10 Best Civil War Generals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Joe D. -> 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/23/2015 7:43:59 PM)


"The American Civil War is a source of great fascination to millions of military aficionados. More Americans died in this conflict than any other American has engaged in, before or since. Many of the soldiers who served and the men who led them were amateurs, products of the State Militia system. As is often the case, Americans rose to the challenge, learning on the job the grim lessons of battle.

"The Civil War produced many examples of leadership, both wretched and inspiring. It is not surprising that America’s greatest conflict produced some of its best generals. Of these, most worth graduates of the United States Military Academy at West Point (or of some other equivalent) and had served at least some time as officers in the “Regular” Army. One of the finest commanders was a gifted amateur, a born military genius who found his calling in the cauldron of conflict.

"Here is a breakdown of the top ten...."


http://warrior.scout.com/story/1461364-the-10-best-generals-of-the-civil-war?s=155&utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HI150423_wk4_2%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=22531831&spUserID=ODkxNTE2MTM2MTMS1&spJobID=542443749&spReportId=NTQyNDQzNzQ5S0



zakblood -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/23/2015 8:16:45 PM)

was looking for my name tbh[&o][&o][&o]



Chickenboy -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/23/2015 8:21:29 PM)

Not a bad list actually.



berto -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/23/2015 10:03:50 PM)


A good list. I concur with the rankings, more or less, although I might place Grant ahead of Sherman.



sullafelix -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/24/2015 6:28:51 PM)

Sorry, I feel Jackson is overated, much like Rommel.

Many Confederate officers wrote that their best chance of winning the war was during the Seven days battles.

Porter Alexander spares no punches when he writes about Jackson during the battles.

There has also been some complaints against Jackson on the last day of Second Bull Run.

These are from his fellow officers.

The group of nonentities that he faced during the valley campaign should not be enough to push his star so high.

Unfortunately he was never really tested on his own against competent Union generals.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/24/2015 7:38:24 PM)

quote:

Sorry, I feel Jackson is overated, much like Rommel.


I more or less agree. Jackson did a remarkable job during the Valley Campaign, but he should have had his command decimated during Chancellorsville. It was raw luck that the Northerners didn't attack him while on the move -- the lower ranks knew he was there, but Hooker's subordinates couldn't be bothered to do anything.

I would rate Winfield S. Hancock as better than Meade: he was good on both offense and defense, while Meade was more the defensive type. Had Hancock rather than Meade been in command of the Army of the Potomac during Gettysburg, I rather think the Army of Northern Virginia would not have made it back to their home state, and the war might have ended almost two years earlier.



fodder -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/25/2015 8:03:17 AM)

bump



wings7 -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/25/2015 11:12:54 AM)

Great story and list! Thanks Joe! [:)]

Patrick



Orm -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/25/2015 9:27:44 PM)

How do you guys rate John F. Reynolds?



Blond_Knight -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/25/2015 9:48:22 PM)

I felt like they whitewashed too much of Jackson's weirdness in the "Gods and Generals" movie. And after his lackluster performance in "The Seven Days", even if it was due to chronic exhaustion, I cant rate him as #1. In truth I think its blasphemy to put anyone but Lee as #1.



sullafelix -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/25/2015 11:20:16 PM)

Yes, they made " old Tom fool " seem perfectly normal. There are some at the time who always believed that the " Stonewall " remark made by Bernard Bee was not meant to be a compliment.

Grant may have shown some strategy in the west, but in 64 and 65, he was just a plodder. Move left attack and get repulsed, repeat. It was almost like shampoo instructions. I mentioned this fact to a park ranger I was talking to in the " Wilderness " some years ago and he pretty much left in a huff.

Unfortunately it was not in Lee's training or disposition to take control of troops under subordinates. Much like Napoleon, he had a hands off approach to tactics. Both were ill served at times by them.

