Most Underrated General

[wilber6150]

State Militia.

Which was called up by the thousands by the Confederate Congress without a single hostile act committed by the Union...And were shortly nationalized into the Confederate army.

 

[wilber6150]

State Militia.

Yup even from states that hadn't seceeded


WAR DEPARTMENT, A. G. O.,

Montgomery, March 21, 1861.

Brigadier General G. T. BEAUREGARD,

Commanding Provisional Forces, Charleston, S. C.:

SIR: I am instructed by the Secretary of War to inform you that Captain William D. Pender, of the Corps of Artillery, has been sent to Baltimore, Md., to direct the recruiting service in that city, whose duty it will be to have every recruit examined and passed by a medical officer previously to his being accepted. Such as may pass examination are to be shipped from time to time as they accumulate, and sent to Charleston. The officer will notify you by mail or telegraph of the facts of such shipments. The recruits on arriving in Charleston are to be there enlisted into the Army of the Confederate States for the term of years provided by law.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

S. COOPER,

Adjutant-General

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Lee whipped the federals at Antietam? Oh like in the same light they won at Gettysburg and Shiloh...

Yes, because McClellan made three separate offensives and failed in both. Lee engaged and forced back in confusion the four-fifths of McClellan's army, despite having only 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery. He inflicted 14469 casualties and suffered just over 8000. Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

Yes, because McClellan made three separate offensives and failed in both. Lee engaged and forced back in confusion the four-fifths of McClellan's army, despite having only 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery. He inflicted 14469 casualties and suffered just over 8000. Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory?
Civil War Scholar.

Once again high balling the Union numbers and low balling the Confederate numbers.. Civil war trust and other sites have the figures being around 12,400 Union versus 10,300 Conf..Tatical victory for the Confederates as they managed to hold off the Union attacks due to a last minute arrival of Confederate troops, sure I can see that.. But thats not what you said was it...Lee certainly didn't whip the Union, and was tore up as much as or even worse then the Union force was. Percenatage wise for those that I know love that game, 14% vs 23%

 

[GELongstreet]

...Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory? Civil War Scholar.

Maybe because the ANV left the battlefield first and left Maryland southwards into Virginia again (which would turn the tactical draw into a tactical and strategical win for the Union)? Get your military vocabulary right.

You do know that you have this Lost-Cause smell around you, right? There is no shame in defeat if the fight is honorable , if unneccessary bloodshed can be spared and if the spirit is unconquered. Accept the history and stop hating and you´ll both have a better time and maybe can become a real scholar.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

And Lee at Sharpsburg had 35000 men and whipped 88000 Federals!
Civil War Scholar.

I wouldn't say he particularly "Whipped" them

Lee and his soldiers definitely put up a very spirited and gallant defense against overwhelming odds, Lee and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia fought very hard against McClellan's Union Army, they knew basically that if the Union Army broke through their lines at Multiple points, the Army of Northern Virginia would be destroyed.But, in the end the Maryland Campaign achieved nothing and Lee left the battlefield in Union Hands.

Lee does have his list of battles where he definitely "Whipped" or decisively defeated the Union Army at places such as Gaines Mill, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, Cold Harbor to name them.

 

[rpkennedy]

Yes, because McClellan made three separate offensives and failed in both. Lee engaged and forced back in confusion the four-fifths of McClellan's army, despite having only 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery. He inflicted 14469 casualties and suffered just over 8000. Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory?
Civil War Scholar.

Your numbers aren't at all accurate, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

R

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

And Lee at Sharpsburg had 35000 men and whipped 88000 Federals!
Civil War Scholar.

Lying about numbers again, I see... not to mention inventing reality.

A) Lee had 38,000 men, all of whom were engaged, B) the Federal army had just over 75,000 men, of whom nearly 1/3rd weren't engaged (thus making the numerical advantage only about 15,000 men rather the the 48,000 man difference you are fantasizing), and C) if Lee "whipped" those 53,000 engaged Federals, their 22,000 idle companions, and their 13,000 completely non-existent allies, why did he finish the battle retreating?

It was the provisional Government that set up what they thought they would need. Davis wasn't even president yet.

We went over this back when you first joined, but yes he was. Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the provisional government on 18 February 1861. He issued a call for troops on 6 March. Also, the troops besieging Fort Sumter were commanded by P.G.T. Beauregard, a general in the Confederate Army, not the militia.

Lee engaged and forced back in confusion the four-fifths of McClellan's army, despite having only 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery. He inflicted 14469 casualties and suffered just over 8000.

Math and facts really do create problems for you, don't they? 53,000 of 75,500 is not "four-fifths"; it's 70%. As for casualties, the Union lost 12,401 personnel (23% of those engaged and 16% of the total) and Lee lost 10,316 (27%).

Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory?

Because unlike you, we know what a tactical victory is. Hint: It isn't losing more than one-fourth of your men and retreating.

