Which historical heroes are overated?

[T_i_B]

Just as a sequel to Screaming Lord Byrons thread about historical villans, which historical heroes do you lot think are overated or downright villans?

Myself I'll start off with Richard the Lionheart, spent 10 years on the throne of England, less then half a year of which was spent in England as he was always out on the bloody crusades!

[swag]

1. Teddy Roosevelt

Blithely presided over the deaths of half-a-million Filipinos.

[T_i_B]

2. One thing I found out about him recently

Is that he insisted on the reform of rugby as he considered it too violent, which in turn lead to the creation of American football. Not a good move in my book.

[LagaLover]

3. Not a good move?

It's arguably the most popular spectator sport in the US. It was a GREAT move.

[T_i_B]

4. Rugby's better

None of that nancy boy kevlar body armour, no comittee meetings after each tackle, plus England won the world cup in November! :evilgrin:

[LagaLover]

6. Congrats to England I was pulling for you

But having lived 6 years of my life in England I have two observations about your "sport:"

1. Football (Soccer) is MUCH better than Rugby
2. American football is much better than your (and the rest of the world's) "football."

Just my opinion!

[Odallas]

5. Also enjoyed hunting seminole indians in Florida

But he did found the national park system.

[T_i_B]

11. I was going to mention Andrew Jackson...

...but terrya beat me to that.

[H2O Man]

7. Charlie's Angels

way over-rated.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

8. Custer...

That racist piece of crap that helped the government slaughter thousands of innocent Native Americans. I was so pleased when I watched a Discovery Channel show debunking he legend. He was a coward when he was killed letting others fight his battle, hiding in a gully. Of course, they say now that he was probably killed by the women of the tribe! Poetic Justice.
Duckie

[Screaming Lord Byron]

9. Christopher Columbus.

It would seem that just about every nation in Europe knew of North America before Columbus visited it. His only real discovery was the nature and predictablity of the trade winds allowing for easier passage across the Atlantic.

On edit - That and the small matter of genocidal tendencies in the name of civilization, of course.

[jobycom]

19. Agreed.

Columbus exported the wealth and people of America and imported slavery, death and disease. He was not par for his times, either. Many despised him. He died very wealthy, contrary to public opinion, but he was out of favor with the throne, perhaps because of his bloodthirsty ways.

And he's the only child molester I know of honored with a national holiday.

And you are right he didn't discover anything. He knew where America was from talking to other sailors who had seen it. He was the first exploiter, the first conquistador, but calling him an explorer is like calling Manson's crew housesitters.

[terrya]

10. Andrew Jackson.

Crude man who waged genocide against Native Americans.

Terry

[Westegg]

33. I disagree, sir! I've visited Jackson's restored mansion...

...Now a national monument. I've seen his slave quarters. By my lights, he kept them quite well!

[mobuto]

39. I disagree as well

because Andrew Jackson invented American democracy and he isn't given the credit. He's underrated.

[cleofus1]

61. Jackson

I just can't stand that dude. I don't care what he did for Democracy. He was a proud and effective killer of Indians. I can't endorse anyone who took such pride in the genocide of my ancestors.

[sangh0]

12. Thomas Jefferson

the slaveowner whose political philosophies were, by his own words, doomed to eventual failure, who opposed the Constitution, who ignored the limits on POTUS' powers and abused the powers of the Presidency when in office, and who pursued a policy of genocide against Native Americans.


The only thing he could do well was to write inspiring prose.

[T_i_B]

15. When I read up on Jefferson

It stuck me that he was in many respects a candidate for the biggest hypocrite of all time, contradicting himself on almost every issue going.

He undoubtedly did a lot of good, but there is no point in denying that he did have his bad points.

[jobycom]

20. I think he was a brilliant man with a weak will

He was too self-indulgent. He raped his slaves (as did most slave-owners), he sold them off when he needed money, and he broke apart slave families-- something that was considered bad even then.

He sometimes commented that he knew he was hypocritical for owning slaves, but he couldn't do without them. That sums up his life.

[Gildor Inglorion]

41. As a Georgian, I have to say "Sherman"

Whenever I see those bloody heroic statues of him in DC and NYC, I want to attack them with a sledgehammer and several tons of dynamite. The only good thing that psychotic monster ever did was to refuse to run for president.

