The Gettysburg campaign...

[Chris 62]

Sloww, i have said at least two times he was the best general on either side.

[orange]

i agree that Lee was not a 'great' general, but if he wasn't, how is Napoleon?

[Chris 62]

Napoleon didn't lose a campaign for 16 straight years.

[SlowwHand]

Sorry. Missed it, Chris.
Napoleon? Napoleon was a dumbass short person.
One on a long line of "Let's do it in winter". Bright guy.
But Lee wasn't great you say? Um, ok.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't think, had the outcome of Gettysburg been reversed, the outcome of the war would have been changed. I think the North would still have won, albeit perhaps at a later point and with more bloodshed.

[Ned]

Chris62, How would you rate Stonewall Jackson compared to Lee?

[SlowwHand]

Gettysburg was the turning point in the war.
That much is historical fact.
The North was fed up with, I don't know, let's use McClellan as a prime example. A do-nothing.

[Boris Godunov]

McClellan had been replaced by Gettysburg, though...

The battle was certainly a psychological turning point for the Army of the Potomac, but by that point the war was essentially lost for the South, given its terrible losing in the Western theater, utter lack of resources and industry and the strangling blockade. Gettysburg certainly accelerated the ending of the war, but I think the South's doom had been written earlier.

[Capt Dizle]

If you know Lee's campaigns well enough to break them down and do not consider him a great general then I see no point in trying to change your mind.

We can debate forever and I would be glad to discuss it but you seem to be more interested in winning an argument than stimulating conversation.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Napoleon took 450,000 men into Russia and only 20,000 came back home. I could easily find fault with his greatness in that. You can then list all of his great qualities and so forth. More than willing to discuss it but no argument for me.

Now, I find it interesting that you seem to believe that it was possible that France and England might have recognized the South if Lee had won at Sharpsburg. Do you believe that war could have actually broken out between these nations and the North?

The question in my mind is what might have happened if Lee had won at Gettysburg.

[SlowwHand]

Well we can agree to disagree. The North's leadership problems had made it very one-sided to that point, which is really what spurred Abe's address.

As far as Jackson?
The man was another brilliant strategist.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't think England would ever have supported the South overtly, given the English population's views on the matter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As far as Jackson?
The man was another brilliant strategist.

Tactitian, you mean...

[SlowwHand]

No, they didn't overtly support the South; but they hedged their bet by doing so covertly in many ways, such as their ship building yards.

[DinoDoc]

Removed. Pressed wrong button

[Boris Godunov]

Get with it, DD!