Critical Analysis of Lee's Defense at Fredericksburg 1862

This paper examines one aspect of warfare at the operational level, the defense, and attempts to identify how the elements of planning, preparation, and execution, previously applied in the conduct of the tactically-oriented Active Defense, must be modified with the adoption of our operationally-oriented AirLand Battle doctrine. Using Clausewitz's model for critical analysis, Gen R. E. Lee's 1862 fall campaign and the Battle of Fredericksburg, December 1862, are examined to identify the consequences of a tactical approach to battlefield defense. Finally, one operational alternative is proposed using concepts advocated by Clausewitz and the 1982 FM 100-5. This alternative is analyzed against the same strategic and tactical constraints and restrictions imposed upon Lee as the Confederate theater commander. From this analysis it becomes apparent that fundamental differences in tactical and operational approaches to the requirements of battlefield defense can be summarized as contrasts required in the commander's focus, purpose, and need to anticipate. This study also elaborates on the definition of the operational level of war provided in the current FM 100-5 and the concepts for defense as advocated by Clausewitz and adopted by AirLand Battle doctrine. Additionally, the two broad categories of defense, area and mobile, are examined against the requirements for an operational defense.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.