Military Leadership is always an important factor in wars. Good commanders will accomplish the goals of their side while inferior generals will only hinder performance and fail their leader. However, not all great generals are victorious. Victories depend heavily on the availability of resources. Leadership does not relate to the supplies one has to draw from, but instead the personal traits of the man himself. General Robert E. Lee is a prime example of an excellent general whose brilliance was impeded by the Confederate’s lack of resources. General Ulysses S. Grant’s genius is rebuffed when compared to that of Lee’s.
Great military leaders should have a connection with the public and their soldiers. General Lee emerged overnight as the Confederate hero after the Seven Days’ Battles. His soldiers developed an almost divine belief in him because this battle was the first major victory since the First Battle of Bull Run and halted a succession of military attacks. The confederate soldiers also revered him due to his personal attributes, his dedication to protect his homeland, and because he held out so long against the Union with 11 times the industrial strength and three times the population of the South. Being a public hero also helped Jefferson Davis greatly as Davis was too overbearing, not in touch with the public, and not an exemplary leader like Abraham Lincoln. Doing so, Lee is connecting the people to their president, boosting morale, and hence productivity. The public, however, does not view General Ulysses S. Grant in such a positive light. The Union residents see Grant as a man who is overcome by his addiction of drinking and smoking, earning the disdain of General McClellan who was “annoyed and offended” by Grant...
... middle of paper ...
...d to prevent the total annihilation of the army of Tennessee. Grant also needed help from the navy to win the battles of Fort Henry and Donelson. While Grant needed reinforcements, Lee was able to regroup his battered army after the Battle of Antietam and win the Battle of Fredericksburg the following December.
In conclusion, confederate military leadership was superior to that of the Union’s. General Lee is more pragmatic, realistic, and has better interpersonal skills. He is smart, quick, knows how to apply experience, and boosts the moral of his troops. Lee’s boldness and self-reliance combine with his other strengths made him the superior leader when compared to General Grant of the Union. Satisfying that this is true, the confederate could have won the war due to unsurpassed leadership if only they had the amount of supplies and soldiers the Union possessed.
Sears’ thesis is the Union could have won the war faster. McClellan was an incompetent commander and to take the initiative to attack an defeat the Confederate army. The Army of Northern Virginia, under...
“Their differing perceptions of the nature of war form the backbone of the difficult relationship between these two men.” Lee, an older soldier, values much of an offensive warfare approach, while Longstreet values a defensive warfare approach. Both men consistently argue about the best option for the Confederacy. However, “no matter how much he might disagree, Longstreet defers to Lee’s decisions.” In an argument as to who was right, none of the developed tactics provide clear evidence as to what was going to work, especially with a military of lesser men, considering the war in 1863. Although General Lee’s tactics did not work during the Battle of Gettysburg, there is no evidence that General Longstreet’s defensive strategy would have worked significantly better. Therefore, neither of the generals exceeded the other when it comes to military strategies, which rather debunks Shaara’s depiction of Longstreet’s advanced knowledge of modern warfare. Despite of the importance of the Battle of Gettysburg, often marked as the turning point of the war, General Longstreet should not obey an order that results in a significant loss of men that would be extremely difficult to replace at this time. Already limited by the amount of men still able to fight, pushing additional forces in an open battle would just nearly deplete the confederate soldiers completely, and
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, showed weaknesses within his leadership which may have contributed to the confederacy’s loss and the unions win . Davis failed in three vital ways. These ways were: his relations with other confederate authorities and with the people, as well as in his fundamental concept of his job as president and in his organization and specific handling of his role as commander in chief . Davis failed in maintaining communication with leaders and with his people, often unable to admit when he is wrong which led to lack organization in his role . In addition, Davis was a conservative leader, not a revolutionary one which meant that his strength was often in protocol and convention rather than in innovation . Studying each of these aspects that represented a weakness in Jefferson Davis’s leadership, Lincoln in comparison provided more admirable and outstanding qualities within his leadership which in many ways affected the outcome of the war
One of the best commanders in the Confederate army was Lee still; the Union stood at a better standpoint during the battle. “Perhaps the most significant lesson from July 3, 1863, concerns the method of decision-making. Though he may not have seen it as such, Lee’s decision to attack was at best a close call.” (Gompert 2006, pg.7). The battle of Gettysburg did not happen intentionally, planned however Lee did an astounding job and his best to defeat the Union army. Ultimately Robert E. Lee was responsible for the South’s loss
Robert E. Lee was the best General for the South, and out smarted every Union General that was put against him. To The South, Lee is like a godly figure to them. He inspired The South even when the North controlled the battlefield, and is still thought highly of by some people in the confederate states. To the North, Lee was a traitor and even lost his citizenship. Although he lost, Lee is still a giant face in history.
Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South's ability to stage a successful campaign.
Robert E Lee is very quick and smart. He knows how to improve the quality of troops and to nullify the Union’s advantage. Lee is willing to make bold and risky moves, and does not let his defeats hinder his performance. General Lee has great relations with his soldiers, and uses his engineering experience to his advantage.
General Lee said, to be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good general you must be prepared to order the death of the thing you love, and therein lies the great trap of soldiering. When you attack you must hold nothing back." Thomas J. Jackson was both a good soldier and a good general. In the Mexican War he fought with all his heart for his country. When the Civil War came, he was a general. He never hesitated to send his men forward. He held nothing back. George McClellan also fought with all his heart for his country in the Mexican War. When the time came to send his men forward in the Civil War, he couldn’t do it. He loved the army to much to order its death.
The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and amongst themselves was extremely vital to the effectiveness of the Northern military forces. Had any one of these factors not been in place the outcome of the war could have been significantly different, and the United States as we know it today could be quite a different place to live.
A military genius, Grant possessed the vision to see that modern warfare requires total application of military and economic strength and was thus able to lead the Union to victory. In civilian life, however, he was unable to provide the leadership necessary for a growing industrial nation, even though he always retained the affection of the American public.
A Southern refugee once reflected, and referred to the Army of the Potomac as the “greatest army in the planet.” Although this is a clear exaggeration, from a Southern perspective following the Battle of Antietam, this was not too far off. Relative to the Army of Northern Virginia, the Federal army was vastly larger, in better spirits, and strategically in better positions. To direct this army of great potential, President Lincoln appointed the reluctant Major General Ambrose Everett Burnside. Almost immediately after receiving command, Burnside adopted a plan; the objective was Richmond. He was convinced that a victory at Richmond would cripple the Confederate’s ability to carry on; whether this would have been true is debatable. What is not arguable however, is Burnside’s neglect of a small city by the name of Fredericksburg, which lied directly in his path. He inherited every advantage a military leader of the time could hope for; however, every one of these advantages was dissolved with his disregard of mission command. The Army of the Potomac’s loss at the Battle of Fredericksburg was a direct result of General Burnside’s failure at conducting the commander’s activities of understanding, describing, leading, and assessing.
Hull, Bradley Z., and Scott J. Allen. 2012. "Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: An Explanation and Case Study." Journal of Leadership Education 245-262.
...h, and then four years later, his same devotion to principle focused on mending the torn Union. It is here that Connolly and Burrows identify the key irony of the Lost Cause as they exclaim, " The Vindication of the Confederacy rested heavily upon its supreme hero, and in the process, Robert E. Lee was robbed of much of his southernism"(95).
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
All soldiers, especially leaders, are highly recommended to keep a certain set of values that radiate throughout the entire U.S. Army. They are challenged to keep them near and dear to their hearts and to define and live them every day. A leader is one who takes these challenges serious and abides by