Sunday, January 18, 2009
Too Little, Too Late
The other day in class, during one of our fish bowl sessions, we discussed a passage from the book in which Robert E. Lee explained the duty of an officer to General Longstreet. Lee talked of how officers must understand the possible consequences of their decisions and that they must accept them. He said Longstreet was "too close" to his men and that he must learn not to dwell on the possibility of his men losing their lives as a result of his decisions. Others in class, can't remember who, said that this was evidence of a more human side to Lee and that he was becoming a more reasonable leader. With this, I have to disagree. I see this more as evidence of the contrary, that Lee is still the same old-school general that does not fully understand the possible consequences of his decisions. He claims that officers must be willing to put their men in harms way, but at what cost? Not long after this discussion with Longstreet, Lee orders the ill-fated Pickett's Charge. He was advised by Longstreet that such a decision would be a costly one but ignores him. His old-school nature gets the best of him and forces him to look past the logic that resides in Longstreet's plans and to take a more foolish, aggressive plan. It isn't until after Pickett's Charge that Lee becomes a more reasonable and understanding leader. He sees how depleted his army is after the charge and only then does he fully understand how costly his decisions can be. This is obvious when he confesses to his army that, "it is all [his] fault," in reference to the devastation caused by his order. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, Lee's realization comes at far too late of a time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This is an interesting perspective about Lee. I happen to agree with you that the passage you referenced does not make Lee more humanistic. It is not until after the final charge that Lee realizes he was wrong. Still then, I don't think he fully understands what it means to be a complete leader -- one who can command and manage the morale of his men. But I think you are right. Even though Lee realizes that Lonstreet is "too close" to his men, and perhaps this can save the Confederacy, Lee chooses to follow his instinct and cause the Confederacy to falter. Again, I think it is Longstreet's responsibility as a seemingly educated leader to impel Lee to listen to him.
Lee's actions can never be defined as logical even at the beginning of the war. His military strategy and tactics are based on the guidance and protection of god. For Lee this mindset and thinking made complete sense and was going to help ensure victory for the Confederates. I don't perceive Lee to be an egotistical leader that ignores advice from other general, but rather I see him as an inspirational figure for the South. Lee represents a symbol of hope and victory for the confederates. It is easy for us to criticize Lee, but we can forget with what mindset Lee approached the war. Victory for the South was his one and only goal and he was set on achieving this task regardless of the consequences. Lee admits fault because his beliefs proved to be wrong. He was so focused on victory that he failed to realize the error in his judgments.
I agree with you completely. I would compare Lee to an athlete who is highly respected, but past his or her prime: perhaps similar to Brett Favre. He is revered by his men, but his illness along with his aggressive strategy makes him a poor leader in the context of Gettysburg. Longstreet in comparison would be the rookie who has not yet gained recognition, but is primed to be great.
I think that ultimately, Lee's decisions are based solely upon his education and his religion. As you say, and I agree with you for the moment until someone can convince me otherwise, that Lee has still not learned his lesson in his conversation with Longstreet. The Confederates had suffered horrendous casualties before Pickett's charge was even ordered but Lee dismisses these "statistics" and goes ahead with his decision. For his realization that it was "all his fault", anybody can say that after a disastrous defeat. I guess hindsight truly is 20/20.
I believe that by Lee saying to Longstreet that he was "too close" to his men he was just trying to provide Longstreet with some of the wisdom he has gained through his experience as being commander. I believe that Lee felt that if Longstreet were able to distance himself from his men a little bit that it would lead to him being a better leader.
i agree with you and Scott; Lee does not become more aware of his responsibilities to his troops until it is too late. The cynical part of me wonders if even at that point, Lee is not just morning the loss of numbers. i hope that isn't the case, and i don't think it is. But the thought lingers.
Connor's sports analogy to Lee is really good, i think; Lee is outdated and weakening, while Longstreet is advancing as a military mind successfully.
Barbs, I love your post. I was thinking the exact same thing during our discussion, but we ran out of time for me to give my peace. To go along with what you said, Lee stated that a good General needs to be able to sacrifice men at times. People thought that he was finally realizing the mortality of his army, but he was just re-affirming his ideology.
Lee had one job during the war. Win. At all cost. He understands that to win you have to lose something and in his case it is men. We do see a more human aspect to him when he does admit that he was wrong. He is talking about the battle, but I also think he is talking about the war. Both Lee and Longstreet know that the war is over at this point and when you said "Lee talked of how officers must understand the possible consequences of their decisions and that they must accept them." Lee is doing this exactly when he says he is sorry. He took a chance and lost. As a leader you have to risk the chance of defeat if the outcome is worth it.
This is very similar to another blog... I agree with you Barber, I find that Old school tactics hinders Lee's admiration for being a good leader. I do see a small flaw in Longstreet's leadership. Becoming too close to any human being in a job or act of war can complicate things. Most businesses and institutions strongly oppose or restrict relationships within the workplace. Close relationships can hinder one's judgement especially in times where one needs to be decisive. So both leaders have flaws, however I still stand with Longstreet.
I think the discussion with Longstreet and Lee did not further display Lee's narrowminded view on war. I think it solidified the reality that no one else was ready to lead the confederacy. If Lee is lecturing Longstreet on the importance of neglecting death, I feel that he is preparing Longstreet for a possible change in leadership. I think he understands fully that people are dying, but he understands even better that he must distance himself to succeed. I think Picketts Charge is not about him not caring about his troops at all. I think it was a tactical mistake where he thought he could overwhelm an unprepared Union army. Clearly, he was mistaken, as the Unions were fully prepared, even waiting. He is not realizing at the end that he needed to care about his troops more and then he could have lead them to victory, he is realizing that he made a tactical mistake, which lead to the death of so many men, which he has known all along to be upsetting, but because he has not failed tactically, it had not bothered him. At that point, not only had he lost all those troops, but he had lost the war as well.
Post a Comment