P.G.T. Beauregard

[Nytram01]

I am interested to see what the opinions of the members are in regards to Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard as a General.

Given my limited knowledge of him I consider him to be a good general but not great. He is probably most known for his victory at 1st Manassas and his loss at Shiloh...as well as being one of the creaters of the Battle Flag...but he sucessfully defended the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia from the Union for much of the war (how he did this I do not know nor do I know how difficult a challenge it was).

I think that his performance during the Bermuda Hundred Campaign and the Second battle of Petersburg were his finest moments.

However was Beauregard a good general who was underused because of his quarrels with Jefferson Davis or was he simply not quite good enough to be placed in the major theatres?

[Nico_Davout]

In his biography he is called - the first rate, second class general. I like him very much. He would probably be far more succesfull in Georgia 1864 then J.E.Johnston, but Davis disliked him more then JEJ .

If he had been retained as AoT commander in 1862 with Bragg as his chief of staff, the army could be far more succesfull then it was with Bragg as commander. Bragg was great at organization and staff level and Bo was a men who could won hearts of soldiers and his subordinates.

[ole]

I can't decide. Beau was clearly a "better" general than most, but I don't see him ever entusiastically subordinating himself to civilian command. And I do see him working very hard on making himself famous.

ole

[5fish]

Originally Posted by ole

I can't decide. Beau was clearly a "better" general than most, but I don't see him ever entusiastically subordinating himself to civilian command. And I do see him working very hard on making himself famous.

ole

I do not see him being "better then most" other generals of that period. I see he had some early luck as being in the right place at the right time but at Petersburg it was as much as the union forces reluctance to charge entrenched position as of PGT military skill.

At Bermuda Hundred the union general he faced was completely incompetent.

[Nico_Davout]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I do not see him being "better then most" other generals of that period. I see he had some early luck as being in the right place at the right time but at Petersburg it was as much as the union forces reluctance to charge entrenched position as of PGT military skill.

At Bermuda Hundred the union general he faced was completely incompetent.

This way we can strip R.E.Lee from almost all his victories:
1) 7th Days Battle - he lost more soldiers, allowed McClellan to escape, McClellan was a poor general.
2) 2nd Manassas - Pope was poor general and there was Jackson!
3) Fredericksburg - even private John Smith from 1st Ohio regiment would win this battle as a commander of ANV
4) Chancellorsville - if only Hooker stayed in battlefield on 5th May, victory could be turned into disaster of rebel forces.

So after all R.E.Lee was just lucky or his opponent was a poor general ....

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I do not see him being "better then most" other generals of that period. I see he had some early luck as being in the right place at the right time but at Petersburg it was as much as the union forces reluctance to charge entrenched position as of PGT military skill.

At Bermuda Hundred the union general he faced was completely incompetent.

It may be true that Beauregard faced an oponant of inferior ability during the Bermuda Hundred Campaign however it probably was his finest hour...that or Second Petersburg.

Beauregard was significantly outnumbered during the Bermuda Hundred and managed to bottle up the opposing army, preventing their advance to Petersburg or Richmond, and he probably was very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time for the second battle of Petersburg.

However luck or the inferiority of the opposition does not take away from the fact that without Beauregard's actions in the Bermuda Hundred and at Second Petersburg then Richmond probably would have fallen a lot sooner and there would not have been that long seige of around Petersburg.

Beauregards actions in those two moments probably helped to extend the war a good few months.

[larry_cockerham]

The P in P.T.G. Beauregard might well have stood for "pawn". Davis had him dancing on a string for most of the war. Just my MHOP......

[5fish]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

It may be true that Beauregard faced an oponant of inferior ability during the Bermuda Hundred Campaign however it probably was his finest hour...that or Second Petersburg.

Beauregard was significantly outnumbered during the Bermuda Hundred and managed to bottle up the opposing army, preventing their advance to Petersburg or Richmond, and he probably was very lucky to have been in the right place at the right time for the second battle of Petersburg.

