Most Underrated General

[cash]

I can only repeat your first sentence in regards to Wikipedia - it may not be perfect but its own historians and experts and their quality control are not to be dismissed easily with a "can be edited by anyone based on anything".

Wikipedia is crowdsourced. It doesn't have a staff of historians.

 

[cash]

Gosh, CWS, that's quite a paean to Ol' Jube! I'm not sure he deserves all of the hyperbole,

And there was a LOT of hyperbole in that post.

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.

I'd have to disagree about him being underrated. I think he's rated correctly. He did a wonderful job in the Valley until Sheridan took command. Early's underestimating Sheridan and his misuse of his cavalry and poor dispositions against Sheridan were his undoing. He quarreled with his subordinates, Gordon especially, and Lee finally had to relieve him of command after he was defeated at Cedar Creek, placing Gordon in command of the II Corps when it returned to the Petersburg area.

 

[cash]

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

It would be a good thread, because Lincoln interfered a whole lot.

 

[cash]

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.

That was done a long time ago.

 

[cash]

There was no order to attack at dawn. This originates with Early's attack in 1872 and was reinforced by Pendleton in 1873. Exactly how could Longstreet attack at dawn when Hood and McLaws didn't arrive on the field until after 4 am? Not to mention that Longstreet asked for and received permission in mid-morning to wait until Law's Brigade came up before making his move.

Indeed. Lee's staff officers confirmed there was no order for a dawn attack.

 

[Elennsar]

That was done a long time ago.

And it's unfortunately becoming more and more absurd.

 

[cash]

Dear Elennsar,
to quote George Gordon Meade, the very Meade of Gettysburg: "At Gettysburg I never said I won, but Lee was unsuccessful in his attempts to destroy my army". Meade himself confessed that he didn't gain a clear-cut victory at Gettysburg.
Moreover, judging from his performance in other engagements, Meade was not a match for Lee. For instance, at the aftermath of Gettysburg, Meade was in his territory and enjoyed numerical superiority. Lee had to cope with these facts and the fact that his engineers had to build pontoon bridges. Yet, Meade didn't assault and Lee's army entered Virginia, battered, but undefeated.
Civil War Scholar.

I doubt Meade said that. Source, please.

 

[cash]

Perhaps, Meade's tardiness can be explained because, tactically, he never achieved a victory at Gettysburg? Meade suffered 23155 casualties at the great battle and Lee suffered just over 20000, as E.B. Long's almanac tells us.
Civil War Scholar.

Not quite. "The casualty figures for the three-day battle are staggering. For the Federals, out of a total engaged of over 85,000 men, 3155 died, 14,529 were wounded, and 5365 missing for a total of 23,049. For the Confederates, whose strength was near 65,000, official losses were 2592 killed, 12,709 wounded, and 5150 missing for 20,451." [p. 378]

Lee lost the battle, Meade won the battle. Lee was forced to retreat.

 

[cash]

Well done, Civil War Scholar.

If one thinks posing is well done.

 

[cash]

The battles of the Overland Campaign were largely draws, with no conclusive winner on either side. The best results would be Grant couldn't defeat Lee and Lee couldn't defeat Grant. Mine Run was also inconclusive - Lee could not regain lost ground but only finish his retreat. The river and bad weather mostly accomplished that. During that campaign all Lee wanted was to get his army out of Pennsylvania and into Virginia where they could lick their wounds.

Absolutely right. Cold Harbor was a clear confederate win, but the others were tactical draws.

 

[cash]

Thanks, you're right! Getting that second cup of coffee... Anyway, I don't think there was a clear Confederate victory all the way to Appomattox. (Cold Harbor excepted. Can't say the Federals didn't get beat there!) Myself, and I happen to like Jeff Davis in many ways, I think he should have dropped the reins and let Lee have his head. I don't agree that Confederate defeat was sealed after Gettysburg, as some do.

But Lee did go behind his entrenchments for Mine Run, which made it inconclusive.

