Is general lee overated?

But a traitor to his nation.

Washington: Mediocre tactician, brilliant strategist

Lee: Brilliant tactician, mediocre strategist

His nation was Virginia

Can you show any exampels of these brilliant Tactics i have given you malvern hill and pickets charge to counter not to mention he was known as granny lee to begin with becuse his terrible performance at the begining of the war

Not according to the oaths he took when he joined the US Army.

which ones?

>Oath of Enlistment as of 1830
>"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

>not saving the constitution from northern tyranny
Topcuck

>in the Army of the United States
but when your state lawfully secedes from the union you aren't in that army anymore

>lawfully secedes

Whew

>lawfully secedes
No such thing. Once you're a state, you're in forever.

t. muh feels

>This general is terrible! The only two mistakes he made in his entire career prove it!
shiggy

haha, no the Supreme Court decision that unilateral secession is illegal came after the war

it was totally legal at the time, there existed no law in 1861 that prohibited secession
the Constitution is not a coercive document, it's based on consent

Can you show any exampel that makes him the best tactician ? Godmode after he had lost jackson .

washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/05/19/the-truth-about-confederate-gen-robert-e-lee-he-wasnt-very-good-at-his-job/?utm_term=.2d56bb035ab0

y*nkee detected

>washingtonpost

Say that to my face.

>washingtonpost.com

wtf I love Andrew Jackson now

No real defence of your beloved LEE yet? im disapointed

>disapointed

samefagwithnoargue.jpg

Most victories during the civil war were achieved by gaining local numerical superiority and throwing men at your objective till you completed it.

Most victories in most wars were gained this ways, specially when bot armies had a very similar training and equipment.

Because treason is indefensible.

Exactly why lead had to uphold the philosophy of the founders

> USA
> eleven little shithole countries

Had to decide.

He is overrated somewhat.Stonewall Jackson was a true psycho-genius. When he was on his game, that's when Lee's big wins happened. But Lee knew how to delegate to Jackson, so deserves credit for that.

It's not opposite day, user. Lee tried to destroy the Founder's vision.

Jackson was a fucking beast. One of our nations greatest generals, regardless of the politics.

The opening of the constitution describes the purpose as the creation of a more perfect union. More perfect over what? The articles of confederation. Those articles of confederation explicitly state that the union is perpetual, and did so when the states voluntarily joined the union. The current union under the constitution is a continuation of that original one. Secession is illegal and always has been.

You know it man. Top American generals of all wars- Tecumseh Sherman, Jackson, Dugout Doug MacArthur.

I keep seeing different sites claim Winfield Scott was one of our greatest, and frequently above all others besides Washington (ha!).

Enlighten me as to why Scott's so highly rated.

>Sherman
Lmao
He himself declared Forrest the greatest general of the war

Becuse the fat bastard lived long enough to have people named after him serving underhim.

Scott was basically forced out at the beginning of the Civil war, but it was his anaconda plan that the union generals more or less followed to victory.

Look at the capture of Mexico City during the Mexican-American war to see why he's so well respected.

>trust me, my convoluted logic proves that the framers didn't know what they were framing

t. lacks a basic understanding of the founders

>lol just cut them in half

Fucking brilliant.

...

Lee was a union man at heart thats why he wasted the best CSA army

He probably is. Lee didn't have to deal with the long supply lines that Union generals had to deal with. Also, fighting a defensive war is much easier than an offensive one.

Tacticians are someone who can win you battles. But you don't need tacticians, you need strategists to win the war.

- George Washington

invading Pennsylvania was dumb

still pretty good as far as generals go

George Washington the king of retreats is there a special name for that skill ?
And yea the south needed a strategists not butcher lee.

>George Washington the king of retreats is there a special name for that skill ?
Cucktician.

Mfw i massacre the army of northen virginia for the 8th time

>Also, fighting a defensive war is much easier than an offensive one.
Especially when you're outnumbered, outproduced, surrounded, and have no significant naval strength.

Well I would say a great general but very inexperienced as well but that has to do with America in general. It's easy to look at Gettysburg and say that was poor tactical and strategic error but then you look at Cold Harbor and see that he innovated how defensive warfare could be conducted. Altogether he was among the greatest America has ever had

>Sherman
>Not Grant

> Walk around sherman
> butcher grant
Hmm

gettysburg was 2 years into the war after lee had fought multiple battles ignoring the prior wars he had bean in and westpoint.
Cold Harbor defences where made by lees enginers not he himself.

This could be true

Lee was a "good" general, I don't know about brilliant. Most of his victory's can be chalked up to incompetent union generals desu

>Walk around sherman
Sherman proved the North didn't need logistical superiority to whoop the Rebs, and his March to the Sea was a brilliant movement of asymmetrical warfare. It was bold, unexpected, and devastated the Confederates more than any other strategic move.

