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.
I just signed up with a user name.So cut me a little slack on this until I get to re-enlist as a veteran participant.
Based on what I have read I am voting for Braxton Bragg for the worst CSA general. Losing Middle TN and then Chattanooga/Lookout Mt/Missionary Ridge battles would cause my dimpled chad to be cast for him.This effectively caused the entire TN and GA theater to domino to Union control.
And then a virtual dead heat for Ambrose Burnside and Wm. Rosecrans for the worst Union General.Burnside for his multiple charges of Maryes Heights, and the Mud March. And Rosie for his TN and GA blunders.Maybe Ben Butler thrown in there too.
Not to worry there lad, we don't tattoo your newbie status on your forehead anymore
I'd have to agree with you on all of your points. Braxton Bragg seemed incompetent, and sure had a tough time dealing with his subordinates. His failure to follow through at Chickamauga and deliver a crushing blow to Union forces cements this theory for me.
I think the worst Union generals were Butler,Burnside and Fremont.CSA Bragg and Hood.Oh and how could I forget George(we are out numbered need more men) McClellan.
The Union had more then its share of all time bunglers. You had Butler, especially at Bermuda Hundred and Fort Fisher. Banks in Louisiana, McClellan who didn't know a victory when he saw one and Sigel in the Shenandoah. But when you talk about all time great bunglers, there is only one on the Union Side. BURNSIDE!!!! Who could take three hours to cross a bridge when his troops could have just forded the creek nearby BURNSIDE. Who spent a month waiting for pontoons to cross the Rappahannock while the enemy watched then sent the entire Second Corps to near complete destruction once he got there, BURNSIDE. Then later sent his own Ninth Corps to humiliation and destruction after Blowing up a big hole in ground that only served to corral his troops, BURNSIDE,BURNSIDE, Burnside.
AS for the South, Bragg had the ability not see a victory when he had one like McClellan, Didn't get along with Generals like Pope the Dope. Would feel free to send his troops against troopswell entrenched up a hill like Burnside. And when the enemy collasped his flank he stood there to let himself almost be taken prisoner. Unique Qualities to have for a General. Also I rate Floyd and Pillow very high and Pemberton for letting himself get bagged by Grant at Vicksburg
I'd vote for Bragg also. On the other side, there's a lot to choose from. I always figured it was a toss-up between Fremont and Commissary Banks with the edge going to Banks, since Fremont at least had the sense to resign rather than serve under John Pope. At any rate, Jackson kicked the both of them out of the valley.
I've also felt that when Grant took command of all the armies, he strategically (sp?) placed his political generals (Banks and Butler) in areas where if they did some good, all the better. But if they screwed up, the consequences would be minimal, thus allowing Sherman and Meade to finish the ugly business of ending the conflict.
My friends, I find this to be a difficult question. Just what makes up a 'bad' (or good for that matter) general. Considering- losing battles?; mishandling troops?; not understanding tactics? or carrying out reconnaissance, posting pickets, taking reasonable safeguards, i.e. laziness? abusing troops in his care? Surely all these things go into account in judging a commander's generalship, but is just one weakness enough to be 'bad'? Even the great ones lose battles and mishandle campaigns, ( Lee in West Virginia in '61, & Gettysburg campaign; Hood as an army commander; Grant in the Wilderness & Cold Harbor;Johnston relieving Vicksburg;) There are many such examples as well as the obverse, Burnside managed a splendid Carolina Coastal Expedition in '61; Bragg's move into Tennessee in '62 was masterful as was his turning on Rosecrans in North Georgia in Sept '63. Rosecrans's Tullahoma campaign was a classic as well as his flanking Bragg's Army of Tennessee out of Chattanooga. Butler in Baltimore and New Orleans hanging unmitigated scoundrels was doing the work needed done.Pemberton I always felt has been unjustly harshly criticized- the recipient of conflicting orders concerning Vicksburg- 'Hold it!', 'Get out!', 'Hold on!', 'Out out now!', 'Stay put!'. well it drove the man half mad. He finally did what his president wanted and has been vilified miserably since. I'm partial to Fremont and don't think he had enough of a chance to prove himself.
As to laziness and abusing troops, that to me is the keynote to qualifying a leader as bad. By saying 'abusing troops' I mean not considering the welfare and well- being of the men in one's charge, deliberately ignoring such things. One reads complaints of Jackson's men that he considered them 'mules', tools to be used and thrown away. There are examples of laziness; fortunately a leader generally had only one chance to get caught that way before he was on his way into civilian life. Few examples do I recall of the deliberate misuse of troops, the one instance that sticks out is Gen JH Ledlie who commanded a division of the IX corps at the Crater. And he was drummed out of the army.
Stupidity ranks in this category, but the post asks us not to consider just stupidity in our categorization. Burnside, though an honest man, and not necessarily a stupid one, certainly had no flare for command or a mind for command. No one now, looking back on his record, would ever wish to serve under old Burny, Bragg the same.
Ultimately, i think the decision would have to be based on who, if i were a commander, would I least like to have undertake an important mission. Kind of like Grant seeing Butler off to Fort Fisher or Davis sending Joe Johnston or Beauregard anywhere. (I threw that in as elucidation- I like all three commanders.)
Under this parameter, i would have to go on the Northern side with Burnside, Butler and Banks, ( when in command of troops in the field.) All three performed well, if not admirably, in administrative positions. The Southern leaders were pretty good, I suppose Bragg would be the choice, though again, he was very loyal, always trying his best, and made a superb military advisor to Davis, a task for which he seemed most fitted. Was there a general in the war who had absolutely no business being anywhere near a soldier? I think only Ledlie, and then as a commander of a fort around Washington or in Kentucky, and I believe he would have done just fine and served his country nobly.
As I say, a difficult, but fine, question.
Regards all, ewc
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Ron, Just wait until you're broke and need another cheeseburger!
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I think it is close between Bragg and Hood. Because bragg lost all of Tn. Hood lost Atlanta because he threw his starving weary troops headlong into ready Yank lines with a horrible out come and then destroyed what was left of his army in Tennessee. Anyway why was Hood allowed to command an army with only one arm and one leg why wasn't he sent home?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
