Robert E. Lee

[Disturbed]

I think he was LSI-Se. Probably my favorite general ever and one of the most popular in a side that lost. He was so gentlemanly and pretty smart and pretty spontaneous/did new things/didn't re-use the same tricks (LSI-Se are pretty smart and pretty spontaneous/they only use new tricks/they don't re-use the same old tricks). He was pretty fair; he wasn't as ruthless and unfair as Sherman. He seemed to have an interest in the well-being of anyone who would fight for him.

What do you think his type and subtype were?

[Dauphin]

ESI

[xerx]

dirtbag who broke up slave families to sell for auction. not sure about type.

[totalize]

I think he was LSI-Se. Probably my favorite general ever and one of the most popular in a side that lost. He was so gentlemanly and pretty smart and pretty spontaneous/did new things/didn't re-use the same tricks (LSI-Se are pretty smart and pretty spontaneous/they only use new tricks/they don't re-use the same old tricks). He was pretty fair; he wasn't as ruthless and unfair as Sherman. He seemed to have an interest in the well-being of anyone who would fight for him.

What do you think his type and subtype were?

Lee did definitely re-use the same tricks. His victories in many ways speak to the deficiencies of Federal leadership rather than his own quality; but then on the other hand, he is one of the greatest generals of all time, certainly greater than any other American general than Eisenhower, so...

He benefited, as all good leaders do, from good subordinates: the two finest Corps commanders in the American civil war bar none - Longstreet & Jackson had two very different characteristics, were two very effective military men and leaders, and the military equivalent of two wild animals. When Jackson died he never learned to trust anyone else and Longstreet became closer to him.

The relationship between Lee & Jackson looks something like kindred or mirror, with the two men seeing eye to eye on almost everything, and Lee trusting Jackson to use his own methods and effects as long as it worked. When Lee and Jackson were able to see eye to eye in this way they inflicted incredible defeats on the Army of the Potomac. You can see evidence of this in 2nd Manassas battle and Chancellorsville. Military historians have written in detail between the close, automatic relation between Lee & Jackson.

By contrast Lee could not have been more different to Longstreet, who was more or less a man of caution, or as I would put it, controlled boldness. In Longstreet can find no 'scheme', no 'special trick', just attention to detail, practicality, and a strong intuition. Actually I would say Longstreet is the benefactor, but perhaps supervisor of Lee. That kind of control and practical thinking, mixed with a way to look to the future, was something Lee really missed. In his personal life he was very fair and a gentleman but in his military career continuously took big risks in rewards of big payoffs even though it was obvious that the American civil war could not be fought tactically like the war of 1812 or the Mexican war.

So we could suggest:
Lee, SLE (Beneficiary) - Longstreet, LIE (Benefactor) - Jackson, SEE (SLE Kindred [Lee]) or (LSI Mirror [Lee]).
Lee, SLE (Supervisee) - Longstreet, LII (Supervisor - Doubt it, but possible)
Lee, LSI (Supervisee) - Longstreet, ILE (Supervisor) - Jackson, SLE (Mirror [Lee])
Lee, LSE (Supervisee) - Longstreet, ILI (Supervisor)

Those are the four combinations where I consider Longstreet as intuitive and Lee as sensor, and place them in realistic beneficiary/supervisor positions.

Bear in mind these are wide suggestions because we don't have a huge amount of historical evidence on these peoples characteristics.

[Dauphin]

dirtbag who broke up slave families to sell for auction. not sure about type.

Thank you for your valued contribution.
He never played a part in the buying or selling of slaves, and he owned none by time of the war. Either way, having a hatred for a person who died long before you were born is something ridiculous in the most literal sense of the term.

[xerx]

Thank you for your valued contribution.

You're welcome. Why is this mediocre individual such a hero to (presumably) you and others?

He never played a part in the buying or selling of slaves, and he owned none by time of the war. Either way, having a hatred for a person who died long before you were born is something ridiculous in the most literal sense of the term.

It's because he had servants or slaves to carry out transactions for him (heh). But Lee did break up all but one of his slave families and hired them off to other plantations, which was considered harsh and unjust even by the standards of the time.

You're defending a cruel man who was unskilled in Christian virtue and had little respect for the unity of the Christian family. This is disheartening and, frankly, puts the genuineness of your own Christianity into question.

[Dauphin]

You're welcome. Why is this mediocre individual such a hero to (presumably) you and others?




It's because he had servants or slaves to carry out transactions for him (heh). But Lee did break up all but one of his slave families and hired them off to other plantations, which was considered harsh and unjust even by the standards of the time.

You're defending a cruel man who was unskilled in Christian virtue and had little respect for the unity of the Christian family. This is disheartening and, frankly, puts your own Christianity into question.

