Most Underrated General

[rbasin]

Dearest diane,
First of all, where did you spot the hyperbole in my text? Tell me, so that I can look at it and amend the text, if practicable.
At second, Early initiated the Lost Cause viewpoint, alongside Fitz Lee. But, the Lost Cause is not a lie. It has elements and seeds of truth, which are many times overlooked by researchers and scholars. For instance, it is true than Northern numerical superiority was a deciding factor in the outcome (see Third Petersburg, where the Army of Northern Virginia lost its earthworks to a sea of Federals. Fort Gregg was defended by 200 soldiers and they held for half an hour, before surrendering to a force more than 20 times larger).
I didn't exactly understand your parallel, but I say that Early and the original Lost Causers didn't wear blinders or expressed an unsourced and unjustified position. The SCV are just trying to present "The Other Side of the Coin". Let's hear what they have to say and then decide if we agree or disagree.
Very friendly,
Civil War Scholar.

So outnumbering your opponent is a bad thing?

And, for the record, I have read up on the lost cause, and I still don't care.

 

[1SGDan]

That's what I thought. Then, really, the prospect of Pemberton escaping was small to nil?

As far as Joe Johnston goes, he gets attacked a lot for his actions against Sherman, but wasn't Davis' original plan to wait and delay the Union until either the North tired of war, or foreign intervention? If that's the case, then Joe did exactly what was asked of him.

Just a thought.

Davis wanted Vicksburg defended. Johnston thought that the best way to do that was to use a combined force of his troops and Pemberton to draw the Union forces away from the city through mobile operations. Davis wanted Pemberton to stay put. Pemberton was caught in the clash between the two.

 

[rbasin]

Davis wanted Vicksburg defended. Johnston thought that the best way to do that was to use a combined force of his troops and Pemberton to draw the Union forces away from the city through mobile operations. Davis wanted Pemberton to stay put. Pemberton was caught in the clash between the two.

No. I get that. But was this another example of Davis's high opinion of his military knowledge, or what? Why put Johnston in command in the west, then counteract his decisions? Who was he, Lincoln?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

So outnumbering your opponent is a bad thing?

And, for the record, I have read up on the lost cause, and I still don't care.

Rbasin,
I didn't say that "outnumbering your opponent is a bad thing". I said that many Union victories were achieved because of that.
Regards,
Civil War Scholar.

 

[1SGDan]

No. I get that. But was this another example of Davis's high opinion of his military knowledge, or what? Why put Johnston in command in the west, then counteract his decisions? Who was he, Lincoln?

Davis certainly thought highly of his own military opinion but trying to manage affairs that you were so remote from might be stretching the issue. Also remember that Davis home was in this area. Davis was heavy handed with several of his commanders. It did not necessarily serve the military situation well. When it comes to interference in field operations Davis makes Lincoln look like an amateur.

 

[rbasin]

Davis certainly thought highly of his own military opinion but trying to manage affairs that you were so remote from might be stretching the issue. Also remember that Davis home was in this area. Davis was heavy handed with several of his commanders. It did not necessarily serve the military situation well. When it comes to interference in field operations Davis makes Lincoln look like an amateur.

Lincoln interfered from day 1 right to the end.

 

[diane]

Dearest diane,
First of all, where did you spot the hyperbole in my text? Tell me, so that I can look at it and amend the text, if practicable.
At second, Early initiated the Lost Cause viewpoint, alongside Fitz Lee. But, the Lost Cause is not a lie. It has elements and seeds of truth, which are many times overlooked by researchers and scholars. For instance, it is true than Northern numerical superiority was a deciding factor in the outcome (see Third Petersburg, where the Army of Northern Virginia lost its earthworks to a sea of Federals. Fort Gregg was defended by 200 soldiers and they held for half an hour, before surrendering to a force more than 20 times larger).
I didn't exactly understand your parallel, but I say that Early and the original Lost Causers didn't wear blinders or expressed an unsourced and unjustified position. The SCV are just trying to present "The Other Side of the Coin". Let's hear what they have to say and then decide if we agree or disagree.
Very friendly,
Civil War Scholar.