 

[cash]

Elennsar,
Meade was no match for Lee. He was almost defeated at the formidable heights of Gettysburg, pushed back in the Bristoe Campaign, stalled in the Mine Run and didn't behave well as Grant's subordinate in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns.
Civil War Scholar.

Formidable heights of Gettysburg? Stop making things up.

However, I will shock you and agree that Lee almost won at Gettysburg. He still lost, though. And Meade didn't perform up to Grant's expectations in the Overland Campaign. He made several mistakes. That being said, he was still a good general.

 

[cash]

Diane,
If Johnston had joined forces with Pemberton, we wouldn't read about the surrender of Vicksburg.
As for Petersburg and Appomattox, General Lee gave the best explanation in his farewell address and when he said to Grant: "Grant, you didn't whip me, you just overpowered me, I surrender this day 28,000 men; I do not surrender them to you, I surrender on conditions; it shall not go down in history I surrendered the Northern Confederate Army of Virginia to you. It shall go down in history I surrendered on conditions; you have ten men to my one; my men, too, are barefooted and hungry."
Civil War Scholar.

Lee never said that. Now you're using the ridiculously unreliable William Mack Lee, who concocted more fairy tales then a certain poster here concocts.

 

[cash]

Formidable heights of Gettysburg = Cemetery Ridge.

Hardly a formidable height, as anyone who's every been there can tell you.

Meade was almost defeated because, on the first two days, Lee's army drove Meade's back and behaved better in the battlefield. Meade won a strategic victory mainly because of Longstreet's deliberateness.
Civil War Scholar.

Not the first day. The ANV did all that it could on the first day. The second day they almost won. The third day, Lee said it was all his fault. Why do you think Lee would lie to his soldiers?

 

[cash]

Sorry. Wanted to type "Cemetery Hill". Include the Round Tops for good measure, though.

Union troops were not on Big Round Top during the fight on July 2. Cemetery Hill by itself wasn't all that formidable. It did dominate the battlefield, but what made it tough was the artillery and infantry positions on it, plus the town itself as an obstacle. It was a small part of the Union line. Little Round Top was steep and rocky on the western face, not quite as steep on the southern end, and less so on its eastern side. What saved LRT was Warren and Vincent getting troops onto it, and O'Rorke saving the day just as the Michigan boys broke.

 

[cash]

Having not read Long, I can only comment that claims on causality figures there seem questionable.

Especially when the claim for what is in Long doesn't match what is actually in Long.

 

[cash]

That and he was never quite the same general when he returned.

R

His wound never really healed during the war, and to be fair to him by the time he was in the trenches at Petersburg the II Corps was a mere shadow of what it had been.

 

[diane]

Regarding the Meade quote by CWS, I believe Meade wrote to his wife that Lee had sent him a few lines sometime after Gettysburg and Meade remarked that Gettysburg had not been kind to Lee. Lee remarked, in this note, that both he and Meade had lacked intelligence - Meade with Sickles and Lee with Stuart. Kind of an interesting exchange. But I can't find where Meade didn't think he'd won Gettysburg!

 

[cash]

President Davis called troops to defend the Confederacy after Lincoln called troops to suppress it. As for Fort Sumter, Anderson had no reason to keep his command there. It was on South Carolina soil and the United States troops had invaded seceded and independent territory.

How? With 93% of white Southerners never owning slaves? The Union as created by the founders was destroyed when Lincoln sought to preserve it with violence. The Union the founders had established was voluntary, not perpetual.
Civil War Scholar.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

Davis called for a hundred thousand troops BEFORE Fort Sumter. If your screen name was anything but a fabrication you would know that.

South Carolina remained a part of the United States, and Anderson's garrison had every right to be there, especially since Fort Sumter and the island on which it was built were both owned by the United States, South Carolina having given up all rights to them years before. It's an incontrovertible fact the confederacy existed in order to protect slavery.

 

[cash]

I found a source that puts the numbers around 8 percent for the whole country.

You're talking about slave owners. If I'm the head of house hold and I own 20 slaves, I'm the slave owner. But I might have a wife and 8 kids. That's 10 people, 100% of the household who have a vested interest in keeping slavery, but by your method only 10% of the house owns slaves.