On a Scale of 1 To 10, Rate Jubal Early's Generalship

On a Scale of 1 To 10, Rate Jubal Early's Generalship

  • 1

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • 2

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • 5

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • 6

    Votes: 10 16.9%
  • 7

    Votes: 18 30.5%
  • 8

    Votes: 16 27.1%
  • 9

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • 10

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    59
You know he is. An sober at that. Or at least a fighter. What level of command do you give him?
 
He'd command one of my 3 corps as soon as a third one was made.
**** the seniority.

The best thing Grant and Sherman ever did was to ignore dates of rank, at least to the best of their ability without hindering their own careers. Nathaniel Banks and Benjamin Butler were political thorns in their sides. Hooker about Howard being put in command of the AoT.... It rightly lost Hooker his job.

The best man for the job should always be promoted. Early's performance at Chancellorsville alone should have won him a corps command.
 
Early was an excellent division commander and his division had almost 12,000 men the size of a normal cour I've always liked the story one day one of his aides asked him if Jackson was crazy he replied I don't believe so but one day I expect him to order me to attack the North Pole. Everybody's fast to blame him to Gettysburg but I believe a fault lies with Lee . HE had to of three divisions one badly mauled before the attack he was told there was Calvary in his rear by extra billy HE then gets an order to attack if practical without bringing on a full engagement most people always forget that second: part full engagement what kind of order is that I won't goes fare as to say it was great but he was incapable command.
 
Agreeing that the question is somewhat open when we talk about his career (he commanded divisions more than he did an army) I instead encapsulate his entire career in my rating. He was an excellent general who commanded his division well in the attacks on Fredericksburg and in the Gettysburg campaign. Then as a corps commander he served well in the Overland and Valley campaigns. Cedar Creek was a simply superb maneuver on his part, and had he commanded anything other than the exhausted, ill supplied, hungry force he led Sheridan would have been repulsed from the Shenandoah Valley. It was not to be though.

He still preformed well, but we can't compare him to army commanders like Lee and Grant so I give him a 7/10
 
7, my initial thought was a 6 but some of the comments regarding his performance in the Valley caused me to reconsider. I consider personality and ability to work well with others to be a big part of judging a general who spent much of the war as someone's direct subordinate- I can't help but wonder how much (if at all) Early's noted bad temperament may have affected the performance of those who had to work with him.

I believe that's a very valid point. He did suffer from physical ailments & pain which definitely made him surly. But I'm not sure if he took it out on specific subordinates... Not sure he was unnecessarily hard or cruel.

I think that if he treated his subordinates equitably they would in time learn it was nothing personal & respond accordingly. I say this knowing full well it would have definitely caused some strife with the very unmilitary & touchy volunteer officers & men (especially early in the war). By 1864 though I tend to believe they are veterans & knew their trade... Being a grumpy or jolly commander means little by that time. Only success or failure counted.
 
Agreeing that the question is somewhat open when we talk about his career (he commanded divisions more than he did an army) I instead encapsulate his entire career in my rating. He was an excellent general who commanded his division well in the attacks on Fredericksburg and in the Gettysburg campaign. Then as a corps commander he served well in the Overland and Valley campaigns. Cedar Creek was a simply superb maneuver on his part, and had he commanded anything other than the exhausted, ill supplied, hungry force he led Sheridan would have been repulsed from the Shenandoah Valley. It was not to be though.

He still preformed well, but we can't compare him to army commanders like Lee and Grant so I give him a 7/10
Thank you for a rational answer some people just like to beat up on old Jub
 
Some of you who rate him very highly for the 64 Valley campaign really need to read Wert's book on it.

The initial success at Cedar Creek should be credited to Gordon. It was his plan and his scouting that led to the attack

Fisher's Hill it was Early's poor defensive alignment that led them open to that attack.

Third Winchester if he had only not run off Kershaw's division he couldve struck the decisive blow.