I completely agree with the writers of " Last chance for victory " that Lee envisioned an echelon attack from the right to the left on the second day of Gettysburg. if the general who was in charge of the North Carolinans? opposite Cemetary Ridge had not been mortally wounded before he was supposed to go in. I believe it would have succeeded with Meade having drawn so many troops from there earlier. I believe his name started witha " P ", but right now I have Pelham and Pegram floating through my head and cannot shake them out.

It was Pettigrew.



sherlock1 -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/26/2015 12:28:07 AM)

Hancock should be in the top ten, he's heads above Early, commanded more troops than Longstreet and was a winner. Should have Commanded the Army of the Potomac



DerTroof -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/27/2015 3:13:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Yes, they made " old Tom fool " seem perfectly normal. There are some at the time who always believed that the " Stonewall " remark made by Bernard Bee was not meant to be a compliment.

Grant may have shown some strategy in the west, but in 64 and 65, he was just a plodder. Move left attack and get repulsed, repeat. It was almost like shampoo instructions. I mentioned this fact to a park ranger I was talking to in the " Wilderness " some years ago and he pretty much left in a huff.

Unfortunately it was not in Lee's training or disposition to take control of troops under subordinates. Much like Napoleon, he had a hands off approach to tactics. Both were ill served at times by them.

I completely agree with the writers of " Last chance for victory " that Lee envisioned an echelon attack from the right to the left on the second day of Gettysburg. if the general who was in charge of the North Carolinans? opposite Cemetary Ridge had not been mortally wounded before he was supposed to go in. I believe it would have succeeded with Meade having drawn so many troops from there earlier. I believe his name started witha " P ", but right now I have Pelham and Pegram floating through my head and cannot shake them out.

It was Pettigrew.



It was Dorsey Pender. Allegedly, Lee later said the ANV would have won at Gettysburg if Pender wasn't wounded. ("Last Chance For Victory" is a great book!)

But the echelon attack had already broken down when some brigadiers of Anderson's Division (Posey and Mahone), to the east of Pender's, refused to attack, for reasons that remain unclear. So only parts of Anderson's division went in, at a crucial time when if they had gotten decent support the Union center may have collapsed. Puzzled as to why not all of Anderson's division had engaged as it was supposed to, Pender rode over to investigate, and was mortally wounded by a Union artillery shell.

So Anderson, as commander of the recalcitrant brigadiers, has a large share of the blame, as does his Corps commander AP Hill. And so does Lee - the complex echelon attack he planned on July 2 required much more on-hands supervision than he provided, but as you point out that wasn't his style.

That said, Lee IMO is absolutely the greatest general of the ACW, and perhaps in American history. It's absurd this list has Jackson ranked above Lee. In fact, I would rate Longstreet a better general than Jackson, and there is some indication Lee did as well.



sullafelix -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/27/2015 4:53:18 PM)

Yes, Pender, thank you.

A.P. Hill had a lot of explaining to do over the second day. Actually most of what I have read really doesn't show Hill as a good corps commander.



DerTroof -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/27/2015 5:21:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Yes, Pender, thank you.

A.P. Hill had a lot of explaining to do over the second day. Actually most of what I have read really doesn't show Hill as a good corps commander.


I agree with you about Hill, he was an excellent division commander but quite erratic at the Corps level.

If he was incapacitated at Gettysburg, I don't understand why Lee didn't replace him, or place Anderson and Pender's divisions under Longstreet (who was short a division - Pickett's - anyway) for purposes of the July 2 attack. He did detach two of Hill's divisions to Longstreet the next day, too late of course.

So many questions! Makes for a great discussion though. [:)]



Challerain -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 1:29:18 AM)

I've seem some say that if Jackson had of been at Gettysburg on Day 1 he would not of hesitated as Ewell did and would have had the heights on day 1 for the CSA. Different battle if that happens.



gradenko2k -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 5:02:37 AM)

I disagree with Lee being placed ahead of Grant considering Lee lost to him. As well, I do agree that Stonewall Jackson is very overrated.



DerTroof -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 5:46:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Challerain

I've seem some say that if Jackson had of been at Gettysburg on Day 1 he would not of hesitated as Ewell did and would have had the heights on day 1 for the CSA. Different battle if that happens.


