The worst General- North and South

[Admiral_Porter]

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.

I absolutely agree.

What do you think of Joe Johnston?

[milhistbuff1]

Johnston's later strategy in attempting to keep the union out of Atlanta was effective, although Sherman's strategy was ideal to unhinge Johnston's preservation attempts. However, had Joe Johnston's antagonistic attitude toward Davis cost him dearly and refusal to communicate plans hurt him. The problem with Johnston's plan was that it required a second large force in the theatre to act as the hammer, against johnson's AOT anville. Since sherman rarely launched frontal assaults this would be one of the few ways for johnson to win the contest. Johnston is both one of the CSA's best, and worst Generals at the same time.
Matt

[ole]

Ooooooh, milhistbuff1!

You've waded in where angels fear to tread and said things about Saint Lee that cannot be ignored. Entrench. Now. Keep your head down and pray a lot.

PS. I admire your spirit and willingness to let it all hang out. The ax-man cometh. Thank you.

Ole

[milhistbuff1]

Ole,

Thats because i do not consider Gen. R.E. Lee a Saint, only a General who's honorable Federal and CSA service earned him the respect of his countrymen. No matter how high an esteem Lee was held in, he still made mistakes as did every other participant. I am not saying we should not respect him for his stand against the odds, but only be able to admit he was not perfect.
Matt

[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

[milhistbuff1]

NBForrest, I refer you to my post on the speculative history board on the Longstreet ANV commander to show post-Lee ANV would be like. As far as this post goes, i focus on Lee's tendency to order a light brigade style charge whenever his plans did not work. The Union forces in the east were led by commanders was generally inept such as Burnside, Banks, and McClellan inexperienced men like McDowell, arrogant officers like Pope and Hooker, or some combination of these factors. Lee should have used maneuver and entrenchment to induce the above commanders to attack him. Only after the AOP bashed its head against the "brick wall" of Lee's entrenched ANV could he seek a permanent victory in the theatre by pursuing and trapping the remnants of the AOP. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

With all due respect,
Matt

[nbforrest]

But would a defensive war have worked? Speculative, but I doubt it.


As you say, your other "speculative" post is just that...speculative. I don't see how alternate history can equate to a condemnation of a general.


Do you consider Hood a better general than Lee?


Respectfully

[milhistbuff1]

I do consider Hood a good General, when under someone else. At army command, Johnston was far better. Hood's orders were essentially a death warrant for the entire AOT. As for defensive warfare working, look what happened in World War One, defensive warfare forced a stalemate until the tank was invented and used properly. For the Civil War, it was indeed possible for defensive warfare to succeed. Gettysburg for example, if Lee entrenched and let Meade get pressured into attacking him instead of automatically attacking Meade, it would have presented the opportunity to crush the AOP. Meade would retreat south towards Washington, and Lee could use his now numerically superior army to cut Meade off and force him up against a convenient geographic obstactle and force him to surrender. I'm not saying don't maneuver, just maneuver in the hopes of converting your final concentration point into either an ambush or a entrenched defense on a vital enemy installation/supply route so he is forced to attack you.

With all due respect,
Matt

[Alabaman]

I believe that Gen. J.E. Johnston is a very under-rated CS leader, personally. While studying the Atlanta campaign, the intentions of Gen. Johnston became clear, despite all of the bothersome smoke screen of politics. J.E. Johnston simply took the defensive posiion, biding his time wisely (as he had no ther choice) while waiting for Gen. Sherman to 'string-out' his huge force and become vulnerable. Gen. Johnston would then concentrate larger numbers of his troops against an isolated and smaller US force, resulting in a victory. Beforethe other US forces would converge upon the scene to help, they would have met an ambush, hidden and protected by Georgia's ideal terrain. Gen. Johnston had this opportunity twice if I'm correct. Once during the period of fighting (either preceeding or shortly after?) Resaca. The other opportunity was at Peachtree Creek. I place great emphasis upon the former opportunity; May 1864.

Gen. Johnston gingerly reserved his most valuable resource; his loyal and hard fighting infantry. Johnston's trouble came from Gen. Hood and/or Pres. Davis. They saw things differently (desired a stand-up agressive fight) and caused Johnston to mentally fight two wars; one in Georgia and one in Richmond. Davis was too impatient and this impatience was fed upon and encouraged by Gen. Hood. Hood was an unrealistic and purely instigative catalyst against the methodical, calculative and prudent Johnston. Gen. Sherman was good but not invincible and Johnston realized this. Hence, I think Johnston was on the verge of a crushing victory over a major portion of Sherman's forces. Gen. Hood acted to promptly de-rail Johnston's plan. Davis foolishly believed the unrealistic Hood because Davis suffered from the same mentality and was sympathetic to Hood. Also, Davis was being pressured by some of the CS Congress for a "STOP SHERMAN NOW! with SEVERE FIGHTING policy! The private soldier of the AOT realized all this, simply shook their heads and fought like lions.

In summation: Gen. Johnston had a good and solid strategy plan but went into the Atlanta campaign with two fields of action; Richmond (political) & Georgia (Sherman). Given his genious (Sherman DID fear Joe Johnston, believe it or not:-) in an unhindered manner, Johnston would have saved Atlanta, changed an US Presidential election and gained England's sympathy. Look at CS soldier morale after Gen. Hood, ating so very innocent and "gosh, lil' ol' me as AOT commander atitude" was promoted. Gen. Johnston must have seen "the end" of the war during this moment. I think the man wept silently. Plenty of brave, veteran CS AOT privates did so. Just my two pennyworth.

Post note: I personally talked with President Davis' gggreatgrandson in 1986 at the 1st White House of the Confederacy, and almost politely asked him to elaborate on all this, but my manners prevailed and I didn't. We sat under a tree on the front lawn. alone, and talked for over 30 minutes. Mr. Hayes-Davis was a fine gentleman and I respected his 'family' position as he did mine. I wish I had politely asked him his understanding of the Hood-Davis-Johnston contraversy, in retrospect.

Respectfully,
Alabaman (Rob Adams)

[nbforrest]

Originally Posted by milhistbuff1

I do consider Hood a good General, when under someone else. At army command, Johnston was far better. Hood's orders were essentially a death warrant for the entire AOT. As for defensive warfare working, look what happened in World War One, defensive warfare forced a stalemate until the tank was invented and used properly. For the Civil War, it was indeed possible for defensive warfare to succeed. Gettysburg for example, if Lee entrenched and let Meade get pressured into attacking him instead of automatically attacking Meade, it would have presented the opportunity to crush the AOP. Meade would retreat south towards Washington, and Lee could use his now numerically superior army to cut Meade off and force him up against a convenient geographic obstactle and force him to surrender. I'm not saying don't maneuver, just maneuver in the hopes of converting your final concentration point into either an ambush or a entrenched defense on a vital enemy installation/supply route so he is forced to attack you.

With all due respect,
Matt

Well, I think Hood was an abysmal corps commander.
And you avoided my question: was Hood a better general than Lee? I'm just trying to see if you think Lee really was the worst, or if that was a bit of hyperbole.

Lee held a terrible position for defense at Gettysburg. Why would he invite disaster by letting Meade attack? Anyway, Meade wouldn't have been crushed in all likelihood (Cannae's being so rare,anyway). He would have followed through with his plan of moving into a defensive position at Pipe Creek.

Respectfully