I've told you this before (albeit in more diplomatic terms, but we're done humming you), but you have come to a place where everyone's hobby is the study of the Civil War, and you are actively choosing to not learn anything about that war; do you honestly think we don't have the resources immediately available to expose you as a poor scholar and a compulsive liar?

 

[1SGDan]

Soldiers defending their country against invaders usually do fight better.

Really????? How did that work out for the Poles in 1939, and the French in 1940?

To quote Bugs Bunny "what a maroon!"

 

[wilber6150]

President Davis called troops to defend the Confederacy after Lincoln called troops to suppress it.

Summary of Confederate forces beseiging Ft. Pickens before Lincoln called up a single soldier...


Montgomery, March 25, 1862.

Brigadier General BRAXTON BRAGG,

Commanding Provisional Forces, Pensacola Harbor, Fort Barrancas:

SIR: In reply to your communication of the 21st, I am instructed by the Secretary of War to state that the Provisional Forces called into the service of the Confederate States for the defense of Pensacola Harbor are as follows: 1,000 infantry from Georgia; 1,000 from Alabama; 1,000 from Louisiana; 1,500 from Mississippi, and 500 from Florida, making in all 5,000 infantry. The organization of companies will be such as may be furnished by States, but the number of privates should not fall below fifty per company. Should the companies come singly, or organized into battalions or regiments before muster into service, they will be received with such officers as have been furnished by the State, medical officers excepted. The field officers are either elected by the companies or appointed by the respective governors. Such medical officers as may be required for the troops of your command you are authorized to employ under contract. The battalion of Louisiana Zouaves, mentioned in my communication of the 19th instant, will be mustered as they arrive, including the officers who accompany them.

I inclose a brief of the organization of a regiment of infantry and a company of artillery and cavalry of the C. S. Army, as fixed by law.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

S. COOPER,

Adjutant-General.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Lying about numbers again, I see... not to mention inventing reality.

A) Lee had 38,000 men, all of whom were engaged, B) the Federal army had just over 75,000 men, of whom nearly 1/3rd weren't engaged (thus making the numerical advantage only about 15,000 men rather the the 48,000 man difference you are fantasizing), and C) if Lee "whipped" those 53,000 engaged Federals, their 22,000 idle companions, and their 13,000 completely non-existent allies, why did he finish the battle retreating?


We went over this back when you first joined, but yes he was. Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of the provisional government on 18 February 1861. He issued a call for troops on 6 March. Also, the troops besieging Fort Sumter were commanded by P.G.T. Beauregard, a general in the Confederate Army, not the militia.


Math and facts really do create problems for you, don't they? 53,000 of 75,500 is not "four-fifths"; it's 70%. As for casualties, the Union lost 12,401 personnel (23% of those engaged and 16% of the total) and Lee lost 10,316 (27%).


Because unlike you, we know what a tactical victory is. Hint: It isn't losing more than one-fourth of your men and retreating.

I've told you this before (albeit in more diplomatic terms, but we're done humming you), but you have come to a place where everyone's hobby is the study of the Civil War, and you are actively choosing to not learn anything about that war; do you honestly think we don't have the resources immediately available to expose you as a poor scholar and a compulsive liar?

The Federals had 88000 engaged, according to Long. Foote tells us that the disparity the Confederate troops faced at Sharpsburg was three to one. Mr. Dabney Maury puts Lee's strength to 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery.
The Confederate troops besieging Forts Sumter and Pickens were army troops, because Anderson's garrison and the US detachment at Ft. Pickens were comprised of regular soldiers. President Davis called for troops to take the forts. The very presence of Federal garrisons on Confederate soil was itself an act of hostility.
As for casualties at Sharpsburg, I used Dabney Maury's masterpiece. You should avail yourself by reading it, too.
Lee retreated in the morning of September 19, not just after the battle. For one day, he stood there, eager to renew the contest with McClellan.
Finally, I know that I belong in a community where the study of the Civil War is a pastime for the members. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called civilwartalk.com.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

. President Davis called for troops to take the forts.
Civil War Scholar.

Or

President Davis called troops to defend the Confederacy after Lincoln called troops to suppress it.

So which is it, you seem to be changing your tune in the matter of a couple of pages?

 

[CSA Today]

Which was called up by the thousands by the Confederate Congress without a single hostile act committed by the Union...And were shortly nationalized into the Confederate army.

It wouldn't credible to wait for a hostile act then raise an army. Countries maintain peacetime armies for a reason and with Lincoln soon to take power the Confederates had good reason to prepare for any contingency.

 

[wilber6150]

It wouldn't credible to wait for a hostile act then raise an army. Countries maintain peacetime armies for a reason and with Lincoln soon to take power the Confederates had good reason to prepare for any contingency.

I agree, but that is an entirely different then saying the troops were raised due to Lincoln calling up troops or to defend against a Union invasion from troops that didn't even exist...The troops were raised then sent to Pickens and Sumter to be used in their capture, that is not a defensive posture...

