View single post by javal1
 Posted: Tue Mar 24th, 2009 12:49 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1491
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 I don't usually get involved with these "pro-Lee", "anti-Lee" arguments, but this comment puzzles me:

"It wasn't a brain fart for Lee but it was for some of his subordinates"

I can't count the number of times I've seen Lee get credit for the actions of his subordinates (Jackson's flanking maneuver at Chancellorsville for example) when they work. So if a commander is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, why does it seem that Lee gets the credit when those below him perform well, but he gets no blame when they don't?

Stuart arrives late - not Lee's fault. Orders to Ewell concerning Culp's Hill are misunderstood - not Lee's fault. Longstreet hesitates when ordered to attack - not Lee's fault. A futile charge - not Lee's fault. Does the buck ever stop at Lee? Or only when things turn out favorably?