[REP]

57. "Psychotic Monster," Eh?

My family raised Sherman - we like to think we had something to do with that.

[Endangered Specie]

13. CHristopher Columbus and US Grant (he was not a good General)

[mobuto]

30. Grant was a brilliant general

If anything, he's underrated. Grant wasn't a brilliant tactician - Lee "beat" him in every battle. But he understood what was necessary to win the war.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

34. He was brilliant at the non-tactical military arts.

He was like Eisenhower and Montgomery, not Patton or Rommel.
He was a supreme logistician, strategist and manager.

[interceptor]

46. Eh, not really

Where he fought, he won. Everyone studies Lee and his early opponents, but Grant was winning battles in the west and dividing the South in half. Lincoln certainly noticed, since he was suffering from a lack of aggressiveness in his general staff.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

59. What I mean is that he was brilliant at logistics and organization.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. GANDHI

cost india 2 decades more of british rule and created pakistan because he did not like jinnah!

[KinkyDem]

71. Gandhi

Where I know that everyone is human and has faults I also know that Ganghi was meerly human as well. I've certainly heard some unflattering things about the guy.

I'm curious about what you said here though. Are you saying Gandhi was resposable for prolonging British rule or are you saying that if he (ie India) had waited 20 more years British rule would have ended anyway and possibly better?

I must admit that I find his writing and some of his political activism ideas to be simply incredable. He as a man however, I have no misconceptions about.

Didn't his wife try to climb on his pyre too. Doesn't seem to fit his teachings.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

16. george washington

shot deserters who were conscripted into his army, owned slaves

as for his deeds, he didn't really do much

lafeyette won the revolutionary war for him, he may have been the 1st president but his administration didn't really do much
anything that it did do was masterminded by his version of rove, alexander hamilton

basically washington was the spoiled kid in high schhool that everyone likes and bestows titles on, but in reality, he was a combination of mediocre and an asshole

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. And he bought his first election...

so you can add "corrupt" to the list...he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1767; he bought votes by providing free rum and ale to voters. Spent something like £500 (a lot of money at the time).

And Washington may not have wanted a crown, but he wasn't at all averse to government being in the hands of the aristocratic class of which he was a member.

And as to the Revolution, well, the Marquis de Lafayette and the French navy won the war; but then the American popular consciousness seems to ignore the contributions of other nations in EVERY conflict the US was involved in (WWII being perhaps the most egregious example; the Russians won the war in Europe, and America takes the credit).

[interceptor]

67. Yipes

Washington grasped the nature of that war better than anyone else. His largest defeat came because he refused to disobey the orders of Congress. After that...it was all downhill. Frederick the Great praised his leadership highly.

[Whitacre D_WI]

17. Optimus Prime.

Republican scumbag. Just another Reaganesque puke.

=

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. interesting theory

though i would argue that Duke or Flint form GIJOE is more of a republican

have you seen those cartoons lately? they were nothing but GOP propaganda. especially the one in which the villian is an investigative journalist who, in the words of a JOE member, "want to do another one of those hatchet jobs on the military"

turns out that the 'lib'rul media' was working for Cobra all along. who knew?

[Whitacre D_WI]

22. Perhaps.

But remember the Uniform Code of Conduct. Reagan was president, and therefore, their Commander-in-Chief. They didn't really have a lot of wiggle room.

And anyway, Snake Eyes was a ninja, and that was pretty cool.

Seriously, watch Transformers again. Megatron is the REAL hero of the show, keeping together a ragtag bunch of hellraisers -- half of them insane, the other half stupid. Prime just sits around like the "benevolent dictator" who's none too benevolent.



On a side note, whenever I played with GI Joes with my friends, I was ALWAYS Cobra. I talked in a "Mexican" (gimme a break, I was nine) accent and led my freedom fighters against the Reaganista death squads. It was cool.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

27. so was i

i was always cobra-and the decpticons, and skeletor, and darth vader

it was always assumed that I was going to be the bad guys. I sympatized with them. Though there were no political overtones to my schemes. just abunch of convuluted, far-fetched time travel and bad sci-fi plots.

and speaking of going back and watching the cartoons, it's really funny just how homoerotic He-Man was. It's on the level of SNL's Ambiguously Gay Duo.

