|
Goodwin -> RE: 100-percenters (10/7/2006 8:50:34 AM)
|
After following this game and lurking on the boards for a while now, I want to try and make a contribution and also occupy my desire for Civil War fun until it comes out by contributing to the discussion about generals.
My first thought on the hundred percenters, is that Henry Halleck very definitely needs to be on the Union side. For good or ill (mostly ill, although probably not as ill as most people think), the Union Army would not have been what it was without Henry Halleck. This was the man who was a senior and eventual overall commander of the Western armies, general in chief of the Union armies for almost two years (which I believe makes him the longest holder of that position during the war), and finally the first chief of staff for the US army. Halleck came into the war as the 4th highest ranked Union officer and never went down from those heights, so it is hard to imagine the Civil War without him playing a role.
Another one that I think is an excellent option for at least 25% rank if not 100% is Ben Butler. Butler was one of the men that most in the North expected to be a great commander in the war. He was the first major general of volunteers appointed by Lincoln, and his Massachusetts regiment were the first of the volunteer troops asked for by Lincoln to reach the capitol. He had a number of important commands, from Fort Monroe to New Orleans to the Bermuda Hundred campaign, and made a crucial impact on the war through his political decisions (seizing fugitive slaves as contraband of war and being a "beast" in New Orleans) and his general military ineptitude in several important commands late in the war. But most of all I think he is worth including because he was so hard to get rid of throughout the war. As a politically connected and highly regarded war Democrat, he recieved important commands despite some considerable failures and could only be removed from these commands when Lincoln reelection was secure. Banks, Sigel, and McClernand are other, similar political generals.
Two more complicated possibilities for the Union are Don Carlos Buell and John Fremont. Fremont had very high rank and prestige early in the war, so it is difficult to imagine the beginning stages without him, but he scuttled his career early enough that I could easily consider him being left out. Buell also left the war fairly early, but he had a fairly large if not necessarily distinguished impact on the early war. He was another one of the highly regarded generals early in the war, and some, like Edward Pollard the originator of the lost cause theory, actually credited him as one of the few great Union generals after the war. I believe Buell should be a hundred percenter as another example of a Union General who had great potential and rose to high command early in the war, but failed to accomplish much.
As for Chamberlain, I'm not entirely sure that he's a critical general officer for the game. He certainly has an incredibly distinguished record of service, I'm just not sure his record of command makes him an indispensable general. His most significant command moment came when he was a Colonel. He only reached the rank of brigadier general (his major general rank was a brevet rank granted at the very end of the war) and never commanded more than a brigade. Despite his very noteworthy courage in command and his presence at significant events like the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, I think it would be wrong to include Chamberlain when so many higher ranking generals who played roles in significant battles need to be left out. To illustrate this point, would it make sense for Chamberlain be a hundred percenter based largely on his success at Little Round Top when G.K. Warren, the guy who got Chamberlain and the rest of Vincent's brigade to Little Round Top in the first place—and contributed to the Overland campaign as a corps commander—is left out?
Also, to add some generals that never really achieved an independent command but who served throughout the war (well, until they died) and developed very good records there are John Sedgwick and JB McPherson. Sedgwick was a professional and highly dependable general, if not necessarily aggressive or particularly creative. And McPherson deserves to be a hundred percenter because his skills as a general were and are very highly regarded, and he rose to command of a major union army (Tennessee, although his army was under the direct control of Sherman throughout the Atlanta campaign). In addition, both Sedgwick and McPherson have unique accomplishments among all Civil War general. Sedgwick is a strong contender for the best quote in the war ("They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance") and McPherson is a strong contender for the best middle name in the war (Birdseye). There are a few other examples of union generals who played important roles throughout the war even if they never had a real independent command, most notably Howard, Warren, and Ord.
Anyway, I think that is most of what I have to say right now. My list of 17 Union hundred percenters would be:
Burnside, Meade, Grant, McClellan, Sherman, Sheridan, Hooker, Pope, McDowell, Thomas, Halleck, Buell, Reynolds, Hancock, Butler, McPherson, Sedgwick
Honorable Mentions: Warren, Howard, Banks, Rosecrans, Sigel, Ord, Fremont, Hunter.
|
|
|
|