Yes he had great odds against him to start with but he did himself no favors when Sheridan showed up. He also benefited from having the strongest divisional commander group in the ANV at that time (Rodes, Gordon and Ramseur)

As a brigade and division commander I would rate him fairly high.
 
Early was an excellent division commander and his division had almost 12,000 men the size of a normal cour I've always liked the story one day one of his aides asked him if Jackson was crazy he replied I don't believe so but one day I expect him to order me to attack the North Pole. Everybody's fast to blame him to Gettysburg but I believe a fault lies with Lee . HE had to of three divisions one badly mauled before the attack he was told there was Calvary in his rear by extra billy HE then gets an order to attack if practical without bringing on a full engagement most people always forget that second: part full engagement what kind of order is that I won't goes fare as to say it was great but he was incapable command.

Ken, you've garbled several facts here, admittedly all about Jackson's Second Corps but not all about Old Jube. The largest division in the corps and the entire Army of Northern Virginia was the so-called Light Division of A. P. Hill, which at Chancellorsville was as big as you describe. That's why following Jackson's death it was broken up, William Dorsey Pender getting four of its six brigades and Henry Heth the other two, along with a couple of others to make two of the three divisions in Hill's new Third Corps. (Richard H. Anderson's was the third, taken from Longstreet's First Corps.)

About the same time Early inherited the division that had originally belonged to Richard S. Ewell, and it was Ewell who had made the famous comment about the North Pole. During Lee's reorganization of his army between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg Ewell succeeded to command of the Second Corps to replace Jackson and Early in turn replaced him in command of the division. Edward Johnson, badly wounded in the foot at the Battle of McDowell, also returned from convalescing to command Jackson's old Stonewall Division, Raleigh Colston having proved to be a disappointment; and Robert E. Rodes was confirmed in his command of what had been Daniel H. Hill's Division.
 
Last edited:
Ken, you've garbled several facts here, admittedly all about Jackson's Second Corps but not all about Old Jube. The largest division in the corps and the entire Army of Northern Virginia was the so-called Light Division of A. P. Hill, which at Chancellorsville was as big as you describe. That's why following Jackson's death it was broken up, William Dorsey Pender getting four of its six brigades and Henry Heth the other two, along with a couple of others to make two of the three divisions in Hill's new Third Corps. (Richard H. Anderson's was the third, taken from Longstreet's First Corps.)

About the same time Early inherited the division that had originally belonged to Richard S. Ewell, and it was Ewell who had made the famous comment about the North Pole. During Lee's reorganization of his army between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg Ewell succeeded to command of the Second Corps to replace Jackson and Early in turn replaced him in command of the division. Edward Johnson, badly wounded in the foot at the Battle of McDowell, also returned from convalescing to command Jackson's old Stonewall Division, Raleigh Colston having proved to be a disappointment; and Robert E. Rodes was confirmed in his command of what had been Daniel H. Hill's Division.
James I must say I am impressed nicely done thanks for the follow-up.
 
Jubal A. Early receives a -100 for his bungling at Cedar Creek. He wasn't a very good general anyway but my God.....the destruction of Sheridan and his army were a certainty. By General Crook's own admission,"the 6th Corps was in no condition to put up resistance". Had General's Gordon and Kershaw, been allowed by the bungling Early to press their advantage and attack the 6th Corps...they would have annihilated it probably with artillery alone.
 
Jubal A. Early receives a -100 for his bungling at Cedar Creek. He wasn't a very good general anyway but my God.....the destruction of Sheridan and his army were a certainty. By General Crook's own admission,"the 6th Corps was in no condition to put up resistance". Had General's Gordon and Kershaw, been allowed by the bungling Early to press their advantage and attack the 6th Corps...they would have annihilated it probably with artillery alone.