Yes, James McPherson, among others has said that. Ewell still had some brigades from both Early and Rodes' divisions that were only lightly damaged from the afternoon assaults on Union I and XI Corps, and theoretically fresh enough to make the assault. That neither Early nor Rodes encouraged Ewell to attack Cemetery Hill is worth considering, I suppose.

But the next evening with only two brigades the Confederates did reach the crest of Cemetery Hill, against a dug-in, better-rested and organized Union force. So this suggests Ewell could have taken the position on July 1, if he was as aggressive as Jackson supposedly would have been. But Jackson had his share of lapses too... so it's more conjecture. [&:]



jimi3 -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 7:29:40 PM)

I've always been partial to John B. Gordon, who had no formal military training. His performance during the Overland Campaign speaks for itself. I also feel that 'Little Phil' Sheridan is way over rated. He made some near fatal errors in the Shenandoah Campaign.



sullafelix -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 9:26:34 PM)

Sheridan is just a little child who liked to play with matches.

If he didn't have overwhelming superiority of guns and numbers, we wouldn't even be speaking about him.



Nimrod 9th -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 11:17:39 PM)

Had to jump in. Before my current job I spent 10+ years with the Nat'l Park Service. Worked 3 Civil War parks (among other historical themed sites). Yes, National Park Service rangers can be, shall we say, stubborn concerning their options. Anyway I'm getting off track. Note almost all of the top Union generals are mid to late war generals. The early war guys (McClellan, Fremont, Sumner, McDowell, etc.) are usually seen as poor. Not really disagreeing BUT a couple important things usually don't get considered and should be. McDowell lead what at 1st Bull Run? 36,000 men (exact number doesn't matter). This was the largest US force in one place in the history of the US up to that point. No US Army general had EVER commanded so many in the field at one place. No doctrine for formations at that level. No experience. The largest up to this point were the armies during the War with Mexico. Say 15,000-20,000? So McDowell was discovering new territory for the US Army. Now in less than a year, that 36,000 becomes OVER 100,000 for McClellan. Almost overnight McClellan goes from commanding a small army in West Virginia to commanding over 100,000. WOW! No training at such a level. No experience. And these guys had to go on the offensive with these large armies. No wonder they "had the slows." Now look at the top Union generals. Started as early war brigade commanders. Then progressed to mid war division commands. Then late war corps and army commands. They had a chance to learn and grow. McDowell and McClellan (and others) didn't have that. Now don't misunderstand me. McClellan is no Grant. McDowell is no Sherman. I just get frustrated with all the early war Union commanders trash talk. Please folks. Next time be a little more considerate to the very difficult position those early war guys were in.



ezzler -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/28/2015 11:58:57 PM)

But the reverse is also true.
The CSA generals ALSO had to command huge numbers of troops. With much inferior supplies and equipment and weapons. Far, far less logistical support and far fewer replacements.

And they did, in the main, do that far better than the early was federal generals.

Lee , who should definitely be rated above Jackson, failed to get his large army properly into position for any of the seven days battles.
Yet he defeated McClellan and forced him from a war winning position too retreat from the peninsular.

And Lee rated McClellan the best union commander of all.

So just because it was a tough job, doesn't really mean it couldn't be done.

Other early war generals managed it.



Nimrod 9th -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 1:35:49 AM)

