Best Union military general with no prior military training.

[AUG]

Taylor was born in 1826, which means he spent at least a decade and a half living on post, on various frontiers and in DC, as his father climbed the ladder; and didn't Taylor serve as an ADC to his father, at least early on, in 1845-4?

It's not a formal military education or training, but it would certainly suggest some level of experience, if only by example. Most Army brats I've known could probably call cadence in their sleep, if you get what I mean, and would have a basic understanding of organization and administrative process, for example, much more so than their peers who never spent any time on an active post.

It's a slender reed, undoubtedly, but if the sieve is "no prior military experience" ( as opposed to military service) Taylor doesn't "really" qualify...

Best,

True, but as you said, I wouldn't really count that as actual military training. And I don't believe he was with his father for long before he was sent back home due to rheumatoid arthritis. However, military history was always one of Taylor's favorite subjects to study, so I'm sure that knowledge came in handy to some degree.

 

[Yankeedave]

What makes Taylor attractive is there will be a no disaster with him. competent at different levels of command. his childhood apparently agreed with him and he definately picked something up from it. his actions show these.

 

[Drew]

Please don't leave out Gen. Philip Kearney. Despite an early exit (1862,) he was a fearless and inspirational leader on the battlefield.

He was one of six junior officers sent to the French cavalry school at Saumur (in two groups) to do the first year of the Cavalry Officers School. Sadly he was found to be so inept that he was dropped from the course quite early and sent to Algeria to "observe" whilst the rest finished the first year of the course.

I'm not sure I'd counted that as having military training, although of course he learnt on the job.

Kearny may not fit the definition of a Union General without formal training, but I am uncomfortable leaving a comment dangling out there that he was "so inept." I'm not a scholar and I can't speak to his experience with the French cavalry school, but Kearny was ultimately awarded with the French Legion of Honor for his performance at Solferino.

During the Civil War, he was noted as a very aggressive general, loved by his men. Kearny was a horseman on par with U.S. Grant, no question about it.

He was outspoken against his orders from Little Mac during the retreat from the Peninsula Campaign. He obeyed, but was very adamant that retreat was equal to "cowardice or treason." I'd have to dig to find Kearny's exact words.

His death in 1862 is IMO one of the unexplored "what ifs" of the war. What if he had lived?

We will never know, but we do know that General Kearny's finest contemporary endorsement came from General Robert E. Lee, who went out of his way to ensure Kearny's remains were carried into Union lines, as a measure of respect. I imagine General Lee would have left John Pope's remains to the buzzards, but not General Kearny's.

He was not "inept" and that needs to be said.

 

[67th Tigers]

He was not "inept" and that needs to be said.

He certainly was a terrible division commander. If you ever study his combats you'll find confused messes with Kearny at times leading single companies in wreckless charges against positions and utterly failing to control his division.

He may have been a very bold and fearless commander of a cavalry squadron, but he was certainly not a competent general of any stripe. He'd been promoted well above his level of competence. He was a vain and narcissistic man who denigrated everyone, not just McClellan but even his uncle and cousin for perceived slights to his ego. As a commander, Heintzelman's comment that I will misquote as "Kearny forgets that he is a general" is spot on, unfortunately.

 

[TFSmith121]

True, but as you said, I wouldn't really count that as actual military training. And I don't believe he was with his father for long before he was sent back home due to rheumatoid arthritis. However, military history was always one of Taylor's favorite subjects to study, so I'm sure that knowledge came in handy to some degree.

Don't disagree, but several different terms have come up, from "military training" to "military experience."

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Kearny may not fit the definition of a Union General without formal training, but I am uncomfortable leaving a comment dangling out there that he was "so inept." I'm not a scholar and I can't speak to his experience with the French cavalry school, but Kearny was ultimately awarded with the French Legion of Honor for his performance at Solferino.

During the Civil War, he was noted as a very aggressive general, loved by his men. Kearny was a horseman on par with U.S. Grant, no question about it.

He was outspoken against his orders from Little Mac during the retreat from the Peninsula Campaign. He obeyed, but was very adamant that retreat was equal to "cowardice or treason." I'd have to dig to find Kearny's exact words.

His death in 1862 is IMO one of the unexplored "what ifs" of the war. What if he had lived?

We will never know, but we do know that General Kearny's finest contemporary endorsement came from General Robert E. Lee, who went out of his way to ensure Kearny's remains were carried into Union lines, as a measure of respect. I imagine General Lee would have left John Pope's remains to the buzzards, but not General Kearny's.

He was not "inept" and that needs to be said.