[Whitacre D_WI]

31. By the power of Greyskull.

[SiobhanClancy]

21. Winston Churchill

Not taking away his role in WW II,he wasn't a very nice man. Let him speak for himself:

I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores.
In a letter to his mother, 1896

I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre - horrid and inexorcisable.
Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

He was responsible for sending the Black and Tans to Ireland,and on that basis alone he would win my vote in this category.

[JohnKleeb]

23. I agree Clancy

[jobycom]

24. I don't like Churchill either. Pure opportunist with no ideology.

He decided what to do at any time based upon what it would get him, not on any ideology. A liberal as a young politician, a conservative as he got older. He just went where the wind blew him.

He handled the war okay in England. He wrote great speeches, and used his new toys (radar, the enigma machine) to do the best he could. I doubt anyone else would have done worse. Once they were under attack, there was not a lot of need for discussion of Hitler's intentions anymore.

Neville Chamberlain gets a bum rap. There wasn't much he could have done against Hitler in 1938 without world support. America was split over Hitler, with the Republicans and the Southern Democrats united behind thinking Hitler was a hero. England did not have the military to defeat Hitler. But Chamberlain began building the military, even as he was touting his treaty as "peace in our time." The delay in open war may have given England enough time to prepare for the war. In any case, he kept England out of a war it could not yet win.

[JohnKleeb]

25. hell he didnt even win reelection when the war ended

Lost to Clement Atlee right?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

26. One of the greatest positive moments in British History.

Makes me proud of Bevan, Bevin, Attlee et al just thinking about it.

[mobuto]

40. Proud of Bevin?

Good God. How can you possibly be proud of Bevin? And Atlee was a fool. They almost completely fucked up the post-war world. Churchill wasn't voted out of office - at the end of the war he was tremendously and justifiably popular - it was the Tory-led Unity Government that was voted out because it was completely corrupt.

[T_i_B]

52. NHS perchance?

We do like our NHS us Brits. That's why Nye Bevan is a great British hero. Nobody in "new" labour would have the balls to do what he did in the 1940's.

[mobuto]

54. You do like your NHS?

Funny, I get the opposite impression from reading The Guardian. ;-)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

60. In a word, yes.

NHS, National Insurance, Beveridge Plan, Decolonization, Nationalization of key industries. Taking the tough choices to make real change.

[mobuto]

64. Decolonization?

Bevin's "plan" - basically to put the survivors of the death camps into concentration camps - hardly a model for decolonization.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

65. Don't know enough about that particular subject

but that's not really a decolonization matter. Labour paved the way towards a relatively unbloody decolonization plan in a way that France never could. The Tories had no interest in decolonization at the time, particularly Churchill.

[mobuto]

66. That's exactly what it is

The British incompetence with regard to Palestine was really remarkable. Its all Bevin's fault.

[mobuto]

44. Ideology?

Ideology is bunk. Churchill didn't have firm political convictions because they weren't what interested him. He was one of Britain's worst Home Secretaries ever. But he was also the indispensable man. He recognized what no one else did - the absolute menace posed by a resurgent Germany. And he led his country through the war better than anybody else could have possibly done.

I doubt anyone else would have done worse. Once they were under attack, there was not a lot of need for discussion of Hitler's intentions anymore.

Bullshit. After the fall of France in 1940, Britain was the only country in the world opposed to the German menace. All of Europe lay under Hitler's yoke and to continue fighting seemed suicidal. There were a great many in Britain who wanted to sue for peace.

Neville Chamberlain gets a bum rap. There wasn't much he could have done against Hitler in 1938 without world support.

Bullshit. He could have said no to Hitler at Munich. The Sudetenland was the most heavily defended area in the world, and he just let Hitler have it. Czechoslovakia would have been a much more formidable ally than Poland ever was, and yet that clown sold it into slavery. Sure, there would have been a war in 1938, but even Chamberlain could have gotten away without war if his previous government, where he served under Stanley Baldwin, hadn't been so insanely incompetent following the reoccupation of the Rhineland. France wanted to intervene - and Baldwin vetoed it. Why? Because he was a complete idiot. Same thing in Spain. Chamberlain didn't just not help the Republicans fight the Fascists, he blockaded them - he actually managed to help Franco.