 

[rpkennedy]

The Federals had 88000 engaged, according to Long. Foote tells us that the disparity the Confederate troops faced at Sharpsburg was three to one. Mr. Dabney Maury puts Lee's strength to 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery.
The Confederate troops besieging Forts Sumter and Pickens were army troops, because Anderson's garrison and the US detachment at Ft. Pickens were comprised of regular soldiers. President Davis called for troops to take the forts. The very presence of Federal garrisons on Confederate soil was itself an act of hostility.
As for casualties at Sharpsburg, I used Dabney Maury's masterpiece. You should avail yourself by reading it, too.
Lee retreated in the morning of September 19, not just after the battle. For one day, he stood there, eager to renew the contest with McClellan.
Finally, I know that I belong in a community where the study of the Civil War is a pastime for the members. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called civilwartalk.com.
Civil War Scholar.

Long, Foote, and Maury are wrong.

Ezra Carman, a veteran of the battle and probably its greatest historian, put Confederate numbers at 38,000 excluding several infantry brigades and much of the artillery. At least 40,000 is a reasonable number.

The total engaged number for McClellan is less than 55,000 with another 20,000 unengaged but present and another 10,000-20,000 not arriving until after the battle was over.

R

 

[Rebforever]

Round and around we go!!

 

[Elennsar]

Long, Foote, and Maury are wrong.

Ezra Carman, a veteran of the battle and probably its greatest historian, put Confederate numbers at 38,000 excluding several infantry brigades and much of the artillery. At least 40,000 is a reasonable number.

The total engaged number for McClellan is less than 55,000 with another 20,000 unengaged but present and another 10,000-20,000 not arriving until after the battle was over.

R

After looking at a half dozen returns, and comparing Livermore's and Carman's figures, I think Lee having around 45,000 is credible. But from the available information, Carman might underestimate the number available (as in, in discounting part of Anderson's division) slightly.

Livermore's figures go up to 50,000, but that involves use of - for example - early October strength for Stuart's cavalry.

McClellan might have had closer to 80,000 than 75,000, maybe closer to 85,000 - but no more than that.

But unless comparing apples to oranges (effectives to present for duty) or flat out misrepresentation of Lee's numbers (which the various post-war writings have been demonstrated to have done on other occasions), Lee having less than 40,000 present to fight has almost as much credibility as the prized holy relic of Falsity Cathedral, the skull of Saint John the Baptist, age 10.


Or in plain English: Obviously imperfect record keeping prevents anything from being stated as "unquestionably true". But from what we have to work with, "less than 40,000 present for duty" is absolutely and completely untrue.

 

[Elennsar]

Long, Foote, and Maury are wrong.

Ezra Carman, a veteran of the battle and probably its greatest historian, put Confederate numbers at 38,000 excluding several infantry brigades and much of the artillery. At least 40,000 is a reasonable number.

The total engaged number for McClellan is less than 55,000 with another 20,000 unengaged but present and another 10,000-20,000 not arriving until after the battle was over.

R

After looking at a half dozen returns, and comparing Livermore's and Carman's figures, I think Lee having around 45,000 is credible. But from the available information, Carman might underestimate the number available (as in, in discounting part of Anderson's division) slightly.

Livermore's figures go up to 50,000, but that involves use of - for example - early October strength for Stuart's cavalry.

McClellan might have had closer to 80,000 than 75,000, maybe closer to 85,000 - but no more than that.

But unless comparing apples to oranges (effectives to present for duty) or flat out misrepresentation of Lee's numbers (which the various post-war writings have been demonstrated to have done on other occasions), Lee having less than 40,000 present to fight has almost as much credibility as the prized holy relic of Falsity Cathedral, the skull of Saint John the Baptist, age 10.


Or in plain English: Obviously imperfect record keeping prevents anything from being stated as "unquestionably true". But from what we have to work with, "less than 40,000 present for duty" is absolutely and completely untrue.

 

[Elennsar]

Round and around we go!!

This calls for a Dahl quote, but I can't think of anything sufficiently biting (while not being entirely irrelevant) to be apropos.

 

[CSA Today]

Yes, because McClellan made three separate offensives and failed in both. Lee engaged and forced back in confusion the four-fifths of McClellan's army, despite having only 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery. He inflicted 14469 casualties and suffered just over 8000. Why do you have trouble calling it at least a tactical victory?
Civil War Scholar.

Better examples would be:

2nd Manassas

Union Forces Engaged: 75,696
Confederate Forces Engaged: 48,527
Casualties: 25,251 (16,054 Union and 9,197 Confederate)
http://www.oocities.org/timessquare/battlefield/8948/bullrun.html

Chancellorsville
Engaged
Roughly 130,000 (Union) to 60,000 (Confederate)
Casualties Union about 18,000 casualties, Confederate about 13,000
Chancellorsville casualties The campaign had cost him about 18,000 casualties, and his enemy about 13,000
engaged Not only did the Federal force greatly outnumber the Confederates – roughly 130,000 to 60,000 –
The campaign had cost him [Hooker] about 18,000 casualties, and his enemy about 13,000
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/chancellorsville.html?tab=facts