I disagree, although Early doubtless could - and certainly should - have handled things differently. "....the destruction of Sheridan and his army were a certainty" is a gross oversimplification of what was a fairly complicated action that played out over at least a couple of hours. (More, once you take Getty's stand at the cemetery into account.) Crook isn't a reliable witness because his small corps was overwhelmed and routed first and doubtless he had this to concentrate on instead of the supposed condition of other units. The VI Corps was the largest and not involved at all in the rout, and Getty's unsung stand likely saved the Union army. Gordon's critical account in his memoirs also has to be taken in account as postwar justification written with a great deal of hindsight by someone who, like with his story about meeting Barlow at Gettysburg, seems to have stretched the truth when he thought it beneficial. Here's a lot more about Cedar Creek: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-battle-of-cedar-creek-october-19-1864.118560/
 
A 5/6. Good as a brigade and division commander, but average as a Corp commander. I'm not including him as an army commander because he simply wasn't one.

Wouldn't have been my choice for the valley. Always thought he was given that because he was still around. Lee simply didn't have good choices by then.
 
Thomas had to be begged to move. He followed his orders exactly, but very slowly. That's why he found himself in Nashville with a scant of an army in the first place, instead of marching to the sea and then up thru the Carolinas. Even then, his slow, methodical movement almost coast him his job. He literally escaped Rosecrans' fate by a day or two.

Who else would you have trusted to watch Hood if you were in Sherman's shoes? Schofield?

The battle of Nashville fully justified Thomas's actions. Grant's fear of Hood getting to the Ohio was laughable. And I think he knew it.
 
A 5/6. Good as a brigade and division commander, but average as a Corp commander. I'm not including him as an army commander because he simply wasn't one.

Wouldn't have been my choice for the valley. Always thought he was given that because he was still around. Lee simply didn't have good choices by then.
Perhaps oddly enough, he had the best recommendation for the position possible; quoted from my thread on the subject:

"Stonewall Jackson himself had anticipated the situation that existed there when he wrote in a letter to Valley congressman Col. Alexander R. Boteler in December, 1862,

My dear Colonel,

In reply to my communication to Genl. Lee, respecting the sending of troops to the Valley, he expressed his desire to do so, if he had the troops to spare. As he asked the question whether I thought troops could be wintered there to advantage, I stated that 20,000 could be wintered near Winchester if entrusted to an enterprising officer... I named the officer to whom the trust might be confided-Genl. Early-. I have repeatedly urged upon Genl. Lee the importance of protecting the Valley... I am well satisfied that General Lee desires to protect the Valley."


 
Perhaps oddly enough, he had the best recommendation for the position possible; quoted from my thread on the subject:

"Stonewall Jackson himself had anticipated the situation that existed there when he wrote in a letter to Valley congressman Col. Alexander R. Boteler in December, 1862,

My dear Colonel,

In reply to my communication to Genl. Lee, respecting the sending of troops to the Valley, he expressed his desire to do so, if he had the troops to spare. As he asked the question whether I thought troops could be wintered there to advantage, I stated that 20,000 could be wintered near Winchester if entrusted to an enterprising officer... I named the officer to whom the trust might be confided-Genl. Early-. I have repeatedly urged upon Genl. Lee the importance of protecting the Valley... I am well satisfied that General Lee desires to protect the Valley."



Cool. I guess I just don't think of him as a Commander of any significance. Wonder if Jackson would have thought the same two years later.
 
Cool. I guess I just don't think of him as a Commander of any significance. Wonder if Jackson would have thought the same two years later.
Another left-handed compliment came from Lee in that he never criticized Early for his failures in the Valley, including losing it altogether in 1865. Because it was necessary to minimize losses in the press for security reasons, the true size and nature of Early's tiny command was never published, therefore the Confederate public never knew or appreciated how hopeless Early's task really was. Lee however was fully aware, so never criticized Early although the public certainly did.
 
Part of me hates this line of question because there really are too many factors involved to squeeze into neat little scales. That said, I am no stranger to the controversial world of war game commander ratings.

Early gets a strong (bordering-on-7) 6 from my admittedly limited knowledge: not spectacular but above-average competence, certainly, as others have pointed out, in division and corps command. Someone else will have to say what else he could have realistically done in the Valley.
 
Back
Top