America was split over Hitler, with the Republicans and the Southern Democrats united behind thinking Hitler was a hero.

Bullshit. You're just making this shit up as you go along and you could not possibly be more wrong. Gallup did polling throughout the 1930s, and it reveals almost univeral American hostility to Hitler, his policies and to Germany. In October 1938, for instance, Americans were asked if they really believed that Hitler had no more territorial ambitions in Europe. 8% said yes, 92% said no. In November 1938, despite fanatical American anti-Communism, Americans were asked who they would support in a hypothetical war between Germany and the Soviet Union. 83% said the Soviet Union, only 17% said Germany. In October 1938, pollees were asked which European country they liked best. 48% said Britain. 4% said Germany. Between November 24-29 1938 Gallup asked Americans whether they supported the Nazi treatment of the Jews. 6% said they approved, 94% said they disapproved.

But Chamberlain began building the military

Sure he did. After he was forced to, and even then did so a level far below that at which Germany was rearming. That's just pathetic.

The delay in open war may have given England enough time to prepare for the war.

It did not. It did, however, give Germany the time it needed.

[jobycom]

49. What about America First?

Yeah, that's about the way it's written in American history books.

What about Lindberg, Father Coughlin (the first Rush limbaugh and the most powerful non-politician in America), America First? Why is there this persisent story that FDR had to allow Pearl Harbor's attack to gain support for a war if everyone already supported it, as you use your poll numbers to suggest? Simply disapproving of Hitler does not mean that people were ready to go to war to protect England from him. We didn't help England or France two years later when Hitler attacked.

There was support for Hitler. We bury that in our books, but people here were lobbying to give Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize as late as 1938. There was a strong German influence here. It may have been like Israel or Cuba, where the influence was disproportionate to public opinion, but it was there.

My point was that Chamberlain could not rely on America to help him against Hitler. That was proven. We didn't, not until we were bombed, years later. England could not have faced Germany and Italy alone. Maybe they rearmed more slowly than Germany, but their military strength wasn't what protected them most from Germany. It was radar, their code-breaking, and their organization. Chamberlain's England wasn't ready for a war, and yes, that may have been his own fault, but regardless of blame, England needed time. Chamberlain bought them that time. That's not debated. Whether that was his intention or not is debated. He may have hoped Hitler would fade away, as the rest of the world is hoping with Bush right now. Regardless, England would have fallen if Chamberlain had tried to take on Italy and Germany, and we would have watched it happen without interfering.

And Churchill did nothing that anyone else in his position couldn't or wouldn't have done. There were people who wanted surrender, but by that time most had seen enough of Hitler to know better. As he said, England was the lion, he was just the roar. (or something like that).

[mobuto]

53. What about America First?

I'm glad you asked. In Septemer 1941, Gallup asked Americans about Mr. Lindbergh. Of the 58% who said they were familiar with his views, only 24% said they agreed with him. This, after the man had been made almost into a living saint. After he made anti-Semitic remarks in Des Moines, Iowa, virtually every newspaper in the United States denounced him. Wendell Wilkie, Republican candidate in 1940, called the speech "the most un-American talk made in my time by any person of national reputation." Thomas E. Dewey attacked it as "an inexcusable abuse of the right of freedom of speech." The Texas State Legislature, not exactly a bastion of progressive thought at any time, adopted a resolution requesting that Lindbergh never set foot in the State of Texas. And yes, this was before Pearl Harbor.

Lindbergh's anti-Semitism lasted three paragraphs. That his only public expression of anti-Semitic views to date. And those three paragraphs turned him from America's greatest hero into America's worst villain overnight.

You mention Father Coughlin, yet I think the record shows that Coughlin's views were incredibly unpopular. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed Nazi Germany, opposed anti-Semitism, opposed fascism.

Why is there this persisent story that FDR had to allow Pearl Harbor's attack to gain support for a war

I don't know why that theory persists. It certainly isn't supported by the facts.