Lee was one of the most renowned and admired military leaders of his time and was considered a paragon of virtue by his contemporaries, including by those who wanted him hanged. Your views on the man are only reflective of your willingness to believe politicised retroactive depictions. Your use of Christianity in this discussion is cheap and insupportable (besides being irrelevant and borderline ad hominem), considering Lee was actually a devout and practicing Christian, whereas Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman (for example) were not. Hell, Pope Pius IX himself sent a letter of sympathy to Confederate President Jefferson Davis when the latter was sitting in a Federal prison.
All the shit about slaves has become only a nuisance to me. If mankind was only allowed to make heroes out of people who never held views considered evil or bigoted by modern standards, the pool of candidates would be rather small, and most of them far more "mediocre" than old Bobby Lee.

[xerx]

Lee was one of the most renowned and admired military leaders of his time and was considered a paragon of virtue by his contemporaries, including by those who wanted him hanged. Your views on the man are only reflective of your willingness to believe politicised retroactive depictions. Your use of Christianity in this discussion is cheap and insupportable (besides being irrelevant and borderline ad hominem), considering Lee was actually a devout and practicing Christian, whereas Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman (for example) were not. Hell, Pope Pius IX himself sent a letter of sympathy to Confederate President Jefferson Davis when the latter was sitting in a Federal prison.
All the shit about slaves has become only a nuisance to me. If mankind was only allowed to make heroes out of people who never held views considered evil or bigoted by modern standards, the pool of candidates would be rather small, and most of them far more "mediocre" than old Bobby Lee.

Then his contemporaries had a funny conception of virtue, because Lee wasn't a good man, and he certainly wasn't kind to his slaves. Your views are only reflective of your willingness to believe politicized retroactive depictions, cherry-picked to support a pro-Confederate narrative.

By the way, I never judged him (or anyone) by "modern standards," many of which I find deplorable in their own right, but by his self-professed Christian ones—some of which reflect universal feelings of right or wrong that have existed in people's hearts as far back as the stone age. Robert E. Lee was a failure as a Christian and, sadly, so are the people who lionize him.

[Disturbed]

I think ESI-Se now. I think he was an admirable and very unique man, but the problem was that the South just couldn't secede with any success. I think they may have been successful if they had seceded and actually had a loose confederation (the way the northern men fighting were and the way they thought means it would've been a lot harder for them to conquer a real confederation and to fight guerilla warfare, I think Sherman would've had a lot of problems with doing that), but they went with a strong central government.

[Aramas]

SLE in my opinion.

[Disturbed]

SLE in my opinion.

SLE kind of makes sense. If it's OK to ask why do you say SLE rather than ESI; how does SLE fit and how does ESI not fit?

[Aramas]

SLE kind of makes sense. If it's OK to ask why do you say SLE rather than ESI; how does SLE fit and how does ESI not fit?

VI, VI, VI

[Dauphin]

SLE in my opinion.

Fi-PoLR is pretty much impossible for him. He was known for being a rather kind and courteous person, for one thing.

"We must forgive our enemies. I can truly say that not a day has passed since the war began that I have not prayed for them"
"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character."
"Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so, is dearly purchased at a sacrifice. Deal kindly, but firmly with all your classmates; you will find it the policy which wears best. Above all do not appear to others what you are not."

[Aramas]

Fi-PoLR is pretty much impossible for him. He was known for being a rather kind and courteous person, for one thing.

"We must forgive our enemies. I can truly say that not a day has passed since the war began that I have not prayed for them"
"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character."
"Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one; the man who requires you to do so, is dearly purchased at a sacrifice. Deal kindly, but firmly with all your classmates; you will find it the policy which wears best. Above all do not appear to others what you are not."

Kind and courteous according to who? And SLEs can be kind.

[Dauphin]

Kind and courteous according to who? And SLEs can be kind.

According to nearly every description of the man. His classmates at West Point described him as such. His friends and family described him as such. His opponents during the Civil War described him as such. I suggest you read a biography of him, or anything in which his personality can be seen. He didn't have any of the bluster or competitiveness that is a hallmark of SLEs. He was first and foremost a dutiful and fatherly man known for his integrity.

This text is definitely from an admirer of Lee, but it should suffice to show how his contemporaries viewed him:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South...Gen._R._E._Lee

[Disturbed]

According to nearly every description of the man. His classmates at West Point described him as such. His friends and family described him as such. His opponents during the Civil War described him as such. I suggest you read a biography of him, or anything in which his personality can be seen. He didn't have any of the bluster or competitiveness that is a hallmark of SLEs. He was first and foremost a dutiful and fatherly man known for his integrity.

This text is definitely from an admirer of Lee, but it should suffice to show how his contemporaries viewed him:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South...Gen._R._E._Lee

Now that you mention it, it definitely makes sense to me. He was quite humble, even for an ESI-Se. Some SLE of both subtypes can be quite humble too though and they often say that their abilities are low (when they're medium or better). Donald Trump is really at an extreme end of being blustery and thinking highly of himself and his ideas for an SLE. Newt Gingrich was the same way. But both men were politicians so...