Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
***Confederate: Brig. Gen. J.R. Jones: 3-12-1827-4-1-1901; commanded a brigade in Trimble's Division; During the battle of Chancellorsville he left the field "owing to an ulcerative leg" (now this was a lame excuse ;-) and was cashiered from service. Captured at Smithsburg, Tennessee on 4 July, 1864, Jones was placed in Johnson's Isand & at Fort Warren from which he was released on 25 july, 1865. No concerted effort by the CS Gov't was done to procure his exchange.
Rob:
If I remember correctly, Jones pulled the same kind of stunt at Sharpsburg. Guess the second time was just too much?
Honestly, I don't know, but I will certainly take your word on it. My observation was based on just one battle, and in reality, that isn't a fair observation. I have focussed a tiny amount of time, compared to most on CWT, and most likely yourself regarding the war. Probably the man performed very intelligently in other battles, but my esoteric approach to the study is lacking.
Good observation, Ad--Porter; Thank You for pointing this out.
Calicoboy:
Like I was saying to Ad--Porter, its difficult as you say to really find great fault wth any 'one' general. Well, some as you mentioned, have very outstanding faults and service records.
Your point regarding poliical appointees is a valid one. President Jefferson Davis & Gen. Braxton Bragg come to mind in this regard. This problem seemed to really plague the CS Army of Tenn. for a long time. I've always thought Gen. W.J. Hardee would have been the optimal choice but folks more educated than I, have pointed out his weaknesses. So...?
This is an interesting topic, Calico; Thanks..
Ole,
Jones' excuse was a 'lame' one, tis true! ;-) Too many "leg problems." When the Minie balls were a'flying 'round my ears. maybe my leg would 'hurt' also! Those file-closers would have improved a private soldiers leg pain, however, pretty quick! :-)
First of all, I think that's the first time I have ever heard/read the phrase "Lee sucked"!
Well, never mind that -don't you think that Lee was sort of sent on a fool's errand of to try to coordinate a bunch of incompetent (politically appointed?) subordinate commanders in western Virginia/
__________________
-
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Gen. Lee's greatest gift was his ability to coordinate his Lt. Gen's given all the personality conflicts. Secondly, Lee was very agressive which was a must for the Confederate ANVa's situation.
Gen. Lee's greatest gift was his ability to coordinate his Lt. Gen's given all the personality conflicts. Secondly, Lee was very agressive which was a must for the Confederate ANVa's situation.
Regards,
Rob
Agree that one of Lee's greatest strength's was to keep a lid on his lieutenant's. Bragg didn't have that. Grant had that quality as well. Both Grant and Lee had a knack for using each for their plusses and using someone else when the plus was lacking.
Mildly disagree that aggressiveness was a must for any Confederate Army. The CSAs could not afford to lose their most irreplaceable commodity: the soldier. Thus, aggressiveness ill served the Cause at places like Malvern Hill, Antietam, and Gettysburg.
My take is that "aggressive" had its place and was used effectively most of the time. "Audacious" may have been more valuable, but it seems that no Confederate other than Lee ever used it effectively.
What I meant was agressiveness 'very early' into the war; a knockout punch to quickly win the war or create northern anti-war sentiment, if you will. Sharpsburg almost filled these needs by Gen Lee. I agree the south couldn't afford the losses in constant, heavy agression, however. Gen. Grant realized this earl and applied all forces to bear, upon my ancestors.
Well, never mind that -don't you think that Lee was sort of sent on a fool's errand of to try to coordinate a bunch of incompetent (politically appointed?) subordinate commanders in western Virginia/
Certainly Lee did not do well in West Virginia. I think he may still have been working out the kinks...a lot of generals took some time to hone their talents.
But yes, he was handed a hopeless task. Cheat Mountain, even if it had worked, probably would have done little to regain Western VA. Lee's plan was too complex (again, perhaps working out the kinks) but he was plauged by poor subordinates and bad weather.
His Sewell Mountain campaign was not great either...not much he could have done though. He had to try to control Wise and Floyd...two incompetent politicans who hated each other. Lee had his orders disobeyed to a flagrant extent. Lee certainly wasn't agressive, but there wasn't much he could do against Rosecrans and Cox. Bad weather struck a lot. And Rosecrans did back down just before Lee attacked. So, it's difficult to pass judgement.
Respectfully
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
I would say that the south's worst general was Robert E Lee. Unlike his immediate subordinates Longstreet and Jackson, who understood you could not simply charge into the guns. Technological advancements such as the rifle, repeating and single shot caused his too direct tactics to fail. Military historians such as JFC Fuller, BH Liddell Hart and Bevin Alexander have all criticized Lee for making direct approaches, especially when it served no purpose or did not produce sufficient gains for the cost. As i cited on the speclulative history board on this website, General Lee planned a direct assault against an entrenched AOP under Hooker at Chancellorsville. Only Hooker's retreat order saved two thirds of of the ANV from being needlessly slaughtered. Lee's order to charge on July 3rd made no sense at all especially without Ewell's enfilading artillery fire to break up Hancock's lines dug in at the stone wall. A year later, in the Wilderness, Lee send's Anderson into a direct assault against Hancock's bloodied but entrenched corp. If nothing else, the frightful slaughter Burnside was responsible at Fredericksburg should have been enough to convince him that maneuver, audacity, and entrenching was the way. Bevin Alexander criticism is due to the population difference, Since the confederacy has fewer men to draw from, such direct tactics undermined the overall ability of the confederacy to fight.
Although many of the decisive events happened out west, Lee's hemmoraging men and arms due to heavy losses in the east limited the ability to reinforce and gain victories in the western theatre. Bevin Alexander cites statistics that emphasize this, he refers to the 4 volume biography of Lee by D.S. Freeman who claims in the first 7 months of Lee's control of the ANV that Lee inflicted 71,000 casualties while receiving 48,000. However, Alexander claims only 4 thousand confederates were captured in that period, as opposed to 29,000 union troops captured by the ANV. This drops the amount of permenant casualties to 42,000 for the union, and 44,000 for the confederacy. So in reality, if believe the statistics, Lee lost more men than the federals. This information can be found on page 135 of Bevin Alexander's Robert E. Lee's Civil War Published by Adams Media Corporation, Holbrook, 1998. I will post again for the worst Union General.
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1 : 11-19-2005 at 02:58 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
