[x]

This isn't exactly news. Lee's willingness to accept great casualties when he could ill afford them has been a subject of discussion for some time, as has the question of whether a different, less territorial strategy would have been better for his side. Also, D.S. Freeman included many mythical and unsubstantiated accounts in his biography of Lee. And those who huff about assaults on Lee's reputation ought to give a thought to what was done to Longstreet by Lee's own admirers.

But Lee was a classy guy who did show many virtues. And he was certainly a good military commander. While another hypothetical leader could have won the war for the Confederacy, most of the real ones wouldn't have made it last as long as Lee did. Lee's choice of Confederate command over his oath to the union and constitutution is something that makes it hard for some to take the "Marble Man" image.

[wardaddy]

In my view, the South lost the war (military commander-wise) via Bragg in the west. There is no doubt the North won due to Grant both in the west and in the VA/PA/MD theater.

[lentulusgracchus]

Lee's choice of Confederate command over his oath to the union and constitutution is something that makes it hard for some to take the "Marble Man" image.

As I've discussed in extenso with WP on the other thread, Lee informed Lt. Gen. (brevet) Winfield Scott of his decision on April 18, 1861, a very few days after Virginia's secession convention, sitting as the People, voted Virginia out of the Union. He signed his resignation on April 20, and it was accepted on the 25th, pretty rapidly. General Scott had a chance to countermand his stated intention to leave the service and offer his services to Virginia, to order him confined to quarters or the DC area, even to refuse to accept his resignation "for the duration". None of that happened.

Lee accepted a commission in the Virginia Militia on April 22nd or 23rd (Virginia happened not to have traded warlike blows with the federal government as of that date). At that point, Virginia was out of the Union and Lee was no longer a citizen, from Virginia's point of view, or if you wish, he was still a citizen in the Unionist formula -- and a citizen of an unoffending Virginia, which was still a State of the Union as of that date. So which is your poison? That he accepted an as-yet innocuous Virginia Militia commission while his papers were still getting stamped? Or that he was no longer a citizen anyway, and couldn't stay longer on U.S. service?

He didn't accept a commission in the CSA until May 10, and the voters of Virginia signed off on secession at their plebiscite held May 23rd.

He didn't choose a Confederate command "over his oath to the union", from which he was released as of April 25th at the latest.

Your complaint against him must then take another footing, that of a general political crime against the Unionist Theory of Threshold (not Perpetual) Consent.

If we go there, it's going to be a long afternoon. I suggest you just read through the 375+ posts on the other thread instead.