I am always perplexed at how people regard Lee. You are correct, it was a lost cause. If it was a lost cause why turn Lee into a hero for continuing the fight, especially after the election of 1864. The re-election of Lincoln was essentually the end for the South, but Lee continued the fight, causing the sensless death of thousands of americans (North and South).
As a historian, please share your thoughts on the Overland Campaign. Why did Lee continue the fight? I thought Lee wanted to erode Norhtern will, but at the same time he sacrificed isproportionate casualties trying to acheive this. He did not understand the at this point the war was over.
Also, you mention Hooker, yes, Lee did defeat him, but you have to give credit to Hooker for losing all inititiave after the opening day of Chancellorsville, he froze, and gave all the initiative to Lee.
Finally, what was Lee without his best generals who were lost one by one throughout the war (Jackson, Stewart, etc..)?

These are all good questions and we can only conjecture about answers. Talented generals throughout history have continued to fight when it would seem that all possibilities for victory have disappeared. The Army was not averse to fighting; indeed their combat performance in the siege lines around Petersburg was excellent. However, by winter of January/February of 1865 morale finally cracked in the ANV because of the apparent hopelessness of the situation, logistical failures and thus desertion rates skyrocketed. So the surrender in April of 1865 pretty much corresponds to the change in character of the Army and most importantly its loss of mobility. Interestingly, the fighting caliber of the troops was undiminished even at Appomattox. Gordon’s attack against Sheridan’s troops was very successful and sent Brig. Smith’s Federal ‘s back on their heels. Once Gordon’s band reached high ground however they saw two complete Federal Corps arrayed against him in the fields beyond. Without the ability to maneuver Lee lost his greatest weapon that of maneuver thus there was no point in continuing the fight.

Per the Overland Campaign, Lee had no particular reason to consider surrender. Grant was singularly unsuccessful in trapping and destroying Lee’s army and Lee’s troops held their own and indeed considering the disparity in numbers usually outfought the Federals. Grant and Lincoln were the ones in political trouble in the country until the capture of Atlanta by Sherman. After the march to the sea the whole strategic situation for the south collapsed and we know retrospectively that the cause was doomed. In my humble view the cause (foolish in the extreme) was doomed from day one as long as northern will held out. Lee sensed the same thing and certainly was not an advocate of secession but was quaintly loyal to his native Virginia. The relationship between states and the Union was different then something we don’t fully appreciate today as we judge people and events by our contemporary standards.

What piques my interest in history as a young boy were the stories related to my by my dad of my great-grandfather who as a member of the 108th NY Vol. Inf. and lived with my teenage father until he died in 1926. He served in the largest battles of the Army of the Potomac in the 2nd Corps and was at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg (where he was a skirmisher and laid down on the ground feigning death so Pettigrew’s troops marched over him on the left of Pickett’s Charge) and the Wilderness where he was wounded. According to my dad he had nothing but the most profound respect and admiration for the Confederate troops. He related to the family that even in their acute poverty they had a fire in them that northern troops lacked.

I think you are spot on on Lee's surrender in April, but it shows how little he understood above the tactical level of war. He saw morale declining in the ANV, and thus surrendered, had Lee had a strategic vision, he would have seen the hopelessness of the situation about 6 months earlier. The re-election of Lincoln ensured the North would not pursue peace, Britain would not take the side of the South, and there was no chance of victory above a tactical battlefield win. By continuing the war, he sent thousands of young Soldiers to their sensless deaths.

History teaches us that usually commanders do not surrender their intact armies that have yet to be defeated. Whether Lee was good at tactics and bad at strategy is really beside the point. At Appomattox all of Lee’s senior officers strongly advise against capitulation (yes even Longstreet) and some demanded that the war be transformed into a guerrilla war. Lee refused ‘to go bushwhacking’ for a cause that was lost and instead chose capitulation.

