Well, like all points of history, this is, of course, a matter of debate. I can, however, pose the following points for consideration:
1) Almost all Generals, North and South, with the exceptions of Sherman and Nathan Bedford Forrest, were utterly tied to the military philosophy of Baron Antoine DiJominni, and his ideas were constrictive enough to serve as an impediment to military leaders of that time. Therefore, Lee's Union opposition and his Confederate competitors may have been inadequate tests for a merely competent mind.
2) Historian Shelby Foote seems to see the entire march into the Union as the result of Lee's influence, and its failure would indicate at least some kind of shortcoming on Lee's part.
2007-05-13 22:41:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by The Armchair Explorer 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are some who say that. Certainly, from the standpoint of of what the south needed to do to make the Confederacy viable, he failed.
He was excellent in aggressive defense, but failed the two times he took the war to the Union, and failed against the only two Union generals who weren't feckless: Meade and Grant.
2007-05-13 23:29:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by WolverLini 7
·
0⤊
0⤋