Originally Posted by MontyB
Originally Posted by CavScout
Major General Benedict Arnold....why you ask? Because he chose the wrong side...
You could say that about Lee as well.
(Wasn't he given the option to lead the Union army at the beginning?).
Yes, but I will now try to as best as I can quote my history books on this subject. "Before the American Civil war people said 'the United States are
after the war people started to say 'the United States is
.'" What this shows in the change of attitude of the American people following the war. Before the war most Americans (no doubt those in the 11 states that seceded) were loyal to their state first, country second. Most Americans did not think of themselves as Americans, especially not those from the south, but instead as Virginians or Georgians or New Yorkers. Lee himself said that he could not bring himself to fight against his home state, to fight against his fellow Virginians. And besides, Lee proved he was a damn good leader. I believe that it was Lee, not Jefferson Davis, who was the leader of the C.S.A. only because everything in that country was geared towards war and Lee was the commander of the Confederate Army. As I was taught in my history classes when I was younger. There were three key components of the Civil War; Industry, Men and Leadership. The Union had the advantage in terms of men and industrial output but the Confederates had far better leaders. Even though the Union seemed to have the advantage the South still came very close to winning the war. But to me Lee's greatest move was to surrender. Lee is quoted as saying "If I can make it to the (Blue Ridge?) mountains I could continue to fight the war for 20 years." However he did not and instead chose to surrender, saving probably tens of thousands of men. It is a shame that Lee did not live to see his American citizenship renewed.
Originally Posted by Charge 7
He was a great cavalry commander in the Civil War fighting gainst the South. He was a very poor Indian fighter though. Being very bad against one opponenet and very good against another doesn't indicate he was the worst overall.
I personally don't think that Custer can take all of the blame here. I feel that he was left out to dry by his superiors, he was disliked by many high ranking officers in the Army, the President certainly didn't seem to like him, and he had no way of knowing that General Crook had already been pushed back. Now I can not guarantee the validity of this, but I have also heard that General Gibbon's, who was supposedly to be bringing up the rear in support of Custer seemed to be taking his time in moving to meet the enemy, taking a whole day to cross territory that too Custer and his men less than one hour to cross. Yes, Custer was a Cavalry commander and Gibbon's had an infantry battalion, but I doubt that Custer rode across the northern plains at a full gallop at all times.