To eliminate the hyberbole you'd have to totally rewrite the text! But it's ok. Jubal Early doesn't get much love these days and he deserves at least a little. Who said anything about the SCV, anyway? Meh.

I can see why people like Early and others wanted to defend their Cause, and it really did balloon up to something past what they intended. But not much! These men really believed in what they were fighting for and all that, no one can doubt their courage. It's only natural they would be defensive when much of the media was being adverse to them and they were being - in their view - stomped on too much. What's amazing is that they were allowed to do it at all. Almost every other government in the world would outlaw such talk and start hanging people for opening their mouths.

 

[NedBaldwin]

That's what I thought. Then, really, the prospect of Pemberton escaping was small to nil?

Yes, weighted toward nil.

Once Pemberton chose to retreat to Vicksburg after Champion Hill, he was done. But given the arrangments he had made prior to Champion Hill, retreating to Vicksburg after loosing that battle was his best option.

So in my view, to achieve a different outcome would have required planning for a different course of action earlier but that would require contingency planning that just wasnt happening.

 

[BillO]

To eliminate the hyperbole you'd have to totally rewrite the text! But it's OK. Jubal Early doesn't get much love these days and he deserves at least a little. Who said anything about the SCV, anyway? Meh.

I can see why people like Early and others wanted to defend their Cause, and it really did balloon up to something past what they intended. But not much! These men really believed in what they were fighting for and all that, no one can doubt their courage. It's only natural they would be defensive when much of the media was being adverse to them and they were being - in their view - stomped on too much. What's amazing is that they were allowed to do it at all. Almost every other government in the world would outlaw such talk and start hanging people for opening their mouths.

Honestly don't know alot about the whole "Lost Cause" thing. I do know that Early surely didn't like Longstreet and the fact that Longstreet started talking about stuff after Lee was gone and couldn't refute. I don't think, as Hillery would call it, that there was a vast lost cause conspiracy to change history. Early was a staunch unionist before the fighting started but once he did flip he went all the way and was unreconstructed until his death. My question is did Early start the whole lost cause thing or did Longstreet actually start it by speaking out of turn?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

To eliminate the hyberbole you'd have to totally rewrite the text! But it's ok. Jubal Early doesn't get much love these days and he deserves at least a little. Who said anything about the SCV, anyway? Meh.

I can see why people like Early and others wanted to defend their Cause, and it really did balloon up to something past what they intended. But not much! These men really believed in what they were fighting for and all that, no one can doubt their courage. It's only natural they would be defensive when much of the media was being adverse to them and they were being - in their view - stomped on too much. What's amazing is that they were allowed to do it at all. Almost every other government in the world would outlaw such talk and start hanging people for opening their mouths.

Dearest diane,
The Lost Cause claims have credence and are one of the most important viewpoints, but constantly under assault from the mass media. I agree with you when you say "Almost every other government in the world would outlaw such talk and start hanging people for opening their mouths". While I can praise the United States government for allowing their enemies to tell their own beliefs and thoughts, I don't like what today media are doing in order to suppress and eliminate the Confederate monuments, flag and heritage. Perhaps, today's media moguls should look what people from both sides wrote about the war and understand that Confederate history is a part of American history.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[diane]

Honestly don't know alot about the whole "Lost Cause" thing. I do know that Early surely didn't like Longstreet and the fact that Longstreet started talking about stuff after Lee was gone and couldn't refute. I don't think, as Hillery would call it, that there was a vast lost cause conspiracy to change history. Early was a staunch unionist before the fighting started but once he did flip he went all the way and was unreconstructed until his death. My question is did Early start the whole lost cause thing or did Longstreet actually start it by speaking out of turn?