EZZZ,
We're not that far apart but we a little. I completely agree. McClellan and his summer 62 corps commanders are not Lee, Jackson, J Johnston, and others. But I will slightly disagree or maybe I should fine tune your comments concerning Southern generals being able to command and control huge forces early. Lee and his better division and corps commanders only did limited operational level offensive actions until fall 62. Seven Days was outside Richard. After McClellan dug-in Lee turned to face Pope but Lee had internal lines. From Lee's point of view, Pope wasn't far away. Plus Lee didn't have to command control the entire force. Jackson had already left to slow Pope (South Mountain ... no got that wrong ... Cedar Mountain ... no, that doesn't sound right either ... or is it ... oh this old brain). So Lee was only maneuvering part of his army through interior lines. It isn't until after 2nd Bull Run (late summer early fall 62) Lee takes on his first major operational level offensive. And even it didn't get very far north of the Potomac. Lee is a great general. I'm not trying to belittle him. His operational offensive frame of mind is completely different than the Northern generals operational offensive mind set. Remember I'm not talking tactical. I'm discussing large numbers at the operational level. No Southern general had to command/control/supply the huge numbers Northern generals did. Southern generals had no where near the 100,000 to 120,000 McClellan had to command/control/supply. Again, I'm NOT claiming McClellan and his 62 corps commands are as good as the Southern counter parts. I'm just not sure its fair to compare the early war McClellan (McDowell and others)to the 64/65 Grant Sherman Thomas Logan Meade Hancock etc. Seems like comparing two different types of apples (note I didn't say apple and oranges, they arent' that far apart). How about this. Let's agree to disagree and ponder our points of view. That's what makes this so fun and enlighting. No more long editors from me. I've spoken my piece.



cpdeyoung -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 7:42:26 AM)

@Nimrod 9th, @ezz

And a couple of thoughtful and thought provoking pieces they were. I had never thought about it quite that way before and I appreciate your points of view.

What a pleasure to see well considered and polite commentary on an internet forum.

Chuck



Orm -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 11:02:38 AM)

I find that cautious and defensive generals often get a lot of criticism. If they didn't attack when there was the slightest opportunity then they get labelled as bad generals. But what if it was the right call to make. What if the alternative attack would have ended in disaster?

General Lee seems to be getting some criticism for his battle plan for the third day of Gettysburg. What if General Lee had decided to use the plan suggested by General Longstreet instead and that had failed badly? Would General Lee then be criticised for not attacking Cemetery Ridge "when there was a opportunity". Would people have said that the Union centre was weak and a concentrated attack on Cemetery Ridge would have won the battle for the Confederate Army. Especially since General Pickett had a fresh division that would surely have been able to break through...

Could it be that a General more aggressive than General Meade would have lost the Gettysburg Campaign?



DerTroof -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 4:08:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nimrod 9th

Had to jump in. Before my current job I spent 10+ years with the Nat'l Park Service. Worked 3 Civil War parks (among other historical themed sites). Yes, National Park Service rangers can be, shall we say, stubborn concerning their options. Anyway I'm getting off track. Note almost all of the top Union generals are mid to late war generals. The early war guys (McClellan, Fremont, Sumner, McDowell, etc.) are usually seen as poor. Not really disagreeing BUT a couple important things usually don't get considered and should be. McDowell lead what at 1st Bull Run? 36,000 men (exact number doesn't matter). This was the largest US force in one place in the history of the US up to that point. No US Army general had EVER commanded so many in the field at one place. No doctrine for formations at that level. No experience. The largest up to this point were the armies during the War with Mexico. Say 15,000-20,000? So McDowell was discovering new territory for the US Army. Now in less than a year, that 36,000 becomes OVER 100,000 for McClellan. Almost overnight McClellan goes from commanding a small army in West Virginia to commanding over 100,000. WOW! No training at such a level. No experience. And these guys had to go on the offensive with these large armies. No wonder they "had the slows." Now look at the top Union generals. Started as early war brigade commanders. Then progressed to mid war division commands. Then late war corps and army commands. They had a chance to learn and grow. McDowell and McClellan (and others) didn't have that. Now don't misunderstand me. McClellan is no Grant. McDowell is no Sherman. I just get frustrated with all the early war Union commanders trash talk. Please folks. Next time be a little more considerate to the very difficult position those early war guys were in.


"Please folks"? I don't see Little Mac or McDowell mentioned anywhere in this thread before you did. That said, I agree with you and you make excellent points regarding the crucible early war generals were thrust into, commanding unprecedentedly large bodies of troops, most of whom had little or no military background (including, crucially, their NCOs and junior officers).