BTW, it is easy for us as armchair generals in retrospect to determine the strategic culmination point of a war. Unfortunately, it is usually the case that such turning points are not so evident at the time. I could write a book on the subject going back to the Peloponnesian Wars. :-)

of course it is easy to armchair general...that is what makes this thread so enjoyable...I think not just this thread but on a number of Rick's post seem to come down to judging political/military decesions.
You are correct, Lee did not go into the insurgency, but could he have? One of the south's weaknesses was the inability to coordinate forces (States are independant). Other than turning the ANV into an insurgent force, what power did he have to make it a true insurgency coverig the whole conferderacy?

JP: I appriciate your time and discussion on this, again, being an arm-chair general and judging the past can be fun...we can go into the Pelopennsian War; can you link the North's initial strategy to Pericles? Seek local actions and try to exhaust the enemy? The low cost strategy would fail. It took a long time for Athens to change it's strategy, as it is difficult for democracies to embrace strategic change (Athens, the North, The Surge)? The North took a long time to change to the continued fight under Grant. Less democratic regimes can alter their strategic approach without the consent of the population (Sparta, The South)?

Ah, someone who has read Thucydides! SOLDIERSDIARY, I am impressed and pleased to actually find someone up to speed and literate in military history beyond 1939. And your Athens is the ‘North’ and Sparta the ‘South’ is delightful analogy. Let me tip my hat in admiration to you.

Personally, I don’t think guerilla warfare was, as the Brits say ‘not on’ for the Confederacy. They might have made the balance of 1865 difficult but likely would not have received much support from a devastated and weary south. So Lee’s judgment in that matter was correct and of course was also contrary to his vision of ‘honor’ a concept quaint and antiquated in our modern versions of war.

Again just to make myself clear I am no apologist for the Confederacy. The cause was foolish in the extreme, secession counter-productive (though I am like a host of legal scholar’s not totally convinced that it was illegal in the context of the Constitution as we understood it in 1861) and the entire concept of waging war to defend human slavery utterly reprehensible. I am pleased the south lost and lost convincingly.

However, I appreciate extraordinary naval and military talent since it is one of history’s most rare commodities. For instance, to fight in one-lifetime fifty-five major engagements and never to suffer a major defeat merely temporary reverses that genius converted into opportunity like Caesar did in Gaul and the Civil War to me is epitome of the sublime. America likes to think of itself as a great military power and it is but in my view has never really been replete with outstanding military talent that derived its success from the quality and character of its leadership rather than the enormity of its resources. Lee as an American soldier is in my view an exception to that and thus I respect his skill as a leader and daring commander in war.

"waging war to defend slavery" ..true, I think that it was especially true after the emancipation proclimation, however, war was declared prior to it. As a man who understands history and Thucidides, war is fought for 3 reasons, fear, honor, power. Could you say the South feared that it would lose its power after the 1860 election of Lincoln...for the first time in a long long time the executive branch was seated by a Northerner, and the number of free states in the Union was becoming unacceptable to the South who would lose power in the legislative branch as well.
Just an argument that can be made, in the end, it was over slavery, and I am in complete agreement with you on the outcome.

I think you are absolutely correct in your view that war was waged by the south to hold onto its power in the national government. However, I think it is even worse than just that. It was war contrived by the elite few who were willing to bet everything including the lives and fortunes of white non-slave holding free holders and tenants for their selfish benefit. They also conjured up race hatred in order to make the larger portion of the southern people fear for their status among free Negroes. But as I remind many who think that the Confederate flag was the banner of slavery (it was) that slavery also existed and was protected far longer under the stars and stripes.

Lincoln wasn't a Northerner, he was a Westerner. That was a point made time and again during his presidential race and while he served. Northerners, particularly Northeasterners, only embraced Lincoln after he was martyred. Prior to that time he was viewed by the Northeastern political and cultural elite as a simian rube from the Illinois backwoods.

@Littlemantate
Agree, you are correct, Dorris Kerns Goodwin would be proud.

My apologies, his name is McDonnell.