dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 6, 2017 22:13:37 GMT
QC Thank you for your last post which I found informative and enjoyed reading.
Beth, QC and others Somehow how or another people have misconstrued the purpose of this thread. It was not political, pro slavery, inciteful or an attempt to praise Robert E. Lee. My response regarding "Marse Robert" was intended to be both sardonic and mordant.
I was merely seeking the thoughts and reasoning of others as to who they believed to ineffective and inept generals during the ACW.
I believe it to be best that this thread be removed. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2017 0:05:48 GMT
I am glad you enjoyed what I wrote, and if not at least found it informative.
I did not misconstrue the purpose of the thread. I think it is a type of format we need here to discuss these issues. BUT, having said that I do hope you take to heart, what I said concerning best and worst. Robert E. Lee deserves praise for what he did accomplish. He also deserves damnation for his many faults. He is just like "everyman" no better or no worse. He sometimes met success, by his own doing, and at the same time failed, again by his own hand, just like every one of us mortals.
SO, if you would change the thread title, to something on the order of success and failings of major (even minor) ACW figures, and remove the stigma of best and worst, the thread can continue to have great value, where there can be no misundertanding
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 7, 2017 1:50:06 GMT
Dave, the thread has merit, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. As with all of us even the best Generals have their flaws. I can even find some decent aspects to General Kilcavalry or William Starke Rosecrans who was an American inventor, coal-oil company executive, diplomat, politician. He gained fame for his role as a Union general during the American Civil War, but his military career was effectively ended following his disastrous defeat at the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863, he did win a few battles before that, however.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 7, 2017 2:01:12 GMT
Maybe Chuck will even knock around a couple of my favorite Southern leaders such as Mosby or Stuart. They all fumbled the ball from time to time. Another one of my favorite was Richard H. Anderson, a very solid General Officer, but he had a rather bad time during Gettysburg. He had already had a solid career in the US Army prior to the war.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2017 2:56:13 GMT
Well now that you have provided the incentive Stuart in the Gettysburg Campaign gets pilloried for his adventures in Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania, and is blamed for Lee being blind.
I really like Stuart and that is no secret here, but he screwed the pooch several times, and most times it was because of his own hubris, or his being a joker getting out of hand. Once it was due to poor staff work during the Second Manassas Campaign. Like us all, he was subject to human failure.
What I am not at all sure of is him having to kick the can solo for Gettysburg. As stated in my very long post above, staff work and a logical command flow was not the ANV's long suit.
It came to pass in June of 63 that Stuart's division was attached to Longstreet's Corps covering eastward on the movement to Gettysburg. He had his headquarters on the front porch of a house at Rector's Crossroads (think it is still standing) and was fending with Longstreet backing up his picket lines. Along comes this message to get around Hooker (then Meade) and stir up some crap in their rear. Instead of Lee detaching the raiding force from Longstreet's control and dealing directly with Stuart as he should have, the message traffic goes through Longstreet who tweaks it to the point where if he follows Lee's directive plus the tweaks he is heading into that land of mutual exclusivity.
Well most of you know the rest, but the bottom line is that with those orders coupled with events out of his control Stuart visits screwed city, and the other two get off as if they are the offended parties.
I commend "Sabre or Scapegoat", and "The Cavalry at Gettysburg" to your reading
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 7, 2017 4:18:49 GMT
QC
I have no problem with the name of the thread being changed just not sure what to call it. My concept is simplistic in nature and the discussion you are recommending is more in depth than I had imagined. I was looking to discuss the lesser known generals and their importance instead of delving into mistakes and errors by Lee, Stuart, Jackson, Sherman or Grant
If there is a concern that this discussion would delve into a defense of Lee based on sectional concerns or sentimental defenses instead of rational reasoning on our part then we best let it go. I have no ownership with this thread and willing let it go to prevent any concern. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2017 5:14:33 GMT
Look, Lee is everyone's sentimental favorite. The mission here is to stay away from public politics, and discuss each individual on their merits. The thing is, that unlike some on our sister boards, we cannot afford to become anyone's fan club for any reason. Nor, can we afford to tout the good, and overlook, the not so good that might come from any one of them/
I try to stay away from Forrest and Early as much as I can, for while one was very good overall, and the other adequate, both carry far to much baggage, and inevitably it falls into that sectional crap which does no one, no good. We must police ourselves in that regard, and not beat around the bush about telling someone posting on this thread that they are crossing into a place where angels fear to tread. It will work.
