|
 Given
the wisdom of hindsight, lawyer, author, and lecturer Edward
Bonekemper captivated a Smithsonian audience as he laid out
his reasoned and well-researched position that Robert E. Lee
had indeed lost the Civil War for the Confederacy.
While he never criticized Lee's integrity or skill at motivating
his men, he did take him to task for a number of perceived
oversights as leader of the Confederate military during the
Civil War. He summarized them as follows:
- Lee took great risks with his forces seeking to achieve
a major victory. He believed this would bring considerable
European support to the Confederacy, and thus enable it to
win the war.
- Lee's dynamic and aggressive strategy unduly depleted his
limited resources in men and materiel in the face of the
Union's considerably superior quantities of both.
- In terms of vision and strategy, Lee placed Virginia ahead
of the Confederacy, causing missed opportunities for wins
in the west.
- Lee's staff was too small. When preparing for battle he
placed his troops well, gave good orders, but rather than
follow up and revise orders to meet changing circumstances,
he tended to leave the results to divine providence.
- Lee failed to recognize the need to adjust outdated tactics
to effectively counter the extensive use of rifles and minie
balls. These modern rifles increased the effective range
of the ordinary soldier's shoulder weapon--from a smooth
bore's 50 yards to something like 700 yards. And, Lee still
used the massed charge against entrenched troops, rather
than maneuver into a defensible position from which to force
the enemy to initiate attack.
 It
is Bonekemper's contention that, given the Confederacy's limited
men and resources, Lee should have adopted a defensive strategy.
This would then have forced the Union to invade the South where
Lee could, by waging a guerrilla campaign, wear away the Union
will to fight, foreshadowing what happened to the US during
the Vietnam War one hundred years later.
Who is to say which would have been the more successful strategy?
Robert E. Lee was certainly a great general and a leader of
men. And, he was the man who had to make the tough decisions,
basing those decisions on far less information than we have
today. This was a thought provoking presentation that will,
no doubt, continue to feed the flames of serious debate about
the icon of the Confederacy, General Robert E. Lee
Special thanks to Everett Ladd for this review.
Everett and his wife Antigoni are knowledgeable about many
things, but especially about how leaders impact history.
They are the proprietors of Tigrett Corp., in Arlington,
Virginia, which provides today's businesses with "Leadership
Workshops Using History's Finest Role Models." They may be
contacted at www.tigrettcorp.com.
|
|