Anyone in this thread saying that Lee was a tactical genius but a poor strategist are really simply wrong. He was bad at both. He used tactics he learned in the Mexican War while fighting poorly equipped poorly trained enemies who never had a chance against superior American force. He tried to use these same tactics against the union which cost him most of his manpower. His only measure of success came from scaring the shit out of Union Generals who believed that he was some sort of genius. He ended up losing spectacularly when he was being dogged by Grant, who was not a particularly good tactician, and really simply just understood that if he sent enough of his and Lee's men into the meatgrinder he would win first. Also, just as a sidenote, Lee was a really terrible general to serve under. His orders were notorious for being vague and unclear. The only subordinate who was able to excel under him was Jackson, who was an actual great general and carried Lee to a lot of his acclaim during the war.

>some abolitionist
John Brown was a psycho murderer.

Sherman and Grant were both pretty unremarkable tacticians, but brilliant strategists. A pretty neato partnership.

Nah. He was a brilliant military mind that had very limited resources and manpower to work with so he had to take high risks that eventually caught up to him.

Better than Rosecrans
Better than McClellan

>Better than McClellan

Any drunkard would have been better than McClellan
>insert Grant joke here

Still won the war, limey.

This excuse seems pretty common. Yes, he had disadvantages, but he was also a pretty mediocre general without them.

Uh, sweetie, thats not how oaths work

>Better than Rosecrans

Yes, he was known for being a Guildenstern disciplinarian.

>Transfers troops so there's a gigantic hole in the Union lines which the Rebels simply walk through
He's pretty much the shittiest general ever.

I haven't finished b the Chernow book yet, but Sherman's eventual turn against Grant is shaping up to be a top ten anime betrayal

>Chernow
I'm kind of annoyed with Chernow. His Hamilton book really white washed Hamilton a whole lot and led to this St Alexander era.

fucking this

Lee could run circles around Union generals but did so much dumb shit strategically that it didn't matter since he literally ran out of most manpower

meanwhile Washington was a subpar tactician but absolute God-tier logistics wizard and strategically understood that the war would not be won by decisive battle but by literally keeping an armed rebellion in strength even if they lost most of their battles

Fug I was considering reading that. I assumed Chernow would turn Hamilton into le modern libdem big spender and downplay his Christianity, What else does he change?

The confederates stood little chance using Lee's methods, but no chance with Washington's. They were fighting a bordering military-industrial power.

>willfully helping in the war that the founders foresaw and tried so hard to prevent

imo a more defense strategy could have worked, something intended to inflict maximum loss of life on the North while preserving Southern life. Not quite Vietnam, but the goal should have been to make the people of the North turn on their political leaders rather than bring the government to terms. A long and bloody list of casualties would have emboldened the peace democrats.

Its hard to preach war when you have mourners wailing on your steps.

But I think the tactics necessary for that result was outside Lee's character, I don't think Lee spared much thought for the political side of the North during the war and was only focused on the straightforward battlefield victories. Bedford Forrest might have waged such a war though.

The South should have been making war in a way that made it too costly for the North to continue. Total war of the Sherman variety.

That's what the North did.

and that's why the North eventually won. Early Union generals in the Eastern Theater were playing Napoleon with Lee meanwhile generals in the Western Theater were focusing on infrastructure and, eventually under Sherman, conducting a policy of "The South can't fight when it's on fire". Honestly I think the war was basically over for the South once Vicksburg fell since that cut the CSA in two and annihilated any trade opportunities for them along the Mississippi

>fire on Northern ships
>muh War of Northern Agression

>refuse to leave land taken under a destroyed compact
>minor battle with very little damage
>"hyuck let's kill 600,000 men"

>try to claim a federal fort
>surprised when the federal government won't give it up

>zero casualties
>this calls for tremendous bloodshed

>commit an act of war
>surprised when war happens

>ma'am, I'm sorry about your sons amputation. We had to follow this usually ignored rule under even less usual circumstances

>break off from a country
>realize this is a tense situation and they probably will look for almost any reason to try and annex you back into the country
>commit an act of war
>surprised when war happens

wew the dixiefags are out in bulk tonight

im just waiting for someone to drop the >muh steaks rites meme

>im just waiting for someone to drop the >muh steaks rites meme
How about Gouveneur Morris?
>ergo kill 600,000 men

I like muh steaks cooked rite like I like Atlanta. Well done.

Americans have shit generals.

Or a fighting retreat with guerrilla tactics?

>cause a war
>how could the north kill all of these people :;(((