbers and technology which the North did have, taking the offensive at every chance was quite foolish and "not feasible" by any stretch of the imgaination. His willingness to take severe casualties by way of direct attack of an enemy not only resulted in high casualty rates but in the slow attrition of Southern resoures, manpower, and moral. While Lee may have been a great battlefield tactition, he lacked a holistic mindset and variability in thinking which would have allowed him to employ more effective strategies to win the war, rather than battles.

Sorry it's late but....Robert E Lee was a brilliant general whose leadership abilities resulted in many victorious battles. He was also a great leader in that he boosted the morale of his troops and was a staunch supporter of the Confederate causes. Lee kept fighting his hardest even when defeat was inevitable. He even tried to arm slaves to fight for the confederate cause. He had to be considered a great general if Abe Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army first. The reason the south lost was not because of him, but because of the different war tactics between the north and south, and because to southerners, war was inevitable to preserve their freedom.

Once again, sorry about the tardiness. I got the dates and times mixed up. Team 3 (O-Z) convinced me that Jackson was an overrated leader. Besides the fact that the Confederates lost the war, he was not an effective leader because of the mistakes he made as a general. Stephen made a good point when he said "Every war needs a hero." I also like the comparison Stephen made to George Washington and how "hero worship can often overemphasize the hero’s positive characteristics while glossing over any of his or her character flaws."