Lee lost the war. You can't expect a perfect score when you're on the losing team. Had he been more conservative in tactics and strategy he may have bled the north more before the 64 election. He wrecked his own army over time. Grant understood logistics that Lee didn't.

Some of history's greatest generals lost when the odds against them became too high.

And I think he was acutely aware of logistics, particularly after he had to disperse his army during the winter of 1862-1863 due largely to supply chain problems over which he had no control.

I think that was the real motivation for his invasion of Pennsylvania, and possibly why he felt he had to roll the dice at Gettysburg.

As for the election of 1864, my reading indicated Lincoln won because of the Union victories at Atlanta and in the Valley, not because Lee held out in Richmond. If anything, it was the horrendous casualties his army inflicted on the Yanks during the Overland Campaign that put the election in doubt in the first place.

In the context of rating generals, you can't give a loser a perfect rating. Wellington defeats Napoleon therefore Wellington should be rated higher. Grant defeats Lee therefore Grant should be rated higher. Winners get the higher marks at the end of any conflict. Lee should be a close second behind Grant. When you split hairs ranking generals someone has to be on top to set the ideal others should be measured against. That has to be Grant.

In the context of rating generals, you can't give a loser a perfect rating. Wellington defeats Napoleon therefore Wellington should be rated higher. Grant defeats Lee therefore Grant should be rated higher. Winners get the higher marks at the end of any conflict. Lee should be a close second behind Grant. When you split hairs ranking generals someone has to be on top to set the ideal others should be measured against. That has to be Grant.

I disagree that the winning General is by default the better one. So many factors contribute to a win or a loss. Not all are controllable.

One simple example from WW2: Who would you take; Rommel or Montgomery? Montgomery won but I take Rommel 100 out of 100 asks.

John Pope

Bright, politically well connected, educated in the military art, brave, enterprising, and inventive, John Pope was also arrogant, abrasive, and, as a young officer, hyper-ambitious, with a remarkable facility for offending subordinates, colleagues, and superiors alike. His success against fixed fortifications on the Mississippi River was of great strategic significance, but his subsequent failure to weld the Army of Virginia into an effective fighting force and to work collaboratively with other generals contributed to his ignominious defeat at the Second Battle of Bull Run (a Union disaster that dwarfed the comeuppance of the First Battle of Bull Run) and cost him his command in the Eastern Theater.

HISTORIANS RATING: TWO STARS

That's a star too high. If one star is a losing commander and two stars is a competent commander, you can't rate Pope two stars. Of the entire retinue of passing Union generals in Virginia he is arguably the weakest of them all.

He was the common soldiers General. His calling was leading men into battle. Wearing the same dirty clothing and suffering the elements the same that they did. He complained of stomach problems and ailments as a professor, but it was the war that cured him, his purpose. He had the faith that no matter what happened, it was already ordained. Good or bad as that may be, it made him almost invincible on the battlefield. He won his mens respect first, and as a leader that is paramount before winning actual battles.

His efforts and leadership are to be admired, and he is certainly someone I have always enjoyed reading about.

I recommend the book “Rebel Yell” for anyone interested in learning more about him. Its a biography.

[size=125]Thomas J. Jackson

Jackson was not a perfect commander. But he had that "It" factor (Napoleon might call it luck) which sometimes seems to favor the bold.

Look forward to any other thoughts.