The worst General- North and South

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by nbforrest

Wow....Lee the South's worst general...that really baffles me.

Of course he wasn't perfect...but the worst?

He was trapped in a poor situation...he did about as well as can be expected.

Can you suggest an alternate strategy? How on earth would Lee staying on the defensive have led to victory?

I'm really just stumped here...Bragg lost control of an entire state...Lee didn't.

I think your argument is being hamstrung by a cursory and selective choice of statistics. Lee's army suffered horribly; but look at the casualty returns for each battle...Grant lost more men.

How about the Seven Days? Had Lee just sat on his behind, would that have turned out well?

Lee set up a brilliant victory at Chancellorsville...bloody yes, but again, what else should he have done...hightailed it out of there?

You are ignoring the situation of each battle. Large numbers of casualties does not necessarily equal a blunder. Lee did make mistakes. But most of the time he chose the better of unpleasant alternatives. And got a lot of success where most generals would have found none.

And what did Jackson know about not charging into guns? He was one of the worst tacticans the war produced and often seemed to get his men cut to pieces in foolish and poorly executed assaults.

And Lee was the commander of the ANV. It wasn't his job to deal with the Western theater. I fail to see how he can be criticized for that. Maybe poor leadership by Bragg and Hood and the meddling of Davis had something to do with Western defeat. If you want to look at Barren wastes of life, check out say, Murfreesboro or Franklin.


I'm all for thinking outside of the box, but this one has just got me stumped.

Respectfully

well, this tread sort of petered out with posts about Little Big Horn (?).

So, here I am to revive some controversy on subject.

The more I read about Gen. Lee, the less impressed I am.

See I started with D.S. Freeman. (with all that that makes of the man!)

Now I have become around to the theory that Gen. Lee did fight too aggressively in a war that could have been won by staying on the strategic defensive. ((the theory that the South didn't need to 'win' the war, but just had not to 'lose' it ...) Just keep the North at bay till the Northern people no longer could accept the losses in blood and treasure, so that they would demand terms.

"Grant lost more men" - well in most major battles the North did lose more men, in numbers, but in percentage of forces, the South was almost always the loser, and the North was much more able than the South to replenish its forces.

If gen. lee destroyed the original McClellan army by aggressive tactics, that would have been one thing, but as the war progressed, it was only a matter of numbers if engaging in major battles.

lee's aggressiveness won battles against Union troops, but did not, could not defeat the Union Army.

The South could have won the war, as Gen. Washington did against the Brits, by the Strategic defensive.

Lee lost the war. Happy birthday general.

[SpartanGSG]

Good day all, my relative newcomer status compells me to respond to certain "dated" threads I stumble across. I beg your forgiveness and ask you to humor me my attempt at a brief point.Best and worst questions asked without qualifcations make for entertaining banter but some of the names thrown out stretch the logic for making the case. For example(I will not even mention the Lee votes), citing Johnson as one of the "worst" generals totally diminishes his administrative prowess(like Little MAc) and the psychological impact the man had on picking up the army off the canvas after the Bragg experience. When putting things within a best and worst context all these factors must be objectively looked at. Also, if one is going to solicit best and worst generals then we must also reach down beyond the army and even corps level to the division. If one looks at all combinations of fighting prowess, administrative ability, leadership and command performance in the heat of battle this delgate to the convention casts his vote with confidence for Union General James Ledlie. Anyone familiar with his war time "exploits" would agree he would be a strong candidate for the "Wall of Shame" among both armies.

Respectfully,
Spartan

[ole]

I suspect most know of Ledlie, but I'll surmise that he is so far beneath consideration that no one even considered him.
Ole

[Nico_Davout]

This question fits to this topic.

Does any read: Scapegoat General: Story of Major-general Benjamin Huger, C.S.A. by Jeffrey L. Rhoades?

From Amazon:
"Benjamin Huger was possibly one of the greatest commanders of heavy weapons in the history of American warfare, he was also the most maligned general in the Confederacy. How did a man of Huger's stature fall so low? Digging into contemporary and primary documents, Rhoades concludes that: Huger was framed. Rhoades exposes corrupt politics in the Confederate military high command, explains completely for the first time several major battles of the Civil War, and shatters the god-like image of the real guilty party: General Robert E Lee."

[unionblue]

Nico,

As one who has always admired Gen. Lee and his ability to win battles, do you have any more on this book you have mentioned?

Definately would like to hear more on this.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Nico_Davout]

Unionblue,

Yesterday found this book on amazon and I am interested as much as You are, that is why I am asking if anyone has read this book.

I have read only that in J.E.Johnston biography how Longstreet put his blame on Huger for Seven Pines (and J.E.Johnston accepted Longstreet`s opinion in the official report inspite of G.W.Smith protest).

[5fish]

Originally Posted by Nico_Davout

Unionblue,

Yesterday found this book on amazon and I am interested as much as You are, that is why I am asking if anyone has read this book.

I have read only that in J.E.Johnston biography how Longstreet put his blame on Huger for Seven Pines (and J.E.Johnston accepted Longstreet`s opinion in the official report inspite of G.W.Smith protest).

My quick surf of the net shows me nonthing of what Huger is blamed for. He was part of Gen. Jackson's command.

I do not see any greatness in his carreer either.

He destoryed Norfolk shipyard before the union took control. He then lost some lsland to the union forces after Norfolk command. He was made a Div. commander under Jackson see no greatnes yet.

He was just part of Lee's big purge of generals after the Seven Pines.

The question is: Was he the scapegoat for Lee or Jackson?

[ole]

I had also heard that Huger got framed for Longstreet's dumb moves. I think it might have been in Sears', Gates of Richmond.

ole

[cw1865]

again we see an example of the difficulty of coordinating a large army's movements and the subsequent finger pointing!

[ole]

CYA is not and has never been the exclusive province of the little guy.

ole