The worst General- North and South

[milhistbuff1]

Admiral, I agree entirely, but Johnston did a better job of maintaining offensive capabilities by preserving his manpower at all costs. Lee should have insisted the CSA government be moved further south and west after the Peninsula campaign to allow him the same geographic freedom johnston enjoyed tactically. With Davis in Richmond, it was essentially putting an anchor around Lee's neck. Lee's idol Napoleon had this right, you need to maneuver and force your enemies to separate, turn against one part before the other part can support. Had General Hood not suffered a hookeresque, perhaps politically expedient case of cowardice, I believe Cassville would have doomed the Northern war effort, by denying Lincoln the Victory needed to stay in office.
Unfortuneately, Lee did not utilize Va in this fashion against his main opponet while the state could still support him logistically. I realize this was done with the valley campaign and second manassas, but i mean forcing the AOP to split apart, taking them out by pulling an Ulm on one wing than the other.
Respectfully,
Matt

[Highfly]

"Brevet" Brig. General George A. Custer...

He was the Union's answer to JEB Stuart - flamboyant, reckless, and not really all that bright (last in his class at West Point)... But unlike Stuart, Custer was a liar as well - he didn't plan his "brilliant" attacks, but left that to lesser mortals. He just claimed credit after leading said attacks. Who knows what the man actually did - as he had a penchant for falsifying Official Reports if he even bothered to make a report.

If he was such a great leader, how was it that he was busted back down to Captain as soon as the war was over? Yes, there was no need for fighting generals after the war and lots of them were reduced in rank, but all the way back to Captain? If he was such a brilliant leader, why wasn't he given a job driving a desk at the War Office in Washington? He then proceeds to get himself and over two hundred men under his command slaughtered by Indians because a) he was outnumbered and knew it b) he disobeyed orders and didn't wait for reinforcements and c) he neglected to bring his gatling guns...

My apologies, I've been wanting to have that rant since I started researching Michigan's role in the CW and especially since looking into why men like Custer are hero-worshipped. I have no intent of sounding overly hostile, just increasingly frustrated from dwelling too long on it...

~ Highfly

[nbforrest]

Well, for one thing Custer wasn't "busted" to anything, certainly not captain. During the war he was brevetted major general. That is a temporary rank. Not a regular army commission. He reverted to his regular army commission after the war, like all brevet officers with commissions. And he was a Lt. Col. in the regular army, not a captain.

And he had a great war record. He was largely responsible for Union success in several engagements: Gettysburg's East Cavalry Field, Yellow Tavern, Meadow Bridge, etc. He put up a heck of a fight at Trevilian Station, among other places.

And concerning Little Bighorn...Gibbon and Terry agreed with Custer's decision not to bring the Gatling guns. They were slow and cumbersome and a couple days before Custer marched off had flipped over and injured several men. And Indians aren't terribly likely to charge up into the fire of a Gatling gun. Why do you think that Gatling guns were almost never used?
And he certainly did not disobey orders. Just read Terry's orders to him.

Respectfully

[Highfly]

Well, for one thing Custer wasn't "busted" to anything, certainly not captain. During the war he was brevetted major general. That is a temporary rank. Not a regular army commission. He reverted to his regular army commission after the war, like all brevet officers with commissions. And he was a Lt. Col. in the regular army, not a captain.

Okay, wrong choice of words on my part... But I do believe his Lt. Colonelcy was dated July 1866...

And he had a great war record. He was largely responsible for Union success in several engagements: Gettysburg's East Cavalry Field, Yellow Tavern, Meadow Bridge, etc. He put up a heck of a fight at Trevilian Station, among other places.

I'm not arguing that he didn't have a good war record, though I do believe he had one of the largest casualty counts... All I'm arguing there is that the man didn't plan those attacks; he led them and took the credit for them...

And he certainly did not disobey orders. Just read Terry's orders to him.

In my opinion, Terry made the mistake of giving him the option of deviating from his orders by writing: "It is, impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Department Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy." Which assumed a lot about his ability to make a good decision ~ The same thing happened to Lee at Gettysburg when he told Ewell to "take that hill if you see practicable." and we see where that got Lee. ~ But the next sentence in Terry's orders is: "He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them."

~ Highfly

Any books you can suggest about the him, please let me know ~ though I would prefer they not be written by J.H. Kidd, as the man hero-worshipped Custer to nearly the point of indecency at times...

[milhistbuff1]

There is a very interesting chapter in Bryan Perrett's The Last Stand that deals with the controversy at Little Big Horn. I highly recomend it, and the other chapters as well.
Respectfully,
Matt

[nbforrest]

I'm not arguing that he didn't have a good war record, though I do believe he had one of the largest casualty counts... All I'm arguing there is that the man didn't plan those attacks; he led them and took the credit for them...

Believe me, I'm no expert but I've seen no evidence to suggest that anybody planned those attacks for Custer. I just read an essay on the Union cavalry in the Wilderness...Custer was operating independently and was the only fellow to really do his job. I also just read Wittenberg's book on Trevilian Station...Custer certainly did not have any help there. After he pitched into Hampton's wagons, he fought a masterful defense. No help from him there. In fact, from reading Rhea's stuff on Yellow Tavern and Meadow Bridge, it seems that Custer's attack were thought of independently and he really saved Sheridan's tail.



About Custer's discretionary orders...well, I think the Terry was correct in giving discretionary orders just as a general policy. When fighting highly mobile Indians, it just doesn't seem like a good idea to issue fixed orders. I view Custer's actions at LBH pretty positively.

Respectfully

[ole]

nbforrest:
This stretches the thread, but Custer is an interesting case.

I would be most interested in your positive views of Custer's LBH actions. I've read nothing but negative and consequently have those views myself. A tug in a different direction would be refreshing.

Ole

[nbforrest]

Happy to oblige. The old fashioned view of LBH does portray Custer negatively...but then I started reading the archaeological evidence and the new analysis resulting from that. Now, of course there are a lot of unknowns about LBH even with the new evidence, so everyone will probably have their own version of events. I follow the basic Scott/Fox interpretation with some variations.

Anyway, he did the right thing by dividing his forces. Look at every other attack on a village during the Indian Wars...done by a multi pronged force. I think Custer learned from the Wa****a to not just pitch in...hence why Benteen was detached. He apparantly feinted with one of the battalions with him and planned to attack with another...a sound plan. Upon realizing the size of the village (I think) he retired in good order and assumed the best defensive position possible.
Now...he has been faulted for pitching in without doing recon...well, any attempt to recon an Indian village would be pretty tricky and just didn't happen that much...not like one could deploy some skirmishers to probe the enemy line. Looking at other examples of attacks on villages...Custer did the normal thing.

Respectfully

[ole]

Thanks, NB, I'll look at LBH through different eyes now.
Ole

[nbforrest]

If you want an interesting read, try the Fox/Scott books. That's what awoke me to the new interpretations.


Respectfully