Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Hood, during his fights around Atlanta lost approximatly the same numer of troops as J.E.J. did during his retreat, but no one have ever said that J.E.J. "very nearly destroyed his army during retreat to Atlanta". Why is that?
Count the days during the campaign and the number of battles Johnston was involved in, and then the days and the number of battles during which Hood was in command.
Quote:
Today we know that CS army was in bad condition on evening the 6th. However Grant did not know that. How could Grant not know that? He was all over the field. He knew the damage he had given and he knew the damage he had received. What he knew was that rebel has surprised and beat him on the 6th. Without Buell he could/would probably withdrawn. I don't see it the same way. The message to Buell demonstrates that things would be easier for the Feds if Buell would hurry, but not that situation would be impossible. I note also that you said he was beaten on the 6th. I don't know when Grant ever admitted to being beaten.
The message to Buell can give doubts if Grant would try to run Bo to Corinth alone:
The attack on my forces has been very spirited from early this morning. The appearance of fresh troops in the field now would have a powerful effect, both by inspiring our men and disheartening the enemy. If you will get upon the field, leaving all your baggage on the east bank of the river, it will be more to our advantage, and possibly save the day to us. The rebel forces are estimated at over 100,000 men. My headquarters will be in the log building on the top of the hill, where you will be furnished a staff officer to guide you to your place on the field.
Grant may well not have counterattacked on the 7th without Buell. On the other hand, he did have Wallace's fresh division and a thoroughly vetted cadre who also were not ready to quit. He had ammo and guns to throw it. So I can't say with any conviction that he would or would not have attacked without Buell. I think he would have, Just because that's the sort of thing he did.
Thanks for the posts.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Count the days during the campaign and the number of battles Johnston was involved in, and then the days and the number of battles during which Hood was in command.
Very well, but using this system (whoever lost fewer soldiers per day is better general) we can proove that J.E.Johnston was the greatest general of CSA and R.E.Lee will be somewhere at the bottom .
A.Castel in Decision in the West:Atlanta has written: "Moreover, 3,000 of this decline [10,000] has occured since June 30 during a period of little serious combat. Even after making due allowance for other factors, this can only mean that large numbers have deserted.
Without exception, Union accounts of the advance from Kennesaw to the Chattahoochee describe picking up 'scores' and 'hundreds' of willing Rebel prisoners after each of Johnston`s withdrawals."
Then there is a quote from letter of Calethial Helms from 63rd Georgia regiment in which he writes to wife: "But perhaps an equally large number of the deserters, are all out of heart."
It would be far better for Confederacy if those soldiers who were captured or even surrendered during the retreat (because they have lost heart due to JEJ policy) fought and 'were lost' in a battle which would gave Confederacy something.
Johnston's retreating policy yielded 100 mile in 60 days (of very good terrain to defend). Hood's tactics involved attacking at opportune times succeeded in holding off Sherman for 45 days at the gates of Atlanta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Grant may well not have counterattacked on the 7th without Buell. On the other hand, he did have Wallace's fresh division and a thoroughly vetted cadre who also were not ready to quit. He had ammo and guns to throw it. So I can't say with any conviction that he would or would not have attacked without Buell. I think he would have, Just because that's the sort of thing he did.
In his official messege to Buell he writes that he believes there is 100,000 rebels. We know that he would have hold even without Buell, but he did not have such knowledge during the battle. Often generals were retreating because they were believing that enemy has far more soldiers. On april 1862 it was not yet Grant of Vicksburg and Chattanooga who did 'not give a **** even about R.E.Lee' .
George Thomas was a very fine officer. Probably one of the best the Union had. Unfortunately for him, he was from Virginia; and was never completely trusted by the powers that were. Joshua Chamberlain showed a great deal of class at Appomattox. Hancock and Reynolds come to mind. John Gordon and Patrick Cleburne (another casualty of Hood's incompetence) were excellent generals for the South. How about Jo Shelby? Every one of these men were excellent generals. They also were gentlemen who saw to their men's needs. Any general who regards his men as mere fodder units is no leader of men. It is for this reason I have never thought much of Grant, Hood or (gasp!) Thomas Jackson.