However luck or the inferiority of the opposition does not take away from the fact that without Beauregard's actions in the Bermuda Hundred and at Second Petersburg then Richmond probably would have fallen a lot sooner and there would not have been that long seige of around Petersburg.

Beauregards actions in those two moments probably helped to extend the war a good few months.

Why don't you explain when PGT abandon Burmada Hundred without much notice and Lee had to rush his troops down to fill the earthworks.

If the union general had not been incompetent he could have march into Richmond but he was. PTG lucky again!

[M E Wolf]

Dear Nytram01 and List Members;

I did not wish to respond to this thread on General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard as a General before I had read up a bit more and consulted Under Both Flags-A Panorama of the Great Civil War.which was published in 1896 and some other old books in the house.

This is a summary of what I've read about the General.

Beauregard was brevited several times in the war with Mexico, for gallantry and heroic deeds. Beauregard was also the Superintendent of West Point. When the Civil War was declared, he also resigned his US Army Commission and was one of eight (8) full Generals of the Confederate Army. General Beauregard was associated by the April 12, 1861 firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston.

First Battle of Manassass was a victory for General Beauregard and in the Battle of Shiloh there were mixed results. However, General Beauregard was assigned from 1862 to 1863 in Charleston and was not participating anywhere but to hold Charleston. Finally in 1864, General Beauregard was allowed to participate in the western theater; against General Grant and General Sherman.

After the Civil War, General Beauregard wrote "Principles and Maxims of the Art of War," among other written works. He also declined offers to be the General in Chief/Head of all Armies to the army of Romania (1866) and Egypt (1869). He is linked to the invention of cable powered railway cars.

What stood out was, that there was a lot of finger pointing back and forth between General Beauregard and President Jeff Davis after the war.
This occurred while the Civil War was taking place. This could account for President Davis giving a 'spanking' per se to General Beauregard by assigning him to Charleston from 1862 to 1863. In a relatively inactive position--this could affect the 'record' of General Beauregard's war leadership.

What I got out of what I read also, General Beauregard was one of those Generals who felt that military professional soldiers should make the major decisions on how to conduct war on the battlefield. Not a political big shot. Goals yes--how to accomplish--no.

I personally feel, that the Civil War was the beginning of the United States failing to keep pure the minds of the military and the tampering of politicians to a low priority. World War II the 'politics' and the tip toes General Eisenhower had to employ as well as his generals and military allies. The beginning of being 'politically correct' rather than being brutally honest regardless of feelings hurt. In the case of General Beauregard--I think he knew how to win the battles he could participate in, if given the chance and or be a good adviser to his fellow Generals. Sitting on his hands per se for two years, to me is a wasteful thing to do with a General to whom proved in previous military battle that he had some smarts.

The fact that President Davis wished to be addressed in his correspondence as 'His Excellency'--I think, would be in the back of the minds of those who fought in the Revolutionary and those decendants now engaged in the Great Civil War (A term used by American Civil War veterans of both sides in Under Both Flags) may have had in the back of their head the slipping back to the past, in having British observation and courting their assistance. Perhaps this galled a General such as Beauregard; to which French history and British have always had a 'tug of war' overseas, from time to time.

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,
M. E. Wolf

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by 5fish

Why don't you explain when PTG abandon Burmada Hundred without much notice and Lee had to rush his troops down to fill the earthworks.

If the union general had not been incompetent he could have march into Richmond but he was. PTG lucky again!

Beauregard began moving the troops from Bermuda Hundred to Petersburg because he suspected that the AOTP was moving to attack Petersburg...something he was proved right in assuming.

When he stripped the total force that was actually at Bermuda Hundred Lee's army was already on the way to reinforce him...which, correct me if I am wrong, would have put Lee's Army in the way of Benjamin Butler's one if he were to try and advance towards Richmond.

So I would actually say that Beauregard was not Lucky in this instance but correctly anticipated the Union movements and put his army in the way, preventing the Union from capturing an important point of the Richmond defences.

Besides which I dont think that Luck is a undesirable atribute as far as generals goes.