My two very favorites are, as you probably know, Stuart and Chamberlain. Stuart for adding a splash of color to what otherwise would be a very grim affair, and Chamberlain as being the embodiment, in my mind, of the Spirit of Cincinnatus. That being said, I will not shill for either of them, and when we run across a place where either of them poo pooed in the playpen, it should be brought up and discussed.
Now to the lesser knowns. Frankly I think it a blind alley, for purposes of discussion. Tom and I discussed this briefly on the phone tonight. Had most of them not existed it would have gone unnoticed. None of them below the rank of Major General ever accomplished anything that probably would not have been accomplished by someone else. None of them ever screwed up so badly that they caused damage that could not be repaired by someone else.
There then is that tier that because of the positions they held, would make an impact if they farted in their tent. Everything they did would be scrutinized because of the place they held within their respective organizations.
I can envision this thread discussing both the high and the low in their turn. There was a guy named Butler for instance that did a great job for Stuart on the road to Saint James Church. There was the reconnaissance that led Jackson around Hooker. Had in gone a little further Jackson would have been in both Hooker's flank and rear. All sorts of things like that which could be discussed here.
The problem with Best and Worst is that it is so subjective. I truly don't think Lee was the worst general, nor do I think McClellan the best. Not from my objective point of view. My objective point of view though does not mirror everyone else's, and who is to say my scale is better than theirs, or theirs better than mine. I used those two as my examples of objectivity, because of the common conceptions of both men. But as you saw, at least I hope you saw, the one perceived as strong, had some great weaknesses, and the one perceived to be weak had some very great strengths.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 7, 2017 11:26:22 GMT
Dave, you have mentioned that you are more familiar with the western theater than the eastern. I suffer the reverse. What are your opinions of Bragg vs Hardee. who was the better? Being a top line student my pick would have been Hardee, they had some major differences, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 7, 2017 15:29:33 GMT
If the problem was my comment about any General who allowed the South to last so long didn't do the people of the South any favors, let me explain a bit further.
There comes a time in almost any war were the inevitable becomes obvious and to fight further only lays waste to lives and resources usually in a country that will desperately need those resources when peace comes. Napoleon did it with 100 day wars and German in WWII is an obvious example. Perhaps it is only more obvious when you look back but you have to wonder how much of those continued battles are driven more by ego or wishful thinking than reality.
I am not exactly sure as far as battle history that point was in the Civil War but by the time the South lost control of the Mississippi the wall had been whitewashed and was just waiting for someone to pick up a pen. It was pretty much certain after Lincoln defeated McClellan in the election that the North would fight on to the end.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 7, 2017 22:34:38 GMT
Tom
The often spoken joke about the Army of Tennessee was:
Hardee was a better author than soldier
Bragg was useless
The comparison of Bragg vs Hardee is such a difficult proposition that is probably beyond my ability to analyze due to my lack of military training. That being said I will share my opinion as to the qualities of these men.
Bragg's irascible temperament caused him difficulty all through his military career. The legendary incident of his arguing with himself when he was both a company commander and quartermaster provoked his post commander to exclaim:
"My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself."
Bragg and Hardee both served in significant positions for the Confederacy in the Western Theater, Bragg till late 1863 and Hardee till 1864. Both men were Corps commanders at Shiloh where Bragg's stubbornness was displayed with his repeated attacks against the Union position at the “Hornet's Nest” which enabled Grant's forces to retire to prepared positions while Bragg concentrated on encircling a small part of the enemies lines. His inability to see beyond the immediate presence of the enemy would continue during the next facet of his career
Bragg took command of the Army of Mississippi in June of 1862 due to Beauregard's illness and continued in command as the name was changed to Army of Tennessee. Frequent feuds with Hardee, Polk and other subordinates contributed to an army full of clicks and infighting.
Bragg's only successful battle, Chickamauga, was lost due to his failure to exploit the Union army's weakness and allowing Thomas to regroup the Federal's lines. This is typical of Bragg who was always a detailed anal retentive man who could not get along with others and was a poor leader. The Battle of Stone's River could have had more disastrous results if not the leadership of Patrick Cleburne.