Simply disapproving of Hitler does not mean that people were ready to go to war to protect England from him.

In 1938 we were not prepared to go to war to protect Britain. But in 1938, Britain could have taken care of herself, with the help of France and Czechoslovakia. And this is a thousand times more true if you move the date of Allied intervention back two years, to the reoccupation of the Rhineland. The Germany of 1936 would have been in no position to even begin to challenge a united move by France and Britain.

There was support for Hitler.

You can say that all you want but that doesn't mean its true. But where was it? Public opinion polls certainly don't suggest it. There was no broad-based support for Hitler in the United States.

but people here were lobbying to give Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize as late as 1938.

I repeat: there was no broad-based support for Hitler in the United States. I'm sure you could find isolated examples of Americans who support Osama bin Laden in 2004 too. But that doesn't mean anything terribly significant either. I've listed a few polls -- I can list you literally dozens more showing just how uniform American opposition was to EVERY single one of Hitler's policies.

may have been like Israel or Cuba, where the influence was disproportionate to public opinion, but it was there.


On the contrary, the influence of anti-Semites and Hitler-lovers was even less than their (tiny) proportional makeup of the population. The Roosevelt Administration understood the danger that Hitler posed and was resolved to do whatever it could to stop him. And since far more Jews were working for FDR than had ever worked for any President ever before, the argument that anti-Semites were over-represented rings silly.

England could not have faced Germany and Italy alone

Except Britain did face Germany and Italy alone. In 1940 and 1941. It would not have faced Germany and Italy alone had it declared war in 1938. For one thing, Italy didn't even enter the war until June 10, 1940, a full year after war was declared, and after France had been effectively defeated. For another, why was Poland worth fighting for, "alone" when Czechoslovakia wasn't?

He may have hoped Hitler would fade away, as the rest of the world is hoping with Bush right now.

That comparison is absolutely absurd and demonstrates no knowledge of history. Bush is bad - maybe the worst President in American history. But to compare him to Adolf Hitler is to spit in the face of good taste.

There were people who wanted surrender, but by that time most had seen enough of Hitler to know better.

And yet again, you just make this shit up out of whole cloth. There were only two candidates to replace Chamberlain: Winston Churchill and Lord Halifax. Lord Halifax came damn close to becoming PM. Lord Halifax's entire platform was making peace with Germany. So where on God's Green Earth did you dig up the idea that nobody would have surrendered? If you don't even know the most basic facts please don't attempt grand historical revisionism.

[mobuto]

28. Julius Caesar, Pericles, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius

I could write whole books on overrated classical figures.

[T_i_B]

55. You forgot to mention Plato

The Republic is a vastly overated work that set the blueprint for numerous tyrannies since then.

[mobuto]

63. We agree on something!

Damn.

[laughing_dog]

29. REAGAN REAGAN REAGAN

If ever there was a man with an undeserved cult following it's that old bastard.

[Butterflies]

32. that was my first thought too

I don't understand the worshiping of him.

[laughing_dog]

35. People are deranged.

He's as dumb as Bush.

[Westegg]

36. Well he is NOW...

[jobycom]

38. I can't agree with that

Because I despise that bastard more even than W, and can't conceive that anyone other than the most scurilous Republican bastards (and the media, which is the same thing) look at Reagan as a hero, rather than a criminal who escaped on technicalities.

[Westegg]

37. Charlie Chaplin...

Victoriana and dumb-shows. The Marx Bros. were the anarchic future. Chaplin made $25,000 a week (back when that was real money) by catering to the past. Hell, he even stole that dancing baked-potatoes bit, along with the virginities of numberless 14-year-olds.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. I thought Richard the Lionheart spent almost no time in England

I read somewhere that he left England before the age of one and that in total, even during his reign, he only spent about 6 months on English soil during his 10 years on the throne. Richard in fact, again from what I recall, didn't even speak English, only French and spent most of his time either in France (his mother was the French speaking Eleanor of Acquitaine), the middle east, or a brief time in the custody of the Austrians. I may be wrong about this, but I recall it from a class on Western Civilization many years ago.

