Lee Lee vs Johnston

[MikeyB]

Is is generally accepted by historians that the Confederacy was better off with Robert E. Lee taking command versus Johnston never getting wounded and stepping down? Or is there a large group out there that argues Johnson's style and strategic redeployments were better suited for the South's defensive strategy and might ultimately have been more successful?

 

[Greywolf]

No , Lee was the right choice in the east. However I'd have rather Johnston stay in command in the west instead of Hood. IMO, when you are already outnumbered and out gunned, Hoods reckless style was not the answer.

 

[Klaudly]

Johnston's injury was fortunate for the South, because Lee took his place. Unfortunately he returned to service to do damage to the west. IMO he was too slow and cautious, Hood's offensive strategy was due to Richmond's pressure.

 

[ariete]

As far as i readed, Johnston had strong military and political support and his feeling was particullary oriented to the -resupply-. Maybe his criticized style was think out in relation of the perception acquired on the field by the commander at the start of war, the ascertained inferiority of supplies and equipments of the confederate armies. So more than be an effective field commander, i would praise his caution strategy in this sense. Maybe the worst of this sense was exposed at Vicksburg where it seems he had the numbers to 'make that job' (I use -maybe- not because i'm unsure about what i readed but because in history is always better expose own or the universal knowledge with the requisite humility and prudence.)
Anyway, despite Lee has always been glorify, i would hazard his -immoderation- was the cause of disasters like Gettysburg, but like @Greywolf said, and probably was, the right man for the east.
So wariness can be a good or a bad factor, depending always on the situation and the level of discretion used by who has to lead.
In other terms, maybe funny, like if we're playing a strategy game and we're discussing the two generals accents, i would give INITIATIVE to Lee versus LOGISTIC to Johnston.

 

[Lubliner]

As far as i readed, Johnston had strong military and political support and his feeling was particullary oriented to the -resupply-. Maybe his criticized style was think out in relation of the perception acquired on the field by the commander at the start of war, the ascertained inferiority of supplies and equipments of the confederate armies. So more than be an effective field commander, i would praise his caution strategy in this sense. Maybe the worst of this sense was exposed at Vicksburg where it seems he had the numbers to 'make that job' (I use -maybe- not because i'm unsure about what i readed but because in history is always better expose own or the universal knowledge with the requisite humility and prudence.)
Anyway, despite Lee has always been glorify, i would hazard his -immoderation- was the cause of disasters like Gettysburg, but like @Greywolf said, and probably was, the right man for the east.
So wariness can be a good or a bad factor, depending always on the situation and the level of discretion used by who has to lead.
In other terms, maybe funny, like if we're playing a strategy game and we're discussing the two generals accents, i would give INITIATIVE to Lee versus LOGISTIC to Johnston.

For Johnston to have remained without injury, he would have been backed up into Richmond. Maclellan was steadily advancing, cautiously and with an all out bombardment against that city, evacuation. Then what? General Lee saved Richmond from that early destruction, and ever after drove his army hard in every campaign.
If you put two men in a boxing ring, and one of them does nothing but dance around and avoid the blows, the crowd boos. (Boo). Lee came out fighting and did a formidable job against the opponent. Johnston came out with FTD Wings, in my opinion, and yet he was liked by his troops, conservative with his men. So was Douglas MacArthur, so I guess I really no nothing.
Lubliner.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Johnston has no victories such as Second Manassas or Chancellorsville on his record.

He also has no disasters such as Pickett's Charge or Malvern Hill on his record, either.

 

[67th Tigers]

During the Seven Days, Lee was implementing Johnston's recommended strategy. For the Seven Days the question is whether he'd have co-ordinated things better than Lee. Lee was barely in control of his own army at times, and lamented "[McClellan] will get away because I cannot have my orders carried out!" This was said after Longstreet's wing ended up attacking without orders at Glendale, and the next day Magruder would attack against orders at Malvern Hill. The night after MH Lee angrily summonsed Magruder and asked "General Magruder, why did you attack?"

Arguably, Johnston might actually have done better than Lee at this time. However, I doubt he'd have resolved to strike Lee based on the uncertain intelligence Lee did. I suspect if Johnston was in command, McClellan's and Pope's armies might have been successfully united in front of Washington, and the situation would return to the status quo of March '62.

 

[rbasin]

The war lasted longer with Lee, I would imagine. Either general would have lost in the long run.

 

[Saruman]

Is is generally accepted by historians that the Confederacy was better off with Robert E. Lee taking command versus Johnston never getting wounded and stepping down? Or is there a large group out there that argues Johnson's style and strategic redeployments were better suited for the South's defensive strategy and might ultimately have been more successful?

Lee was far superior to Johnston as a military commander. Johnston completely botched the defense of Vicksburg and Atlanta. He would have lost Richmond by June/July 1862 if not for his wounding and replacement.

 

[Stone in the wall]

Lee, for one thing we know Johnson & Davis didn't get along. Seeing as Lee was put in command of an army new and unfamiliar to him, driving the Union army off from Richmond is a big accomplishment.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Johnston completely botched the defense of Vicksburg and Atlanta.

Regarding Vicksburg, what should Johnston have done when he arrived in Jackson on May 13?

 

[Saruman]

Regarding Vicksburg, what should Johnston have done when he arrived in Jackson on May 13?

Johnston botched Vicksburg's defense long before May 13. As Department Commander he stripped Mississippi of all its cavalry, making Pemberton blind to Grant's movements. Pemberton was forced to scatter his infantry to protect the State and its assets. If he had been given the necessary cavalry, Pemberton could have concentrated his infantry in response to enemy movements.