Calicoboy
__________________
My dear mother:- I have come safely through two more terrible engagements with the enemy, that at South Mountain and the great battle of yesterday (Antietam). Our splendid regiment is almost destroyed. We have had nearly 400 men killed and wounded in the battles. Seven of our officers were shot and three killed in yesterday's battle and nearly 150 men killed and wounded. All from less than 300 engaged. The men have stood like iron....Maj. Rufus Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers
"Johnston's retreating policy yielded 100 mile in 60 days (of very good terrain to defend). Hood's tactics involved attacking at opportune times succeeded in holding off Sherman for 45 days at the gates of Atlanta."
John Bell Hood did more to lose the war than any other entity in the war (except for Jeff Davis' loyalty to awful generals). Joe Johnston was a far better general...period! Johnston realized that he did not have enough men, in front of Atlanta, to win a pitched battle with Sherman. So he dodged and weaved like a good boxer when he knows he's overmatched. Hood took over the defense of Atlanta and immediatly made disasterous frontal attacks that cost him so many men that he had to abandon and burn the city. The fall of Atlanta turned the election of 1864 around; and Lincoln won re-election (if not for the news of the fall of Atlanta, Lincoln would have lost that election and John McClellan would have won...how would that have changed the fate of the Confederacy?). Lincoln was completely convinced he would lose the election; he never imagined that Hood would come to his rescue.
Calicoboy
__________________
My dear mother:- I have come safely through two more terrible engagements with the enemy, that at South Mountain and the great battle of yesterday (Antietam). Our splendid regiment is almost destroyed. We have had nearly 400 men killed and wounded in the battles. Seven of our officers were shot and three killed in yesterday's battle and nearly 150 men killed and wounded. All from less than 300 engaged. The men have stood like iron....Maj. Rufus Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers
George Thomas was a very fine officer. Probably one of the best the Union had. Unfortunately for him, he was from Virginia; and was never completely trusted by the powers that were. Joshua Chamberlain showed a great deal of class at Appomattox. Hancock and Reynolds come to mind. John Gordon and Patrick Cleburne (another casualty of Hood's incompetence) were excellent generals for the South. How about Jo Shelby? Every one of these men were excellent generals. They also were gentlemen who saw to their men's needs. Any general who regards his men as mere fodder units is no leader of men. It is for this reason I have never thought much of Grant, Hood or (gasp!) Thomas Jackson.
Calicoboy
George Thomas was a good general, but getting him to
move against an objective was the reason he had his
nickname---Ole Slow Trot. He nearly drove Washington and Grant mad trying to get him off his rear-end at Nashville. When he finally did move, he very nearly destroyed Hood's army.
The thing I admire most was Joe Johnston's concern for his men. He was one of the very few generals during the Civil War who put his men above "Glory."
Very well, but using this system (whoever lost fewer soldiers per day is better general) we can proove that J.E.Johnston was the greatest general of CSA and R.E.Lee will be somewhere at the bottom .
A.Castel in Decision in the West:Atlanta has written: "Moreover, 3,000 of this decline [10,000] has occured since June 30 during a period of little serious combat. Even after making due allowance for other factors, this can only mean that large numbers have deserted. Without exception, Union accounts of the advance from Kennesaw to the Chattahoochee describe picking up 'scores' and 'hundreds' of willing Rebel prisoners after each of Johnston`s withdrawals."
Then there is a quote from letter of Calethial Helms from 63rd Georgia regiment in which he writes to wife: "But perhaps an equally large number of the deserters, are all out of heart."
It would be far better for Confederacy if those soldiers who were captured or even surrendered during the retreat (because they have lost heart due to JEJ policy) fought and 'were lost' in a battle which would gave Confederacy something.
Johnston's retreating policy yielded 100 mile in 60 days (of very good terrain to defend). Hood's tactics involved attacking at opportune times succeeded in holding off Sherman for 45 days at the gates of Atlanta.
