The worst General- North and South

[hawglips]

Union -- Burnsides
Confederate -- Bragg
President -- Lincoln -- that was for you Neil

[gknight]

Getting back to the original question--worst general--please don't overlook the universally hated, former Naval officer, "Bull" Nelson. Only being shot and killed by his subordinate, MajGen Jefferson C. Davis, saved the Union from the debacles this man was capable of. The army was so happy to be rid of this mistake that they never bothered to court-martial Davis for murder.

Glenn

[Admiral_Porter]

he didn't come up with any of the plans that set up his good situation.

The original plan was for Polk to roll up Thomas' left flank and push him onto Longstreet's wing. But that attack failed.

Longstreet adjusted the plan and decided to roll up the Federal right flank instead.

Here, Longstreet is far from the leading figure in the victory,

Who is the leading figure then?

Bragg was disconnected with what was happening at the front and Polk performed poorly as usual.

Lee dispatching a corps could do nothing to stem the tide.

If he had sent them in May like others suggested events in the west may have turned out differently. Too little too late.

Lee can't be blamed for not saving the already lost Western war.

I'm not suggesting he should be blamed for the western failures.

But he did exacerbate the problems with his unwillingness to help out other departments during the Confederacy's crisis in early 1863. And at the same time whenever Lee asked for men he always got them.

[nbforrest]

The original plan was for Polk to roll up Thomas' left flank and push him onto Longstreet's wing. But that attack failed.

Longstreet adjusted the plan and decided to roll up the Federal right flank instead.
No, not really. He just carried out his half of the plan. There was no grand "rolling up." When the attacks on the Reb right failed, Longstreet went through with the attacks on the left. And they worked.


Who is the leading figure then?

Bragg was disconnected with what was happening at the front and Polk performed poorly as usual.
How on earth was Longstreet the leading figure? It was Bragg's plan, who despite all of his faults, did OK. He was detached from the situation but overnight came up with a decent plan. Longstreet just went ahead with his part of the plan. What was the main reason for victory? Hard fighting.


If he had sent them in May like others suggested events in the west may have turned out differently. Too little too late.
Operative word is may. I fail to see how in the month of May Longstreet would have mattered at all. The situation was too far gone. Especially with Bragg in command, even another corps could not restore the situation.


I'm not suggesting he should be blamed for the western failures.

But he did exacerbate the problems with his unwillingness to help out other departments during the Confederacy's crisis in early 1863. And at the same time whenever Lee asked for men he always got them.

Again, Lee realized that a corps could not retrieve the situation in the West. He was correct. Stripping VA was to seriously compromise a long term strategy there. Whenever Lee asked for men? Hmmm...not really. A lost of his men were taken away from him post Seven Days to go to North Carolina, and some of them were returned in 63. Lee did not get reinforced again until his forces merged with the Bory. Other areas weren't stripped for him in 64...troops already in Petersburg and the vicinity fought alongside the ANV.

Respectfully

[Admiral_Porter]

No, not really. He just carried out his half of the plan. There was no grand "rolling up." When the attacks on the Reb right failed, Longstreet went through with the attacks on the left. And they worked.

Polk was supposed to roll up the left flank because Bragg wanted to get his army between Rosecrans and Chattanooga. It failed and Longstreet altered it to new situation.

It was Bragg's plan, who despite all of his faults, did OK. He was detached from the situation but overnight came up with a decent plan.

Bragg's plan failed. He was disconnected with what was happening at the front. He refused to assist Longstreet and didn't even realize he had won.

I fail to see how in the month of May Longstreet would have mattered at all. The situation was too far gone. Especially with Bragg in command, even another corps could not restore the situation.

Drive back Rosecrans before middle Tennessee was lost. Chattanooga would not have been captured which was a key east-west railroad.

Bragg's problem was not fighting but rather finishing a battle. The one time he did win a battle he had Pete.

Again, Lee realized that a corps could not retrieve the situation in the West. He was correct. Stripping VA was to seriously compromise a long term strategy there.

How is sending 2 divisions west stripping Virginia? Meade was cautious and Lee performed fine without Longstreet's men.

A lost of his men were taken away from him post Seven Days to go to North Carolina, and some of them were returned in 63. Lee did not get reinforced again until his forces merged with the Bory. Other areas weren't stripped for him in 64...troops already in Petersburg and the vicinity fought alongside the ANV.

Did he not get Bushrod Rust Johnson's men, a traditionally western unit? Did he not get those men back from North Carolina? Lee got everything the south could give him at the expense of the other confederate armies.

For most of the war Lee's army was always larger than any of the western armies. This indicates to me that he got more recruits than anyone else.

[nbforrest]

Longstreet did nothing special; he pitched in per his orders.

Other areas were not stripped to aid Lee, certainly not the West. Those fellows were taken from other areas and sent east, yes. But not to Lee. Rather to NC and southern VA. These were Pickett's and Bory's men. Most came from the coastal areas, not the west. Their presence was not missed. They became attached to Lee when the ANV moved into their territory. So no, Lee was not unduly reinforced; the AOT had plenty of troops shifted from other states to aid them.

And was the ANV bigger? Most is a flightly term here, but I think the AOT and ANV were pretty much on parity. What did the ANV top out at, 75,000? And it went down to say, 35,000 during the Antietam campaign.

Respectfully

[whitworth]

Robert E. Lee.

For getting tied up with Jefferson Davis and the Confederate founding fathers.

[samgrant]

That makes it 2 for Lee.

[milhistbuff1]

Whitworth,
Can you provide some further detail on your stance? By getting tied up, are you referring to his time as Davis' advisor, or as leader of the ANV? As far I understand, Lee had as little to do with the politicians as possible, believing his duty was to win the war, not become President of the CSA. I also believe Lee's generalship is quesitonable and i refer you to my previous posts in this thread.
Respectfully,
Matt

[Admiral_Porter]

Other areas were not stripped to aid Lee, certainly not the West.

There were barely any idle men in the west to give Lee after all the disasters the western armies faced because they were neglected.

the AOT had plenty of troops shifted from other states to aid them.

Only after disasters struck like at Donelson and Vicksburg. Whenever Lee wanted more men he got them almost without hesitation.

And was the ANV bigger? Most is a flightly term here, but I think the AOT and ANV were pretty much on parity. What did the ANV top out at, 75,000? And it went down to say, 35,000 during the Antietam campaign.

I thought Lee had like 80,000 during the Seven Days? He had around 75,000 at Fredericksburg and Gettysburg.

The AOT had around 40-45,000 at Shiloh, Stones River, and Tullahoma. They never broke 70,000 until after the Atlanta Campaign had begun. Even during the winter of 1864 Lee's army at Petersburg was larger than Hood's.

Based on what I can recall Lee always had a much larger army for the majority of the war.