Most Underrated General

[rbasin]

Yeah. And while I'm not sure Lee personally minded that - as in, Lee's relationship to Hill man to man - it was not something the ANV needed. It ran as smoothly as it did precisely because Lee didn't tolerate quarrels.

He kept AP Hill around after ticking off both Corps commanders, Hood was under arrest, so to say Lee didn't tolerate quarrels is a bit off.

Personally, I think I'd have picked A.P. Hill over D.H. Hill, and I'm no fan of A.P. He was leading a huge division, led it very well, most of the time, so how much different could it be to lead a Corps. Hill and Ewell got thrown into Lee's Gettysburg campaign, not the ideal campaign to get your feet wet.

 

[Elennsar]

He kept AP Hill around after ticking off both Corps commanders, Hood was under arrest, so to say Lee didn't tolerate quarrels is a bit off.

Personally, I think I'd have picked A.P. Hill over D.H. Hill, and I'm no fan of A.P. He was leading a huge division, led it very well, most of the time, so how much different could it be to lead a Corps. Hill and Ewell got thrown into Lee's Gettysburg campaign, not the ideal campaign to get your feet wet.

Lee stepped into try to deal with those quarrels.

Leading a division of 11,500 men (its strength at Fredericksburg, in lieu of a timely report for Chancellorsville) is quite a bit easier than leading a corps of 22,000 men (about the size of 3rd Corps at Gettysburg), even ignoring the additional responsibility of being responsible for the bigger picture more as a corps commander than a division commander.

And it might be noted that Harvey's division was also a larger-than-average division (5 brigades, 8,900 men at Fredericksburg), so I'm not sure in that regard there's much difference. Interestingly enough both are the largest divisions in the army - Anderson and Pickett, also five brigades each, are only about 7,500.

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=December 10;rgn=full text;idno=waro0031;didno=waro0031;view=image;seq=1073

As for being thrown in Lee's Gettysburg campaign: But we don't see him (Hill) improve as time goes on, either. He's not "oh god this is the worst commander ever", but he's not rising to the occasion either (whether that's health or ability or both I don't know).

 

[rbasin]

Lee stepped into try to deal with those quarrels.

Leading a division of 11,500 men (its strength at Fredericksburg, in lieu of a timely report for Chancellorsville) is quite a bit easier than leading a corps of 22,000 men (about the size of 3rd Corps at Gettysburg), even ignoring the additional responsibility of being responsible for the bigger picture more as a corps commander than a division commander.

And it might be noted that Harvey's division was also a larger-than-average division (5 brigades, 8,900 men at Fredericksburg), so I'm not sure in that regard there's much difference. Interestingly enough both are the larger divisions in the army - Anderson and Pickett, also five brigades each, are only about 7,500.

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=December 10;rgn=full text;idno=waro0031;didno=waro0031;view=image;seq=1073

As for being thrown in Lee's Gettysburg campaign: But we don't see him (Hill) improve as time goes on, either. He's not "oh god this is the worst commander ever", but he's not rising to the occasion either (whether that's health or ability or both I don't know).

You're probably right. Maybe A.P. Hills skill levels were suited for division command. The CSA produce very few competent Corps commanders (Jackson, Longstreet, Maybe Hardee, mmm... I hear birds singing)

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Rbasin,
You forgot Early, who was a very capable Corps commander and took command of the Third Corps for a while in the Overland Campaign and of the Second Corps after Ewell was transferred in command of the reservists protecting Richmond. Early is surely underrated.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

You're probably right. Maybe A.P. Hills skill levels were suited for division command. The CSA produce very few competent Corps commanders (Jackson, Longstreet, Maybe Hardee, mmm... I hear birds singing)

Yeah. I'm not sure either side had very many men suited to that level, honestly. Its a tough job.

Rbasin,
You forgot Early, who was a very capable Corps commander and took command of the Third Corps for a while in the Overland Campaign and of the Second Corps after Ewell was transferred in command of the reservists protecting Richmond. Early is surely underrated.
Civil War Scholar.

How is Early underrated?

 

[rbasin]

Rbasin,
You forgot Early, who was a very capable Corps commander and took command of the Third Corps for a while in the Overland Campaign and of the Second Corps after Ewell was transferred in command of the reservists protecting Richmond. Early is surely underrated.
Civil War Scholar.

I forgot Early. I always think of Early at the tail end of his Valley campaign, with Sheridan. I forget about how he showed up Grant during his, what I'll call Early's trip to the nation's capital. Never liked the term "raid" for it.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Elennsar,
At Spotsylvania, Early was the one giving handsome repulses to many Union attacks, such as Burnside's on May 9 and Hancock's on May 10. Lee mentioned Early many times in his dispatches. Early made the excursion against Washington, winning the Battle of Monocacy and almost occupying the Federal capital. Early's great march, alongside Lee's heroic defense at Petersburg made many foreign, mostly British and French, observers to say that "The Confederacy is more formidable than ever".
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar,
At Spotsylvania, Early was the one giving handsome repulses to many Union attacks, such as Burnside's on May 9 and Hancock's on May 10. Lee mentioned Early many times in his dispatches. Early made the excursion against Washington, winning the Battle of Monocacy and almost occupying the Federal capital. Early's great march, alongside Lee's heroic defense at Petersburg made many foreign, mostly British and French, observers to say that "The Confederacy is more formidable than ever".
Civil War Scholar.

And you think people ignore that based on?

Also, of course: What observers? "Many observers" is alarmingly vague.

 

[rbasin]

I think the Union had more- Hancock, Thomas, Reynolds, Sherman, Meade, Wright, Gillmore, Burnside, Sumner. Not great, but good.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Elennsar,
The observer who made the specific announcement was Captain Fremantle of the Coldstream Guards. An article, containing a similar phrase, appeared in the "London Times" and in many other newspapers in Britain and France. It was a general sentiment that the Union would not succeed in subjugating the Confederacy.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

I am not sure how seriously to take the assessment of "many other newspapers" in Britain and France given the uncertainty of the information they had to work with and the fact 19th century newspapers were not interested in objectively reporting events.

 

[Elennsar]

I think the Union had more- Hancock, Thomas, Reynolds, Sherman, Meade, Wright, Gillmore, Burnside, Sumner. Not great, but good.

Sumner?

I agree with the first three and Meade, but I'm not sure on the rest - especially Sumner.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I think the Union had more- Hancock, Thomas, Reynolds, Sherman, Meade, Wright, Gillmore, Burnside, Sumner. Not great, but good.

Rbasin,
Hancock, Thomas, Reynolds and Sherman were indeed good.
Meade never commanded a Corps, except at Chancellorsville, where he played a minor role and therefore I don't judge him as a corps commander.
Wright was the successor of Sedgwick, but another Sedgwick he couldn't be. He mismanaged his Corps at Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg. Gillmore was engaged in a fruitless siege at Charleston and managed to lose the Battle of Olustee.
As for Burnside, he was one of the worst generals of the Civil War. Burnside was of no success at First Manassas, the winner of a token victory near Roanoke, a general who made many mistakes at Sharpsburg, the commander in the Battle of Fredericksburg, one who gained notoriety for the arrest of Vallandigham, whose success at Knoxville was the result of Longstreet's blunders and Parke's steadiness, an incompetent commander in the Overland Campaign and the one who was relieved for the Union failure at the Crater.
Finally, Sumner began as a good commander, but started declining after Seven Pines. Especially at Sharpsburg, his inadequate reconnaissance resulted in Sedgwick's division losing just under half of its strength.
The Union had some good corps commanders, but also some flat failures, like Burnside.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Gilmore was not even present at Olustee. I don't think we can blame him for what happened there.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

OK, Elennsar. Charleston speaks for itself.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Nytram01]

Benjamin Grierson doesn't really get the credit he deserves. He was a musician and teacher who had no prior military training before the outbreak of the war - as far as I know - and he became one of the Federals most successful Cavalry commanders. If he had been a Confederate he would be held in the regards that people hold John H. Morgan if not Nathan Bedford Forrest, but because he was a Federal he doesn't really get much attention.

 

[Rebel from Finland]

McClellan IMO. Too cautious yes, but to put the blame only on him at the Peninsula Campaign failure isn´t just right. North´s own Marble Man, Lincoln, was so fixated about Washington´s safety and all sorts of micromanaging (he really thought he could trap Jackson in the Valley ) and thus weakened McClellan..

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Nytram, Grierson's only success was his first raid. At Brice's Crossroads, he was surprised and forced to flee by Forrest. He had a moment of success, but overall he was not a very good commander.
Rebel from Finland, I tend to agree with you. McClellan was a very good organizer and had popular appeal. Although he was not comparable with Lee, his numerical superiority may had given him the victory in the Peninsula, having Lincoln not fretted because of Stonewall's boldness.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

OK, Elennsar. Charleston speaks for itself.
Civil War Scholar.

I'm not going to say he was great at Charleston, but I don't get the sense you're even trying to give a fair rating here.

McClellan IMO. Too cautious yes, but to put the blame only on him at the Peninsula Campaign failure isn´t just right. North´s own Marble Man, Lincoln, was so fixated about Washington´s safety and all sorts of micromanaging (he really thought he could trap Jackson in the Valley ) and thus weakened McClellan..

McClellan was not weakened by any appreciable degree by Lincoln's concern for the defense of Washington. Most of the troops under his control before the campaign (not counting those responsible for the Valley) were within him in the Seven Days or the Peninsula - I'm not sure another division or two at most would have changed his approach significantly.

 

[rbasin]

I have been thinking that those early Corps commanders of the Army of the Potomac are an interesting bunch, and Sumner seems to stand out. Porter too. I have been browsing through the official records lately and, taking McClellan out of the equation, some of those guys could have been decent. Also, John Pope is interesting.