Audio read by Dr. Jeff Mccausland
excerpt written by Jeff McCausland and Tom Vossler
THE DAY BEFORE…ROBERT E. LEE’S DESIRE FOR A SUPERIOR STRATEGY
It was May of 1863, and the Civil War had lasted over two years. Both North and South believed at the onset that it would end quickly, but after many bloody battles the war continued.
The South had been successful in the Eastern theater. In early May the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by General Robert E. Lee had soundly defeated the Union Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville. In the Western theater, however things were not going as well. The Union Army was poised to take full control of the Mississippi River, and General Ulysses Grant was currently besieging the last Rebel stronghold on the river at Vicksburg.
At this critical moment Confederate President Jefferson Davis decided to hold a strategic planning conference for both the South’s political and military leadership to determine a way ahead. Lee arrived at this event as clearly the most celebrated Southern military officer, and with some fixed ideas as a result of that experience.
The Confederate capitol building in Richmond, Virginia where Southern leaders met in May 1963.
Robert E. Lee was faced with two important realities that tempered his approach to thinking as a strategic leader. Up until this point in the war, the strategy imposed upon him by his government was defense of a fixed point, the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. Moreover, the defense of yet another fixed point, Vicksburg, Mississippi, had come into consideration. In Lee’s assessment, continued adherence to these former Napoleonic concepts would only lead to indecisive results on the battlefield.
Lee also recognized that any strategy he pursued must take into account his army’s disadvantage in resources in comparison to his adversary, principally the shortages of manpower and the implements of war. In considering these realities, it was clear to Lee that he must adopt and gain approval for a superior strategy that would rely on the principles of surprise and prudent use of troops in overcoming the inherent limitations of the means left to him in achieving victory.
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS VIGNETTE ABOUT LEADERSHIP?
Strategic planning. It is clear that the Confederate leadership was holding a strategic planning conference as it attempted to decide what action to take in a rapidly changing environment. All organizations find this necessary, and many leaders schedule such meetings routinely. For any institution, “strategy” relates to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests. It further considers the means to achieving them, which involves planning and is often done on an annual basis.
Organizations conduct strategic planning for a number of reasons. First, it helps to organize the institution in a coherent and integrated manner in order to achieve its goals or objectives. Second, it helps to understand its current situation more clearly and prepare for major, often complex, problems or opportunities. Third, such efforts serve to shape the entire organization. It facilitates the effort to create the best capabilities and modify the organization as required. Fourth, planning often can identify and lead to better understanding of the inherent risks associated with various options, organizational shortfalls, or the lack of particular capabilities. Finally, it forces an organization to examine the environment in which it is operating and consider ongoing changes, as well as the potential actions of competitors.
As previously stated, the planning process includes the careful consideration of three variables: “ends, ways, and means.” “Ends” are the long-term goals and objectives of the organization. This requires a careful consideration of the organization’s purpose, mission, vision, and values. For the Confederacy, this included winning the war in order to assert its independence as a nation, and the preservation of the “peculiar institution” that underpinned its economy and social structure—slavery. “Ways” refers to actions, plans, policies for subordinate organizations, and often the leader’s strategic initiatives. In the Summer of 1863, the Southern leadership had carefully discussed three plans or options that they believed might move them toward their long-term goals. “Means” includes material resources such as people, money, and equipment. It should also include a careful consideration of time and the prioritization of resources for maximum effect.
The three plans considered by Southern leaders included: (1) send part of Lee’s army to Mississippi in an effort to relieve the besieged Confederate garrison; (2) reinforce General Bragg in central Tennessee and order him to advance into the Midwest; and (3) direct Lee to take his army into Pennsylvania, threaten Washington, and seek a decisive victory on northern soil. Robert E. Lee clearly preferred the third option, or “way.” By the end of the conference he had successfully convinced the Confederate leadership to accept it. Lee’s success over the preceding months and recent victory at Chancellorsville obviously strengthened his arguments. Renowned American Civil War historian James M. McPherson writes, “Lee’s opinion carried so much weight that Davis felt compelled to concur...the Virginian dazzled President Davis and Confederate Secretary of War Seddon with his proposal to invade Pennsylvania with a reinforced army and inflict a crushing defeat on the Yankees in their own backyard. This would remove the enemy threat on the Rappahannock River, take the armies out of war-ravaged Virginia, and enable Lee to feed his troops in the enemy’s country. It would also strengthen Peace Democrats, discredit Republicans, reopen the question of foreign recognition, and perhaps even conquer peace and recognition from the Union Government itself.”5
Furthermore, this option—if successfully accomplished—seemed to offer the clearest path to victory. Confederate leaders, especially in Virginia, vividly remembered that it was foreign intervention with the arrival of the French fleet off Yorktown that had secured victory during the American Revolutionary War. Most likely believed that a major victory in the East might tip the scales in favor of the Confederacy in the eyes of European leaders, and encourage them to recognize the Confederacy as an independent state, and intervene.
---------------------------------
ENDNOTES
5. James M. McPherson, The Illustrated Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era
(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003), 560.
Parts of this article are excerpted and adapted from Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons for 21st Century Leaders written by Jeffrey D. McCausland and Tom Vossler. Book is available September 1, 2020. Pre-order sales available now at: https://bit.ly/battletestedbook.