General Butterfield
Sergeant
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
- Location
- Philadelphia
Opinions on Richard Ewell, Overly Maligned, Competent Commander?
A few weeks ago, @frontrank2 put up a very interesting thread on "Who Gave the Worst Performance at Gettysburg" It had me thinking about Richard Ewell, whether he belonged on the list and his role in the war. After thinking it over a bit I have taken the positive viewpoint of Ewell. I think he is an overly blamed figure and was actually a pretty good commander. Ewell, like General Longstreet, was a victim of the Lost Cause which largely sought to explain the defeat at Gettysburg by blaming Lee's subordinates. Unlike Longstreet however Ewell reputation hasn't seen as much of an upswing. The film Gettysburg rightly helped to improve people's opinion of Longstreet but repeated the same old criticisms of Ewell. Historian James McPherson as well plays into this speculating that "Had Jackson still lived, he undoubtedly would have found it practicable. But Ewell was not Jackson."
What's your opinion? Do you think he is overly maligned? Was he a competent commander? How does he compare to Lee's other top commanders such as Longstreet, Jackson, A.P. Hill, Gordon, Early and Anderson?
Historian Donald Pfanz in his book Richard Ewell: A Soldier's Life gives a balanced view of his generalship:
"An analysis of Ewell's career shows him to have been a remarkably talented officer who knew how to handle troops in combat. In addition to being a stubborn fighter, he was an able administrator and arguably the best marcher in the army. Recent tactical studies confirm his ability. In the Shenandoah Valley and the Wilderness, at Seven Days and Second Winchester, he performed well and sometimes brilliantly. Even his performance at Gettysburg does not appear to have been as flawed as previously thought, certainly it was no worse than those of Lee, Longstreet, Stuart or A.P. Hill. As to his supposed incapacity for independent command, one needs only to examine the record. Of the four major engagements in which Ewell exercised field command, he won decided victorious at three: Cross Keys, Second Winchester and Fort Harrison. The remaining battle, Sailor's Creek, found him overwhelmed by Union force more than twice his size. Even then he surrendered only after his crops was surrounded. That is not to say that Ewell made no mistakes. He stumbled at Gettysburg, his tactics at Groveton lacked imagination and his performance at Spotsylvania was riddled with flaws. But when weighted against his many accomplishments, these shortcomings appear small. When the balance sheet is tallied up, Ewell's successes as a general far outweigh his failures."
Also a very interesting article on Ewell's actions at Gettysburg:
http://www.historynet.com/did-lt-gen-richard-ewell-lose-the-battle-of-gettysburg.htm
A few weeks ago, @frontrank2 put up a very interesting thread on "Who Gave the Worst Performance at Gettysburg" It had me thinking about Richard Ewell, whether he belonged on the list and his role in the war. After thinking it over a bit I have taken the positive viewpoint of Ewell. I think he is an overly blamed figure and was actually a pretty good commander. Ewell, like General Longstreet, was a victim of the Lost Cause which largely sought to explain the defeat at Gettysburg by blaming Lee's subordinates. Unlike Longstreet however Ewell reputation hasn't seen as much of an upswing. The film Gettysburg rightly helped to improve people's opinion of Longstreet but repeated the same old criticisms of Ewell. Historian James McPherson as well plays into this speculating that "Had Jackson still lived, he undoubtedly would have found it practicable. But Ewell was not Jackson."
What's your opinion? Do you think he is overly maligned? Was he a competent commander? How does he compare to Lee's other top commanders such as Longstreet, Jackson, A.P. Hill, Gordon, Early and Anderson?
Historian Donald Pfanz in his book Richard Ewell: A Soldier's Life gives a balanced view of his generalship:
"An analysis of Ewell's career shows him to have been a remarkably talented officer who knew how to handle troops in combat. In addition to being a stubborn fighter, he was an able administrator and arguably the best marcher in the army. Recent tactical studies confirm his ability. In the Shenandoah Valley and the Wilderness, at Seven Days and Second Winchester, he performed well and sometimes brilliantly. Even his performance at Gettysburg does not appear to have been as flawed as previously thought, certainly it was no worse than those of Lee, Longstreet, Stuart or A.P. Hill. As to his supposed incapacity for independent command, one needs only to examine the record. Of the four major engagements in which Ewell exercised field command, he won decided victorious at three: Cross Keys, Second Winchester and Fort Harrison. The remaining battle, Sailor's Creek, found him overwhelmed by Union force more than twice his size. Even then he surrendered only after his crops was surrounded. That is not to say that Ewell made no mistakes. He stumbled at Gettysburg, his tactics at Groveton lacked imagination and his performance at Spotsylvania was riddled with flaws. But when weighted against his many accomplishments, these shortcomings appear small. When the balance sheet is tallied up, Ewell's successes as a general far outweigh his failures."
Also a very interesting article on Ewell's actions at Gettysburg:
http://www.historynet.com/did-lt-gen-richard-ewell-lose-the-battle-of-gettysburg.htm
Last edited: