Most underrated General

[Borderruffian]

Samuel Curtis Union Army of the Southwest.

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.

It's unforunate that Segal's press Corps and his lap dogs made Herr Franz the Hero of Pea Ridge and Curtis was given short shrift. (Another reason to hate St Louis.)

[cw1865]

My vote goes to Hooker who, outside of Chancellorsville, seemingly does fairly well.

[larry_cockerham]

Geb. Hooker is known here in Tennessee for his contributions to medical science in the treatment of venereal disease. Few generals can match that. Nashville might have been occupied, but we gave our contribution to the war.

[Borderruffian]

I think Fightin Joe got a pretty fair shake from history in General . Curtis on the other hand was largely over looked. But then again Joe fought in the "important" war and Sam fought in that Trans-Miss side show.

[ole]

To save me from actually having to look it up, what became of Curtiss after the war? Did the army, at least, give him his due?

ole

[Borderruffian]

Later in the war he was transfered to the Far West to deal with "Indian Issues" . In 1866 while returning to Iowa he walked across the Frozen Missouri River. He died upon reaching the Iowa bank of a heart attack.

[ole]

Too, too sad. He deserved better. At least, he was given an important command.

ole

[cw1865]

We tend to remember Joe Hooker as being the overconfident, arrogant commander. But to get to the command his actions have military merit and he does some things thereafter too that are worthy. Problem is that history makes us focus on his negative traits; I tend to do the same thing with Howard.

[davisonschaplain]

Originally Posted by cw1865

My vote goes to Hooker who, outside of Chancellorsville, seemingly does fairly well.

I tend to agree, I think Hooker was overlooked as well but Lincoln was impatient and hence the revolving door

[ole]

I tend to agree, I think Hooker was overlooked as well but Lincoln was impatient and hence the revolving door.

My take, for what it's worth, is that Hooker was a good corps commander and, had he subjugated his grandiose plans for himself, might have made a good army commander. The man was not a schlemiel. He had the qualifications and the resume. Where he tripped up was in showing his personal ambition and the high station he thought he deserved. Take his superiors, Grant, Sherman and Thomas. Were they working to elevate themselves in rank and position? Perhaps. But they didn't make it evident.

Let's say you are Commander-in-Chief. And you have this guy in the second row hopping up and down shouting, ME! ME! But he's the only guy demonstrating and you give him a shot at it. And he looks good at the outset. But he falls on his face. Where do you go from there?

Maybe one of those guys who keep their mouths shut but perform well?

Grant had his promoters, but I've yet to see that he actually asked them to put his name up for top general. Grant did exactly what Lincoln expected. Subserviently or intuitively, I can't say. But his record looked really, really good when Lincoln decided there ought to be a General of all the armies. Everywhere Grant went there was a Union victory. Nevermind his reputation, at the top of every list was "Grant Won."

In another time and another place, the top of the list might have been "Thomas is a solid, able commander." If you were Lincoln, who would you pick?

ole