[Zinfandel]

43. Reagan!!!

[carpetbagger]

45. Robert E. Lee

Southern revisionism has elevated him from the level of a good general to some type of Jesus.

Gone (even from his official papers) is mention of the period after Antietam, when his army was so disgruntled that a marginally competant Union offensive would have broken it (or at least the part of it that hadn't deserted). Completely washed over.

I'll categorize his battles below:

Poorly calculated assaults: Gettysburg (when the Union II Corps chanted "Fredericksburg"), Malvern Hill.

Missed opportunities: North Anna, and perhaps the '61 coastal campaigns.

Stands that should not have been made: Antietam

Assisting suicide: Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg.

That leaves in the end a few battles for which the ANV command performed above poor or neutrally. Most of these (2nd Bull Run, Chancellorsville, the opening phase of the Seven Days, Harper's Ferry) were due to one common factor. That factor was Stonewall Jackson pushing his army or corps just enough to reach an unexpected position, usually on an uncovered flank or in a place where the Union commander did not appreciate the entirety of the arrayed forces. Lee had two chances during the war to do this after Jackson's death. One was during the opening weeks of the Gettysburg campaign, and the other was along the North Anna river. He missed the opportunities.

That leaves the Wilderness as the major battle where the ANV command directly under Lee performed above average. Good, but not spectacular.

Lee deserves some credit for endorsing repatriation and renewal of national loyalty, but he ain't no George Washington in this aspect. Everyone talks about how he "held the ANV together". Nonsense. The ANV had the same problems over the war that other units had. And the other armies held together to the end as well under guys like Kirby Smith and Joe Johnston. As to tactical abilities, he's not much, if any, better than a fair number of Union commanders, and he was clearly outgeneralled by a number of them at Gettysburg, and those generals held their own through the next year, until finally Grant pushed his hammer into Lee's army (here I'm not saying that he was better than Lee, merely that he had a large hammer)

[mobuto]

47. Agree completely

Actually, I think Lee's incompetence made his mystique. Its romantic to idealize a man who fought gallantly but lost. His two invasions of the North were two of the worst mistakes anybody has ever made. He may have been an adequate tactician, although you're right that that's also a bit shaky, but he was an absolutely horrible strategist.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

48. Lee Had No Reconnaissance At Gettysburg

Jeb Stuart failed to come in on time and Lee wasn't exactly sure where the bulk of the Union force was. He made a reasonable decision to assume it was in front of him. Longstreet wanted to put the Army of Northern Virginia in between the Union Army and Washington, which would have meant the destruction of the Union Army if they had tried a full frontal assault. The first day of Gettysburg was a complete and total rout of the federals by the massive charge of AP Hill's divisions, whereby the federals were moved back several miles and hung on to the high ground by the skin of their teeth. Day two of Gettysburg, even with outnumbered conferates attacking entrenched union positions and charging uphill for most of the fighting, Lee came within a hair's breadth of taking the high ground that would have spelled the destruction of the federals or their force withdrawl and retreat. Ewell was a poor substitute for Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg and he failed to carry out Lee's orders. I think you're being very harsh on Lee. Considering the fact that he was outnumbered in virtually every battle, (including every battle you cite above) with inferior artillery, with much less materiel than the North, he did a stunning and remarkable job. At Chancellorsville, for example, Lee defeated an army twice his size. Just because he was on the wrong side doesn't detract from the truth: Lee was one of the greatest military motivators and tacticians in American history.

[mobuto]

50. And at Chancellorsville

as we all know, the real work was done by Thomas Stonewall Jackson. And even there, it wasn't really a victory, because Chancellorsville cost an enormous number of men that the South couldn't replace. You say that at several points Lee almost won Gettysburg. But he didn't. The fact is, he threw away his entire army in a reckless gamble that didn't pay off. And even if it had paid off and Pickett's Charge had been succesful, then what? The Army of Virginia would still have lost a great deal of its strength, and therefore its ability to keep on fighting.

The real problem with Lee isn't his performance at Gettysburg, although we can quibble about that. Its that the invasions of the North were the most boneheaded moves he could have possibly made. Nothing cemented the Union's resolve to fight than the threat of attack. Had Lee stuck to defending the South, "repelling" invading armies, he could have held the Union off forever and forced recognition by default.