 

[Lubliner]

Without being to harshly critical, when I look at the overall event from above, I see Lee moving forward and striking and falling back to his own lines. I see Johnston, standing his ground in Georgia, never moving forward to strike, and always falling back further than his own established lines. I heard before the first battle with Johnston on the Peninsula, Lee had visited his headquarters somewhere along the Nine-Mile Road (?), and was very coolly received. I believe he left in a huff. I have never found any hard evidence other than wishful excuses, that Johnston had other plans to fight. (Lead me there if you find intimation of such). Surprisingly Johnston was an excellent fencer, I have heard.
Lubliner.

 

[Lubliner]

Johnston botched Vicksburg's defense long before May 13. As Department Commander he stripped Mississippi of all its cavalry, making Pemberton blind to Grant's movements. Pemberton was forced to scatter his infantry to protect the State and its assets. If he had been given the necessary cavalry, Pemberton could have concentrated his infantry in response to enemy movements.

As it was with Johnston concerning Vicksburg, he was supposed to provide a 'hammer/anvil' tactic by striking against Grant from the rear, and smashing him against the Vicksburg defenses. I don't have a reference for this, but as I recall he opted on using his troops to strengthen Bragg at Chattanooga instead. Can someone clear this up with a cited reference?
Much appreciated,
Lubliner.

 

[Nytram01]

Without being to harshly critical, when I look at the overall event from above, I see Lee moving forward and striking and falling back to his own lines. I see Johnston, standing his ground in Georgia, never moving forward to strike, and always falling back further than his own established lines. I heard before the first battle with Johnston on the Peninsula, Lee had visited his headquarters somewhere along the Nine-Mile Road (?), and was very coolly received. I believe he left in a huff. I have never found any hard evidence other than wishful excuses, that Johnston had other plans to fight. (Lead me there if you find intimation of such). Surprisingly Johnston was an excellent fencer, I have heard.
Lubliner.

As I recall from reading Symond's Johnston Biography, Lee came forward from Richmond during the Battle of Seven Pines. Johnston hadn't been in contact with Longstreet for most of the day and couldn't give him an update and so it was a bit an uncomfortable atmosphere. Lee's presence prompted Johnston to send staff officers out to Longstreet to find out what was happening.

I'm not sure who you were saying "left in a huff", but if you were refering to Johnston then it's worth noting that he only left his HQ to head to battle.

When word came back from Longstreet (wrongly asserting) that the enemy was hard pressed and could be driven off the field with a flank attack Johnston immediately set out with W.H.C. Whitting to see that attack done, and that was the moment Davis arrived on the field and took offense to Johnston rushing off to battle instead of stopping to welcome the President to his HQ

 

[Lubliner]

As I recall from reading Symond's Johnston Biography, Lee came forward from Richmond during the Battle of Seven Pines. Johnston hadn't been in contact with Longstreet for most of the day and couldn't give him an update and so it was a bit an uncomfortable atmosphere. Lee's presence prompted Johnston to send staff officers out to Longstreet to find out what was happening.

I'm not sure who you were saying "left in a huff", but if you were refering to Johnston then it's worth noting that he only left his HQ to head to battle.

When word came back from Longstreet (wrongly asserting) that the enemy was hard pressed and could be driven off the field with a flank attack Johnston immediately set out with W.H.C. Whitting to see that attack done, and that was the moment Davis arrived on the field and took offense to Johnston rushing off to battle instead of stopping to welcome the President to his HQ

Thank you. My memory is a bit unclear, but I think Lee was made to sit in the outer room for some time waiting on Johnston to invite him in. Somehow I seem to remember reading Lee was a bit chagrined at all the goings on, with aides coming in and going out, while he waited. It might have been from Southall Douglas I got this inference from. Thanks again.
Lubliner.
[Edit: Douglas Southall Freeman. Bloop]

 

[WJC]

Is is generally accepted by historians that the Confederacy was better off with Robert E. Lee taking command versus Johnston never getting wounded and stepping down? Or is there a large group out there that argues Johnson's style and strategic redeployments were better suited for the South's defensive strategy and might ultimately have been more successful?

That's an interesting, but probably unanswerable question. Lee has achieved such stature both during the conflict and since that it is probably futile to suggest that anyone was better suited for his role.
I myself have long been an admirer of Lee and, until very recently had little use for Johnston. Thanks to this Forum, I have become much more willing to consider Johnston's greatness.

 

[leftyhunter]

That's an interesting, but probably unanswerable question. Lee has achieved such stature both during the conflict and since that it is probably futile to suggest that anyone was better suited for his role.
I myself have long been an admirer of Lee and, until very recently had little use for Johnston. Thanks to this Forum, I have become much more willing to consider Johnston's greatness.

In eleven years on the forum I have never read a poster that argued that Johnston was possessed of greatness. That would be an interesting new thread.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lubliner]

In eleven years on the forum I have never read a poster that argued that Johnston was possessed of greatness. That would be an interesting new thread.
Leftyhunter

Good to hear from you, @leftyhunter. How so?
Shall we ignore Lee altogether?
Lubliner.

 

[Jamieva]

During the Seven Days, Lee was implementing Johnston's recommended strategy. For the Seven Days the question is whether he'd have co-ordinated things better than Lee. Lee was barely in control of his own army at times, and lamented "[McClellan] will get away because I cannot have my orders carried out!" This was said after Longstreet's wing ended up attacking without orders at Glendale, and the next day Magruder would attack against orders at Malvern Hill. The night after MH Lee angrily summonsed Magruder and asked "General Magruder, why did you attack?"

Arguably, Johnston might actually have done better than Lee at this time. However, I doubt he'd have resolved to strike Lee based on the uncertain intelligence Lee did. I suspect if Johnston was in command, McClellan's and Pope's armies might have been successfully united in front of Washington, and the situation would return to the status quo of March '62.

Really...so tell us how well Johnston coordinated the attack at Seven Pines before he was wounded.