• amanneedsamaid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    When him and Grant’s forces actually met on the battlefield he got fucked up. The extent of his skill was overblown by decades of lost causers.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m pretty sure this is wrong. I’m no historian, but I have been reading a lot about the US Civil War recently, and based on that my impression is that he’s generally regarded as highly competent and probably would have been given command of the Army of the Potomac over McClellan had he decided to stay with the Union.

      For the first two years of the war Lee and Jackson won every major engagement they had with the Union forces. It wasn’t until Gettysburg that they really got a bloody nose, and that at great cost to the Union and at least partially only because Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was such a badass.

      Grant was highly competent as well, and relentless, and he had more men and materiel and better resupply. Once Sherman completed his run to Atlanta, it was pretty much over and just a matter of how Lee was going to surrender.

      • amanneedsamaid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I never claimed the war was not already over due to Sherman, however, Lee’s hypothetical leadership of the Army of the Potomac has very little to do with the fact USG tactically defeated him in the Overland Campaign. They most major engagements until Lee met Grant, and the better general won. Based on what I’ve read about Overland, it wouldn’t have mattered if Lee was on equal footing, he was consistently outmatched by Grant.