My problem with Robert E. Lee is that his basic strategy for fighting the Union was fatally flawed. He assumed he could win fixed battles with large armies using Napoleonic tactics despite being outmanned and seriously out gunned as the war drew on. The final proof of this was his untenable position in the Petersburg trenches at the bitter end. He should have fought a more irregular war using guerrilla tactics at times.
And what innate insanity led him to believe that there was any strategic reason for invading Pennsylvania and then fighting on inferior ground far away from any meaningful prizes like Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington D.C?
My problem with Robert E. Lee is that his basic strategy for fighting the Union was fatally flawed. He assumed he could win fixed battles with large armies using Napoleonic tactics despite being outmanned and seriously out gunned as the war drew on. The final proof of this was his untenable position in the Petersburg trenches at the bitter end. He should have fought a more irregular war using guerrilla tactics at times.
And what innate insanity led him to believe that there was any strategic reason for invading Pennsylvania and then fighting on inferior ground far away from any meaningful prizes like Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington D.C?