In his official messege to Buell he writes that he believes there is 100,000 rebels. We know that he would have hold even without Buell, but he did not have such knowledge during the battle. Often generals were retreating because they were believing that enemy has far more soldiers. On april 1862 it was not yet Grant of Vicksburg and Chattanooga who did 'not give a **** even about R.E.Lee' .
Greetings Nico. Are you a citizen of Poland? If you are, I find it interesting that you have an interest in the Civil
War. I'm just a lazy American and know very little about our Civil War, much less an interest in foreign wars with the exception of Poland's involvement in WWll.
George Thomas was a good general, but getting him to
move against an objective was the reason he had his
nickname---Ole Slow Trot. He nearly drove Washington and Grant mad trying to get him off his rear-end at Nashville. When he finally did move, he very nearly destroyed Hood's army.
The thing I admire most was Joe Johnston's concern for his men. He was one of the very few generals during the Civil War who put his men above "Glory."
It was Grant's jealosy/suspicion/impatience that was the problem at Nashville. Without concern for the men; nor a clue to what was going on there, he kept insisting on an attack. There was a horrible sleet storm going on while Grant was fuming. The temperature was below zero and the ground was so slick that people could not walk on it..yet alone pull off a full blown attack. Confederates literally froze to death. Hood was in a warm mansion, eating fine food while his men were without food, tents, blankets or firewood. The Federals were in relative comfort in Nashville. When the weather broke there was never a doubt of the outcome. The Army of the Tennesee was a mere ghost of itself by then.
Calicoboy
__________________
My dear mother:- I have come safely through two more terrible engagements with the enemy, that at South Mountain and the great battle of yesterday (Antietam). Our splendid regiment is almost destroyed. We have had nearly 400 men killed and wounded in the battles. Seven of our officers were shot and three killed in yesterday's battle and nearly 150 men killed and wounded. All from less than 300 engaged. The men have stood like iron....Maj. Rufus Dawes, 6th Wisconsin Volunteers
A fuller explanation is made in the same article that, Thomas was never slow.
A contributor to another board defined SLOW as:
"Balderdash. What I hear you saying is that if politicos or reporters perceive you as slow, then you are in fact - slow. I want objective measures that aren't subject to personal biases and agendas. If a general is slow, then he is slow relative to some objective standard. If it takes 40 wagons, and a general only has enough mules for 20 wagons, and so does not move until he is up to the 40 wagon standard, is that slow?
Are you saying a general must ignore all logistics calculations, and achieve 20 miles per day regardless? Say your standard is to have troops carry 6 days rations with them. Do you set off knowing on day 7 you will not have a depot, therefore, no supplies and forage and just ignore it? Sherman accumulated 40 days of beef on the hoof before the march to the sea. Was that slow? Should he have left with 20 or 10 days?"
In view of the stipulative definitions above, can you please show me where Thomas was ‘slow?’
I will have to agree with the several of those, who feel that General George Thomas was a very good general, even though he may have had the appearances of being slow. Like General J. Longstreet being accused by others for the same --being slow; there is a difference between being slow to obey command and have your troops/corps slaughtered when it really is all about 'timing.' General Thomas and General Longstreet were thinking beyond the immediate battle, these two generals were formulating back up battle plans as well as retreat alternatives--as to extract themselves having several back up plans.
Further, it is unfair to compare infantry movements against, cavalry and or artillery units. Wagons carried vital supplies, to support the units. The handicap with wagons, is that unless they have smooth roads and dry roads, they cannot make good progress. As an equestrian, I have also driven my own 1870 wagon and have made on pavement good time at a 'trot' and not achieve the same distance as some General's have made with their wagons. That said, I didn't have the load, I also didn't have the short cuts and I went at a trot. In the Civil War, even the cavalry units walked their horses, as not to exhaust them if needed to be moved into a sudden engagement. The other incidents, about wagons--sometimes wheels or axles broke if they were stressed. These needed to be repaired. Often these repairs took hours. Sometimes wagons were abandoned and contents were loaded into an already 'stuffed' wagon, thus increased the stress on the wagon and make it, now proned to breaking down. This would cause extra caution by the wagon drivers, which would slow them down as not to break down.