I honestly don't think anybody set out to revise history at that time. It was that so many in the press were portraying the former Confederate leaders as everything from outlaws to madmen, and it was primarily to diminish their standing in the eyes of the Southern people. For example, Kilpatrick so heartily disparaged Forrest that Forrest finally called him out but Kilpatrick declined on the grounds Forrest was not a gentleman. (And the fact that he didn't want to wind up like Beetle Bailey after Sarge gets through with him.) Honor was extremely important, and this was also a factor in defensive positions. Early is often pointed to as the 'father' of modern Lost Cause ideology - which is different than the original - but I don't think he saw himself as that. And, I think his attacks on Longstreet upon his return from Canada were edged with a bit of a guilty conscience. Maybe he felt a little bit responsible for the loss, too, since he didn't check out shooting and thereby found Stuart in time.

 

[diane]

Dearest diane,
The Lost Cause claims have credence and are one of the most important viewpoints, but constantly under assault from the mass media. I agree with you when you say "Almost every other government in the world would outlaw such talk and start hanging people for opening their mouths". While I can praise the United States government for allowing their enemies to tell their own beliefs and thoughts, I don't like what today media are doing in order to suppress and eliminate the Confederate monuments, flag and heritage. Perhaps, today's media moguls should look what people from both sides wrote about the war and understand that Confederate history is a part of American history.
Civil War Scholar.

Well, we're supposed to avoid any today politics so I won't respond to any of the current Lost Cause items. I'll just stick to Jubal Early!

 

[1SGDan]

Lincoln interfered from day 1 right to the end.

I disagree that Lincoln interfered in daily field operations to the extent that Davis did but it is off topic.

 

[CSA Today]

Rbasin,
I didn't say that "outnumbering your opponent is a bad thing". I said that many Union victories were achieved because of that.
Regards,
Civil War Scholar.

You would have been safe in saying most were.

 

[diane]

You would have been safe in saying most were.

Sometimes numerical superiority didn't matter. Take Brice's Crossroads.

 

[Rebforever]

Gosh, CWS, that's quite a paean to Ol' Jube! I'm not sure he deserves all of the hyperbole, but he is actually one of Lee's underrated generals. He didn't surrender - didn't have a command to surrender! But what Jubal Early is not underrated for are his efforts at historical preservation. We have to be careful, though, as Early's memory was mighty keen on some things and mighty shifty on others! And, we are forever indebted to him for kick-starting the phenomenon known as The Lost Cause. Early's post-war activities and speeches very much overshadowed everything he did during the war as a general - and not a bad one, either. But he conducted an insurgency in his own way, just as sure as others elsewhere who put their bed sheets over their heads. It very much, right or wrong, overshadows his military accomplishments.

Just a little correction. Early was assigned to Southwest Virginia for a time but stirred up
a stink of some sort and was fired by Robert E. Lee. The letter didn't appear to be written
by Lee so I put this question to my good friend Scott Mingis, hope that is spelled right, who
is an expert on Governor W.H."Extra billy" Smith. Smith had no use for Early what so ever
and Smith's son was on the staff of Lee. So it would seem there may be a little backdoor
stuff going on here.

 

[Elennsar]

Gosh, CWS, that's quite a paean to Ol' Jube! I'm not sure he deserves all of the hyperbole, but he is actually one of Lee's underrated generals.

The only way one could say Early was underrated would be to say that every Confederate general not compared favorably to Hannibal, Napoleon, Alexander, and Caesar is underrated.

If CWS wants to use that standard, then he's abandoned even the pretense towards being concerned with actual history.

 

[diane]

The only way one could say Early was underrated would be to say that every Confederate general not compared favorably to Hannibal, Napoleon, Alexander, and Caesar is underrated.

If CWS wants to use that standard, then he's abandoned even the pretense towards being concerned with actual history.

Early was no Hannibal, et al but he did well. I guess 'under-rated' might be too subjective, too loose a term. He did well enough that Lee valued him but not so well as to be retained as the army shrank. I do think Early's reputation is based more on what was said and done after the war rather than during it. However, I think he is overlooked a little too much - and probably because of post-war issues.

 

[Rebforever]

I disagree that Lincoln interfered in daily field operations to the extent that Davis did but it is off topic.

Don't forget Lincoln had a bed in the telegraph room.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

You would have been safe in saying most were.

You are right, my friend.
Civil War Scholar.