Best in the West?

[jackbluelight]

In the East you have Robert E. Lee who is just about the undisputed best General in that theatre of the war. But what about in the west?
Who in the West comes the closest to Lee's immortality as a Civil War General?

My choice would have to be Nathan B. Forrest. He was a man constantly in the thick of the frey, and was always being wounded having horses shot out from underneath him as a result. In 1864 and 65, if you heard of any Confederate successes in the West, you can bet Forrest was the major player.He defeated Samuel D. Sturgis at Brice's Crossroads, and was victorious in sacking Fort Pillow. He also despised Braxton Bragg which only adds to his luster.

[johan_steele]

Cleburne... Forrest was great but the other choice would be Cleburne.

Of coarse that's just CS generals. Grant, Sheriden, McPherson, Sherman, Grierson, Logan all shined. The west made the good Union Generals, though Reynolds & Hancock were nothing to scoff at.

[jackbluelight]

Here's another question to you Shane. Before Grant took command in the East, who was the best general to ever lead the AOP? Meade probably enjoyed the greatest success, but I tend to believe that Gettysburg was just a stroke of Union Luck on the most part.

[johan_steele]

No, Meade was actually competant... something Lee had never faced.

[illreb]

I would have to go with Cleburne, on the "best of the west" question.

[jackbluelight]

Perhaps Meade was compitant enough, but he just didn't have what Lincoln wanted. He failed to destroy Lee after Gettysburg, and I think Lincoln had nightmares of another McClellan or Hooker.

[mobile_96]

Not to downplay Meade's failure to go after Lee, but I recently read something very interesting. In Gideon Welles diary, Welles, on July 14 was talking to Lincoln about Meade. Lincoln said that "Meade had been pressed and urged, but only one of his generals was for an immediate attack on Lee-the rest held back....Halleck was all the time wanting to hear from Meade." Welle's replied him with, "Why," said I, "he is within four hours of Meade-is it not strange that he has not been up there to advise and encourage him?" he (Welles)then said he had observed the inertness, if not incapacity, of the General-in-Chief, and had hoped that he (Lincoln), who had better and more correct views, would issue preemptory orders." At this point Lincoln backs down and says in effect that Halleck knew better of military matters than he did.
I think that Welles is on to something here, even though Meade was reluctant to take on Lee again, why didn't Halleck go and push Meade to move a lot sooner. He was the big honcho at the time. Actually, if Meade again failed to move then Halleck could have fired Meade for failing to obey orders and took over long enough to get things moving.
Chuck in Il.

[jackbluelight]

I think that If Halleck had fired Meade, that Lincoln would have put his foot down. It would take some nerve to fire the recent victor of Gettysburg. The press in the North would have went wild. Meade was the first General of the AOP to decisively win a major battle, and that made him un-touchable, at least for a while.

[mobile_96]

I think the press would have had a hey-day if anyone but McC was put into place. However, Lincoln was pretty miffed at Meade at this time. If..Halleck had actually been able to bring Lee to bay I think the press would have backed off. Meade was still an unknown to most everyone and hadn't been in charge of the army long enough to have a large backing. Although winning at Getts was a start in that direction. By the time that Lee had finally gotten across the river to safety, 'Lincoln had cooled down and said he would keep Meade in his position because, even though he had failed to chase Lee, he had not done enough wrong to replace him, so would give him another chance.' This I also got from Welles Diary, which has a lot of interesting behind the scenes material in it.
I still think, Halleck going on to Getts. was needed. and him taking over for the duration of the campaign would be an interesting... what if.
Chuck in Il.

[dave_kelly]

Re issues of Meade, Lincoln and Gettysburg:

It is often overlooked that the strategic posture of the eastern Union army at the time was in the poorest condition it had been in since the fall of 1861.

The Union force structure was hemorageing regiments as 2 year and 9 month regiments which constitutied 30% of the infrastructure of the eastern armies were in the process of demobilizing. Meades army in PA was 5 divisions weaker than Hookers had been at Chancellorsville.

Add to that the 23,000 casualties of Gettysburg and Meade had a mess on his hands.

Lincoln was hot to see the war over and done with and had false expectations. Meades congratulatory message to the AoP further antagonized Lincoln who disagreed with its tone.

Halleck as General in Chief had no operational authority and defined his role as executive agent to the President, not as a direct superior to field commanders. (Congress did not disagree. Grant got a completely different title when he got his LTG - General of the Armies.)

On the subject of best in the west. No Southern commander of equal stature to Lee manifested themselves. Had someone done so, the CSA might have succeeded in winning the war: the war was lost in the west.