The man was a fool. He didn't understand the war he was fighting and was completely preoccupied with his own image.

I can argue this forver. But Lee, in addition to being on the wrong side, was also the wrong man for the job.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Wrong man for the job, indeed...

the Confederacy would have been MUCH better off with Longstreet or Jackson as general-in-chief. Of the Confederate generals, they were the most tactically gifted, and Longstreet was a far better strategist (he had argued against invasion of the North, arguing instead that the CSA should wage defensive war and wear down the Union Army).

[DrWeird]

69. The thing that made Lee look so good...

was McClellan's incompetence.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

72. I don't think you can argue forever - most historians do not support you

The fact is that the South and Lee saw the writing on the wall. The South had its ports blockaded and couldn't sell cotton. On the eve of Gettysburg, it was about to be cut into two parts by the federal control of the Mississippi, the population of the South was much smaller than that of the North, and the industry for war was mostly located in the North.

Lee in his campaign that ended at Sharpsburg saw the opportunity to bring the English and the French into the war in support of the South. Those countries were coming very close to offering diplomatic recognition. Frankly, the northern armies would not belong on the same field at the time with either the British or the French, if those had entered, as those two European countries had true professional armies with very experienced officer corps. But probably, the British Navy alone would have been enough to turn the tide, if they had given political recognition to the South and military assistance. Lee had to gamble as he had no other choice. Guerrilla warfare was contemplated by Lee but it wasn't the answer, as the South would not have had any cohesion as an entity. Also, we can thank Robert E. Lee for telling his men to go home and not take up arms against the U.S. after his surrender. An all-out guerrilla war would have devasted the country even further.

Lee had defeated every union general sent against him: Pope, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker. He had every reason to think that he could crush the Union Army in an all-out fight in the North. The fact is, Lee did not lose at Sharpsburg nor at Gettysburg. However, he didn't win. That was the problem. At both Antietam and Gettysburg, Lee held his lines at the end of the battles and invited a Union attack. In both cases, the Union army was so mangled that it could not act to remove Lee from the field. It didn't make a move against him. The battles were stalemates, but Lee was forced to withdraw as he could only afford to win, as he was far from his supply base.

Lee did blunder at Gettysburg in the third day, but he didn't lose his entire army. Pickett's charge lost about 7000 men, about ten percent of his force. But then Napoleon, the greatest general in history, tried the same gamble at Waterloo. As you know, Napoleon's Old Guard nearly, very very nearly broke Wellington's Army in a head-on all-out charge. If Napoleon had driven Wellington from the field, he could have then turned to defeat the Prussians who were pressing his rear. It was a gamble worth taking, as Napoleon was (as usual) hopelessly outnumbered, and a victory against both the English and the Prussians would have been decisive. In the same way, Lee sought a decisive victory at Gettysburg, preferring not to engage in a war of slow attrition and delay. That tactic didn't work with the Army of the Tennessee under Johnston. Also, the slow attrition at Petersburg that came after Gettysburg, that lasted nearly a year, didn't not weaken the North's resolve, despite the horrific body count the North was suffering compared to the South. The South simply ran out of men.

[REP]

56. John Kennedy

Can't understand why he is so revered.

[Pert_UK]

62. Ned Kelly

Celebrated as a folk hero and modern-day Robin Hood by many Australians, when in actual fact he was just a vicious armed robber.

Call me crazy, but somebody who can shoot 3 men in the nuts and then leave them to bleed to death does not deserve ANY praise.

P.

[KinkyDem]

68. Lewis and CLarke

Those guys woulda died and been wolf food if not for Sacagawaya.

Corps of Discovery! Hah! More like lead by the nose across an otherwise populated region by a woman carrieing a baby the whole time, part in eutero, part on her back.

[DrWeird]

70. Lewis was good. Clark was a slave beating asshole.

And I believe Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau was born before they left the Wampam village in the spring.

[TX-RAT]

73. Custer

[geniph]

74. St. Paul

in my opinion, he was the Antichrist - the one who subverts the message of the Messiah. Where Christ was inclusive and accepting, Paul preached misogyny and repression and discrimination.