I also believe, that there have been many cases where commanding generals, such as the case with General Sherman and General Warren; that General Sherman's impatience and temper; caused the reputation of another successful general, such as General Warren to suffer on the field, in their career and in their life. This was the case with General R. Garnett in conflict with General T. J. Jackson. Jackson like Sherman, did not 'share' their battle plans with their generals in charge of the various corps--thus these generals were left in the dark and were 'followers' not acting in a unified manner because they did not know 'the plans' of battle or what was to be achieved. Though Jackson was dead, the inability to retract 'honor' which was so important in those times; B. General R. Garnett was tortured and most likely, committed heroic suicide as to redeam himself when he charged the Union position at Gettysburg--in Pickett's charge. For General Warren, he was finally able to get an 'inquiry' but, way after the Civil War and was vindicated and found he was unfairly judged, treated and his reputation harmed but, for Warren--his career was wrecked and was too old to restart from a very damaged reputation. It took many generals, to include Gen. J. L. Chamberlain to testify for Warren's name to be cleared. Warren died a broken man, even though cleared of all and any wrong doing.
Peppered throughout the Civil War, I am seeing that some Generals were successful in some battles but not all of them--to include Lee, Grant and or all of them really. The problem is, that nobody is judged equally when failure struck. It really depended on the mood of the political leadership as well as the commanding general.
The 'black flag' mentality of "Stonewall" and "Sherman," is very evident and those who fought with a bit more logic and tactical means, in the end--were those who survived. General Lee was great in tactical and logical means--and, perhaps why General Winfield Scott was so destroyed emotionally, when his favorite Chief of Staff, Colonel R. E. Lee resigned and did not take up the total command of the US Army. But, I am of the belief that Lee had suffered either a mild stroke or heart attack before Gettysburg. There is a seemingly 'difference' in Lee during and after Gettysburg. His heart problems were kept quiet but, only a few knew and that was not known to his commanding generals. Yet, at a diminished capacity--Lee was brilliant.
Personally, if each general was judged as an individual, not by the battles won or lost but, on how they commanded--it may be that some other generals would have been considered creme-de-la-creme, and Grant, Lee and others might have been in the top 10 but--not 'the top.'
Personally, if each general was judged by what amount of troops and tactical approaches used; I am sure there would be those generals who would surface to the top 10 and there would be another set of who was creme-de-la-creme.
What I am finding though--through results and official reports; those who were political positioned and gained their commission without having military training, were the worst--in my personal opinion.
What I am also finding, is that those who were civilians and learned as they went and rose into the ranks of General; were amazing. They didn't go to West Point however, they earned their rank by fighting in the 'trenches' per se--and perhaps were more 'tactical' and 'mindful' of their troops--remembering where they had been. People like Chamberlain, Gordon (CSA), etc.
I am also finding, of those that did attend West Point; those to whom excelled as 'engineers' were the most successful battle commanders, with topography and artillery following. I have not studied all of the West Pointer's backgrounds of yet but, have selected those that are most known and battle known... e.g. Lee, Jackson, Meade, McClellan, Pope, Butler, Johnson, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
His handling of his army at Pea Ridge that resulted in the defeat of Van Dorn and the loss of Northern Arkansas and Missouri for the CS. Among his accomplishments in this regard was his handling of Segal, Osterhaus, and Asboth and the German regt's who were less than happy that Herr Franz was not commander of the Army.
IMO his handling of the AOW in the face Van Dorn's superior numbers and his ability to keep himself informed and in contact with his commanders was at this stage of the war superior.
His Campaign in Arkansas after his victory was a logisitcal victory in that he had the courage to break with a static supply base being the first general of the war to due so.
And don't forget Curtis' generalship in dismantling Price's last raid into Missouri.. despite the bumbling by Missouri Department Commander Rosecrans.
Definitely agree that Curtis was/is the Union's most under rated. On the Confederate side suggest that Dick Taylor has a claim to that title.
"One of the characteristic aspects of this utterly confusing war was the general feeling, among active secessionists, that it was somehow perfidious and unnaturally evil for the Federal government to resist when warlike measures were taken against it."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
.
.
Linear Mode