And very well said. In comparison with many of his peers, he was ready and willing to fight and led from the front. More than a few peers and several superiors - including a fairly well known Army/department commander and general-in-chief - were seen at the time by more than a few of their men - as cowards.

As Adm. Reeves said after his participation in the inquiry into Pearl Harbor and the Wake Relief mission, "I used to think we need men who could think AND fight; at this point, we need men who WILL fight."

Kearny fought, and was in harm's way as much as his men (all volunteers at the time, of course) and was mourned by many of them when he fell; other major generals did not, and their departure from active service led to barely a ripple from their men, whether they went horizontally or still vertical.

McClellan was the obvious example; by the time of his relief by Burnside, other than a few hotheads among his staff, cared; and by the time he attempted his political comeback, he was yesterday's news and was defeated (yet again) by a much abler adversary...

Best,

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Frankly you have to admire the volunteer officers of the Civil War in a lot of ways. They learned a difficult profession on the job in the harshest possible way and many of them were as good as any officers the US Army has ever produced.

They and their men's lack of discipline during the war is also largely responsible for how much more violent US policy towards the native peoples was after the war than it was before it. When the more disciplined regular troops went east to fight the war, less disciplined - and often far more violent - local units and officers like Carson (by no means the worst) took on the job, and by the time the regulars returned five to six years later, incidents was like Sand Creek and the Long Marches has escalated the violence beyond recall. If your land and home is being taken by light-skinned invaders in blue uniforms, then you don't really care after a while if they're the same light-skinned invaders in blue uniforms they were last week; if last week's destroyed your crops and starved your family, you probably aren't going to take the time to make sure that this week's are the same exact guys before you attack.

Of course, sending Sheridan out this way after the war was by no means helpful.

Incidentally, "Navajo" is a bastardization of a single word from a Zuni phrase that loosely translates to "our enemies next to our other enemies". The Naabeehó Bináhásdzo (what you would call the "Navajo Nation") is the land onto which the Diné people were forced after the Long Walk, as opposed to Dinétah, the actual home of the Diné.

Incidentally, calling someone a general because of a Civil War brevet dated 13 March 1865 is like calling a modern officer "general" because they received an Acheivement Medal. By including Carson simply because of a post-war, post-service award that was being handed out like candy with almost no oversight between 1866 and 1869, you are expanding the pool of Union generals from just over 500 to over 2100, and barely six dozen of the additional 1600 ever served as generals for even a day. Most of them - Carson included - served as colonels, few ever commanded even as many as a thousand men in any one action, and one never even rose above the substantive rank of first lieutenant. Carson absolutely does not count as a general.

 

[Drew]

He certainly was a terrible division commander. If you ever study his combats you'll find confused messes with Kearny at times leading single companies in wreckless charges against positions and utterly failing to control his division.

He may have been a very bold and fearless commander of a cavalry squadron, but he was certainly not a competent general of any stripe. He'd been promoted well above his level of competence. He was a vain and narcissistic man who denigrated everyone, not just McClellan but even his uncle and cousin for perceived slights to his ego. As a commander, Heintzelman's comment that I will misquote as "Kearny forgets that he is a general" is spot on, unfortunately.

He certainly was a terrible division commander? Really?

I honestly hate to do this, I really do, but, sources, please?

 

[StephenColbert27]

He certainly was a terrible division commander. If you ever study his combats you'll find confused messes with Kearny at times leading single companies in wreckless charges against positions and utterly failing to control his division.

He may have been a very bold and fearless commander of a cavalry squadron, but he was certainly not a competent general of any stripe. He'd been promoted well above his level of competence. He was a vain and narcissistic man who denigrated everyone, not just McClellan but even his uncle and cousin for perceived slights to his ego. As a commander, Heintzelman's comment that I will misquote as "Kearny forgets that he is a general" is spot on, unfortunately.

I fail to see the relevance of this part of your post. As to your other claims, I will ask for specific examples, as I know little of that part of the war.

 

[Drew]

I'm dying to see primary sources that show General Philip Kearny was lousy at his job, really.

Let's keep in mind General Lee did not agree with this premise and I'm thinking the sound of *crickets* will inform us.

Time will tell.

 

[E_just_E]

No love for Ben Butler or Nathaniel Banks?

Rufus Dawes could possibly be a Forrest equivalent in the Federal Army, but Edward Hatch is likely closer because of the branch of service (and could probably top the list of "the best generals nobody heard about".)

 

[Acbernsen]

While he was no Forrest, I would vote for Chamberlain.

Having just read Foote's history, it is interesting that Chamberlain appears in only a single sentence in the magesterial Gettysburg section.