Overall Bragg was a great administrator and organizer who could plan a campaign just not lead one, similar in a way to McCllean. His inability to have a vibrant personality coupled with the fiery leadership required of Generals in ACW that developed loyalty from the ranks doomed him to a career of mediocrity.
William Joseph Hardee was by far the superior to Bragg in most if not all categories though he is best known for his landmark treatise
Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics for the Exercise and Manoeuvres of Troops When Acting as Light Infantry or Riflemen published in 1855 at the behast of Jefferson Davis, Secretary of War. Hardee's knowledge of drill, organization and tactics was used by all of his commanders if sometimes somewhat reluctantly.
Hardee was a Corps commander at Shiloh where his command swept the Federals from their camps and lines and forced them back to Pittsburg Landing where Grant had established his last line. Wounded in the attack, he remained in command both days. He was instrumental in the Battle of Stones River, December 1862, where his command collapsed the right flank of the Union army but the rest of the Federal line held and the attack was wasted.
After his promotion to Lieutenant General in October of 1862 he begin using his political connections in Richmond to be removed from Bragg's command temporarily. He was back with the army at Missionary Ridge where his Corp held the line while other Confederates fled assisting in saving the army from capture.
Over all I believe Hardee was a competent commander who was a fussy, prickly character who only got along with Joesph Johston as a superior. He availed himself of his close relationship with Jefferson Davis for personal gains as well as subverting the authority of Bragg and Hood.
The Army of Tennessee was destined to be poorly used and led by its various commanders. The only real “star” was Patrick Cleburne who do to political correctness never was given the opportunity to lead this command. His recommendation to free slaves and enlist them in the army in 1864 lead to him becoming a pariah.
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2017 23:40:13 GMT
The only yardstick I have to measure the competence of Braxton Bragg is that he obviously knew what grape was at Buena Vista. Beyond that it gets a little fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 8, 2017 15:38:46 GMT
Haha... he had a nice coat.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Feb 12, 2017 16:29:23 GMT
As we have chewed all the "goody" out of the Custer Attacked Ford D thread, I thought we might have a little fun naming the worst Generals of the ACW, just for you QC, as there are many qualified candidates for this honor. To make it fair for all I have taking the 2 lowest of the hanging fruits off the board. One from each side showing how impartial I am: 1) Benjamin Butler Union 2) Gideon Pillow Confederate. I would encourage all to defend your choice as I will show below. Brigadier General James H. Ledlie, US Army, gained his selection by his terrible behavior and performance at the Battle of the Crater during the Petersburg Siege in July of 1864. His command, 1st Division of the IV Corps, was to follow the explosion of the Confederate lines and breach their defenses. He failed to inform his commanders of the battle plan and they allowed their troops to mill around the crater and not spread out and capture the Confederates. To compound his ineptness he took shelter in a bomb shelter drinking hard liquor while his command was decimated by the recovering Rebels. Regards Dave Ambrose Burnside-Fredericksburg debacle and had his men cross a narrow bridge under fire at Antietam. Braxton Bragg couldn'tget out of his own way after Chickamauga.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Feb 12, 2017 22:50:24 GMT
Good call on Sickles for honorable mention.
John Bell Hood for destroying his army at Franklin. Was a pretty good division commander before he lost the use of an arm and a leg.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 13, 2017 0:43:01 GMT
David Sam Watkins the author "Co. Aytch": A Side Show of the Big Show said: "I always shot at privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing, and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I always looked upon officers as harmless personages.... If I shot at an officer, it was at long range, but when we got down to close quarters I always tried to kill those that were trying to kill me."
I tend to place generals both Union and Confederate in categories of successful, dangerous and inept. Allow me to explain:
Successful generals were the ones who lead their armies and did well even with mistakes such as: Lee, Grant, Meade, Sherman, Thomas, Forrest and Sheridan.
Dangerous generals were the ones who lead armies in major engagements and either mislead or just wasted their troops such as: McClellan, Floyd, Pillow, Bragg, Rosecrans, Hood, Sigel, Banks, Burnside, Early, McDowell, Pope, Kilpatrick, Pemberton and Beauregard.
Inept generals were never involved with major battles but were just terrible such as: Butler, Buell, Pickett, McClernand, Fremont.
These are my thoughts but they are lightweight. Regards Dave
|
|