One thing McClellan is frequently credited for, and properly in my view, is training and to a certain extent "professionalizing" the Army of the Potomac. In the process he gave it an identity and a sense of esprit that would allow it to survive and overcome all the early-war disappointments. I believe Lee's respect for him was genuine.



Capt. Harlock -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 7:21:37 PM)

quote:

Could it be that a General more aggressive than General Meade would have lost the Gettysburg Campaign?


An argument can be made -- and Lee did in fact make it -- that Meade *did* lose the Gettysburg campaign. (Note "campaign" rather than "battle".) The Southerners achieved their objective of re-locating the fighting and its devastation to Northern territory, and postponed any advance on Richmond for months. They also collected foodstuffs without which their army would have been badly weakened, while inflicting about as many casualties as they received.



Orm -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/29/2015 7:30:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Could it be that a General more aggressive than General Meade would have lost the Gettysburg Campaign?


An argument can be made -- and Lee did in fact make it -- that Meade *did* lose the Gettysburg campaign. (Note "campaign" rather than "battle".) The Southerners achieved their objective of re-locating the fighting and its devastation to Northern territory, and postponed any advance on Richmond for months. They also collected foodstuffs without which their army would have been badly weakened, while inflicting about as many casualties as they received.

Yes. An argument can be made and I am not wise enough to really argue against it.

The point I was after, that a more aggressive General than Meade, could perhaps have resulted in a worse result, for the Union, than the historical one.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/30/2015 12:07:05 AM)

I think it’s hard to ascertain who the best Civil War commanders were because the Minie Rifle wiped out most of the tactical options that commanders previously had at their disposal.

Just remember the elaborate tactics available to Napoleonic commanders just a few years before:

Infantry had a weapon with an effective range of only about 100 yards. Artillery could deploy within canister range without coming in range of the infantry. The same applies for cavalry deploying within charging range. So the infantry had to use formations to survive these two threats. Facing cavalry, it could form square. Facing artillery, it could form skirmishers. But facing a combined arms attack by all three arms, it had no options. If it formed square, the artillery – unlimbered at canister range but still beyond musket range – would decimate it. If it formed skirmishers, the cavalry would decimate it.

Thus, the side with a significant artillery and cavalry edge could drive off the defender’s artillery and cavalry arms, leaving the defending infantry in a hopeless state. Really significant victories were attainable.

In contrast, Civil War infantry carried the most effective weapon on the battlefield. With an effective range of 500 yards, cavalry and artillery couldn’t deploy within effective range. Cavalry had to fight dismounted and artillery was only effective in defense. Infantry could never be put into a hopeless situation. Even heavily outnumbered by attacking infantry, it could still extract a cost equal to their own loss.

As a result, Civil War combat was fundamentally attritional. Field engagements tended to produce about the same losses for both sides. The only factor that could cause deviation from that was defenders in prepared positions and attackers that got on the flanks of the defenders.

For this reason, the most important commander characteristic tended to be Initiative. That’s what got you on the enemy’s flank and kept him off of yours. For that reason, I do favor Lee and Jackson as the best Southern commanders. But for huge armies, getting on the flank only got you so much before they repositioned and the attrition kicked back in. So, it’s a lukewarm endorsement.

Note that attrition was not the South’s friend. Trading man for man was a formula for defeat for the South. For that reason, the best Union commanders were the ones that had figured out that brutal logic. That does make Grant the best of the North, in my opinion.

Note that combined arms tactics didn’t return until HE and armor – WW II in other words.



sullafelix -> RE: 10 Best Civil War Generals (4/30/2015 12:19:49 AM)

Little Mac was not trying to conquer the south, he was trying to defend the Union.

Much like Howe in the revolution, little Mac gets a bad rap.

He was trying to " gentlemanly " slap around the southern forces until they came to their senses.

What people don't realize is that no one for hundreds of years had thought of trying to conquer a country as large as the Confederacy.

The sheer size of the South and the audacity of thinking that they could do it is kind of amazing.

I believe when Lee said that about Mac the " lost order " of Antietam wasn't known about. Lee always thought he had Mac's number and was completely taken aback by South Mountain etc..











Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8427734