 

[galveston bay]

If your land and home is being taken by light-skinned invaders in blue uniforms, then you don't really care after a while if they're the same light-skinned invaders in blue uniforms they were last week; if last week's destroyed your crops and starved your family, you probably aren't going to take the time to make sure that this week's are the same exact guys before you attack.

Of course, sending Sheridan out this way after the war was by no means helpful.

Incidentally, "Navajo" is a bastardization of a single word from a Zuni phrase that loosely translates to "our enemies next to our other enemies". The Naabeehó Bináhásdzo (what you would call the "Navajo Nation") is the land onto which the Diné people were forced after the Long Walk, as opposed to Dinétah, the actual home of the Diné.

Incidentally, calling someone a general because of a Civil War brevet dated 13 March 1865 is like calling a modern officer "general" because they received an Acheivement Medal. By including Carson simply because of a post-war, post-service award that was being handed out like candy with almost no oversight between 1866 and 1869, you are expanding the pool of Union generals from just over 500 to over 2100, and barely six dozen of the additional 1600 ever served as generals for even a day. Most of them - Carson included - served as colonels, few ever commanded even as many as a thousand men in any one action, and one never even rose above the substantive rank of first lieutenant. Carson absolutely does not count as a general.

regarding Navajo.... as I said, the Navajo Nation WEBSITE calls it that

regarding Brevets... in general they were awarded for services rendered as the US Army did not have medals, so yes, its a promotion to general. If Custer gets to be called General, so does Carson especially since Lee did not surrender until April 9 1865

As to volunteer officers.... sure, they were brutal and Sand Creek caused a major explosion on the Plains. It was a brutal war on both sides. It does not take away from their professional achievements.

As to light skinned invaders wearing Blue burning my family's crops and home... well, as it happens I am directly descended on my fathers side from a man who lived in the Atlanta, Georgia area, and who served in the Army of Northern Virginia from beginning to end.

His farm was destroyed during the war (and he moved to Texas postwar).

But really if you want to discuss the injustices dealt out to the American Indian, I suggest another thread on the subject

 

[GELongstreet]

...so yes, its a promotion to general. If Custer gets to be called General, so does Carson ...

Unlike Carson Custer actually was a general with the volunteers, not just a brevet one ... which he became later with the regulars.

 

[NedBaldwin]

No love for Ben Butler or Nathaniel Banks?

I'm known as an admirer of Banks, but I do not claim he was the best.

I could also make the case that both had prior military training from their time as militia officers. In an earlier post, Rochester Bill wrote about the importance of "experience in infantry drill and evolutions of the line." Both Butler and Banks are depicted in this image from 1859:

 

[galveston bay]

Unlike Carson Custer actually was a general with the volunteers, not just a brevet one ... which he became later with the regulars.

Custer was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Regulars at the time of his death. He was brevetted to Brigadier and Major General during the Civil War, but did not hold a Generals rank in the Volunteers to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

Be that as it may, I think the consensus seems to be that we aren't counting civilians who became generals if they had prior military service. Carson has combat experience in the Mexican War so he wouldn't count in any event.

 

[Drew]

Custer was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Regulars at the time of his death. He was brevetted to Brigadier and Major General during the Civil War, but did not hold a Generals rank in the Volunteers to the best of my knowledge. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

Be that as it may, I think the consensus seems to be that we aren't counting civilians who became generals if they had prior military service. Carson has combat experience in the Mexican War so he wouldn't count in any event.

Custer's arrogance got him killed, IIRC. Maybe formal training could have prevented it, who knows?

 

[Bee]

Incidentally, "Navajo" is a bastardization of a single word from a Zuni phrase that loosely translates to "our enemies next to our other enemies". The Naabeehó Bináhásdzo (what you would call the "Navajo Nation") is the land onto which the Diné people were forced after the Long Walk, as opposed to Dinétah, the actual home of the Diné.

regarding Navajo.... as I said, the Navajo Nation WEBSITE calls it that

You are both correct. Amongst The People, the word Diné is used, as it is consistent with the written and spoken language of the Navajo. Outside of the Diné, the use of Navajo Nation is termed. It IS nice to see the historically accurate explanation given by @IcarusPhoenix , though, because this information is not widely known outside of the rez.

 

[67th Tigers]

I fail to see the relevance of this part of your post. As to your other claims, I will ask for specific examples, as I know little of that part of the war.

Split into another thread: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/kearny-as-commander.128784/

 

[matthew mckeon]

Custer was a West Point grad, so he had formal training.