- Jul 2012
Robert E Lee certainly was superior to most of the Union generals he faced, even he couldn't take Wset Virginia from Rosecrans. Outside of Virgina, the Confederates repeatedly failed, even under the best Confederate generals, even when they had numerical superiority. I agree that the war would have ended sooner if the Confederacy hadn't had RE Lee, but the war also would have ended sooner without McClellan and Halleck. Of course we should judge CSA generals and other generals on the standard of winning campaigns - what other standard should they be judged on. Bothe the Union and the Confederacy had smaller populations than the equivalent areas in Europe, but the Union still had to garrison that big of an area and stretch supply lines over that long of a distance. The Confederacy didn't allow slaves to serve in the military, but they certainly worked in the farms and factories. Not counting them towards confederate number only if you subtract all of the Union farmers and factory workers from the Union's available manpower. The actual size of the armies was roughly 3 Union soldiers to every 2 Confederates in an era where the military technology favored the defensive.I disagree. I think the fact if the CSA didn't have superior officers the war would have been over much sooner and I think judging the CSA generals by the standard of "winning campaigns" isn't realistic. And the Eastern confederate officers were superior to the West, that is why the Union won most major battles in the west. However there was no single victory in the East that could end the war and it took time for those victories to add up. The CSA might have been large but in terms of population it had a much smaller population than those places(maybe not Poland) especially a free population. There were less than 6 million free people in the CSA in 1860. They were outnumbered almost 4 to 1.