Worst Generals in the Civil War

[dgfred]

Boo.

[yanmacca]

Feb 17, 2017 16:44:15 GMT dgfred said:

Boo.

I am at a loss.

[dgfred]

Boo to hijacked threads.

[yanmacca]

Oh I see, I thought you were trying to scare me, but yes I agree but I myself have been guilty of going off topic on a number of threads, but these things happen, and if the content of the original thread is strong then it will be soon back on track.

[Beth]

Thread drift happens and this one is drifting a bit too far out of the parameters of the board. This is a history board with the main focus on LBH. We added the history of other military eras just because everyone on this board has a wide range of interests and it would be a shame to limit ourselves when there is such a base of knowledge to share.

If we can't get back into the context of this board then I am afraid I will have to put a lock on the thread for a week or so as sort of a cool down time.

Perhaps this thread needs redefining as in a broader historic range to get away from just the Civil War era and look at Generals through times, surely there enough examples at for an interesting discussion?

Personally I have always felt that Napoleon was over rated when you look at him beyond his own history-which he puffed more than a second hand car salesman selling a hooptie. How does Napoleon actually compare in history?

[dave]

Last post on a drifting thread but accuracy is required:
"The Mississippi Flag Referendum, also known as State Flag Election, was on the April 17, 2001 special election ballot in Mississippi as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure presented voters with two potential state flags. Voters approved Proposition A, which reaffirmed the use of the flag adopted in 1894 containing the Confederate battle cross."

North Carolina's HB2 is not assisting the state's reputation for hospitality.

Worst Generals is an ambiguous term as pointed out by another poster but those leaders who failed to plan properly or prepare their force for potential assaults are worthy of the title.
Floyd
Pillow
Butler
McDowell
Regards
Dave

 

[Beth]

Dave. Seriously LET.IT.DROP.  Don't make me drag out my yellow badge.

[rollingthunder]

I have read that the US Army before the civil war had 16,000 soldiers divided into: Ten Infantry Regiments. Four Artillery. Two from Cavalry and one from Mounted Infantry.

Could someone please tell me how many Generals and Officers that Army had before the civil war?

[quincannon]

To you question Pachi, I don't know the exact number but there were not many.

As to organization just prior to the Civil War

Infantry - Ten regiments is correct designated 1 thru 10

Cavalry

1st and 2d Dragoons

Regiment of Mounted Rifles

1st and 2d Cavalry

In May 1861 the 3rd Cavalry was organized

In August 1861 all of the mounted regiments were reorganized and redesignated as cavalry in the order that they were originally constituted as follows

1st Dragoons as 1st Cavalry
2nd Dragoons as 2nd Cavalry
Regiment of Mounted Rifles as 3rd Cavalry
1st Cavalry as 4th Cavalry
2nd Cavalry as 5th Cavalry
3rd Cavalry as 6th Cavalry

These designations remain in place today

Artillery - 4 Regiments of Artillery is correct but keep in mind these were primarily coast defense artillery units that in time of war would organize from within their own assets batteries of field artillery. That is why in reading ACW history you see noted things like Battery 4th U.S. Artillery. Most of the field artillery in the ACW were volunteer batteries formed in the States. Some of those like Captain Hurbert Dilger's Battery I, 1st Ohio Light Artillery still exist in the Army National Guard today. Hubert Dilger was the model all cannoneers since have modeled themselves on. He was in many ways the only thing that stood between Jackson's flank attack at Chancellorsville and the destruction of the right flank of the Union Army. He sent most of his guns to the rear and manhandled his last gun backward down the Orange Plank Road firing as he withdrew. He could not speak English very well at the time, and exercised command by a series of hand claps. He was awarded the Medal of Honor.

[rollingthunder]

I was very struck by reading that during the Civil War the Union Army had between 554 and 564 Generals and the Confederate between 398 and 401. It seemed to me that having such a small previous Army (16,000), they had promoted all the officers to the rank of General.

Thanks for the reply

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Union)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Confederate)

[quincannon]

Pachi: Interesting topic and forgive me for not replying sooner as my computer was having operator problems again. Sorted out now.

Actually there were more than that in the U S Army, as opposed to the Army of Southern Treason. There were twenty or more officers that had received promotions toward the very end of the war, who were never confirmed by the Senate, and with the war ending the Senate just dropped the matter and they were never confirmed. The man who founded Colorado Springs, where I live' was one such, William Palmer. After the war he became president of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad and founded our city as a playground for his friends and investors. I pass his statue every Sunday on the way to church and as the damned thing sits right in the middle of Nevada Avenue the main street of downtown, you take your life in your hands crossing that intersection. Payback I think for non-confirmation.

Now to the topic. It's more than the great number of Generals. It has more to do with how the Army was organized. So many regiments made up a brigade and a brigade called for a brigadier. So many brigades made up a division, and a division called for a major general. In truth as the war went along these brigades shrank from their authorized strengths of 2400 to 3000 down to five or six hundred in many cases, the size of a battalion. The Confederate Army tried unsuccessfully to refill a limited number of regiments, but the Union just let their regiments and brigades wither into nothing, and created more regiments and brigades necessitating more general officers.

There are two very good, fairly old books on the subject of civil war generals "Generals in Blue" and "Generals in Grey" that give short biographies. Quite interesting.

You also must factor in the high portion of General Officers in both armies that were either killed in action or wounded to the point of incapacitation. You would be astounded how many there were.

Then there were some general officers on both sides who were incapable of pouring piss from a boot. Some of those were, as our friend Ian likes to say, sent to Coventry, and quite a few cashiered for everything from child molestation to cowardness in the face of the enemy.

So when you think about it. There were not so many after all.

[rollingthunder]

I already found the information; there were six Generals in the Army before the Civil War began. I asked the question because I saw the large number of Generals there were during the Civil War. I thought that many acquired the rank of General for political reasons, not for military knowledge.