Most Underrated General

[cash]

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

Because he's knowledgeable. Lee's invasion was stopped and he was forced to retreat. He failed to achieve his objectives.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Why would the average Billy Yank take up arms and invade the Southern states? Either in unison or separation, he was not hostile to Southerners. Generally, the average person, Billy Yank or Johnny Reb, didn't hate somebody. The Billy Yanks were brainwashed that the South was populated by evil slaveholders. They were COERCED to hate their late countrymen. By telling them that the South was synonymous with slavery and was responsible for breaking the Union, they had controlled his mind and filled his heart with hatred and anger.
On the opposite end, the Johnny Reb rushed to defend his own country, his very state and home from an invader, a disturber of their peace and welfare. This gave them motivation enough to be a whip ready to punish the bull.
Civil War Scholar.

The Johnny Reb was brainwashed to hate their country and to coerced to fight against it in order to further the agenda of the elites. (Simply applying your form of analysis evenly.)

 

[cash]

The Federals had 88000 engaged, according to Long.

You're lying again. Long says, "Federal casualties were put at 2010 killed, 9416 wounded, and 1043 missing for a total of 12,469 out of over 75,000 estimated effectives. Confederate casualties were estimated at 2700 killed, 9024 wounded, and about 2000 missing for a total of 13,724 out of around 40,000 engaged, although the exact figures are uncertain." [pp. 267-268] Nothing in there about 88,000 at all.

 

[cash]

Long, Foote, and Maury are wrong.

Actually, our Civil War Dilettante is lying about what's in Long.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Not saying your wrong, but can I see the source that gives the number at 30 percent?

Its the ratio between slaveowners and households given by the 1860 census.

 

[Elennsar]

Its the ratio between slaveowners and households given by the 1860 census.

Do you have a URL or something to show that? I'm not arguing, I just think we need to have it as clear and obvious as possible.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Do you have a URL or something to show that? I'm not arguing, I just think we need to have it as clear and obvious as possible.

Using this:
http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860
select 'Families' and 'Total Slaveholders' then submit query and you get the numbers.
From there you can create proportions, look at county data, map data, etc.
It takes math and effort to figure the average % across the south.

 

[Sid J.]

Using this:
http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860
select 'Families' and 'Total Slaveholders' then submit query and you get the numbers.
From there you can create proportions, look at county data, map data, etc.
It takes math and effort to figure the average % across the south.

I think this table provides the data state by state. The 8% figure referenced earlier seems to be the total for the United States as a whole, for just the slave states it would be about 25%, for MS and SC it approached 50%.

 

[Elennsar]

Ned, Eric: Thank you both.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I'm holding that book in my hand right now.

Monocacy: Confederate "around 700 casualties" Union "nearly 2000, over 1200 of whom were missing." [p. 536]
Fort Stevens: No casualty figures given [pp. 537-538]
Cool Spring: Not covered [pp. 541-542 -- July 18, 1864]
Rutherford's Farm: The only casualties mentioned are "over 250 Confederates were captured." [p. 543]
2nd Kernstown: "The total Federal loss numbered about twelve hundred and the Confederate casualties were light." [p. 545]
McCausland's Raid: No casualty figures given [pp. 548-549]
And of course you leave out the Battle of Moorefield where Averell captured over 400 confederates
http://shenandoah1864.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-battle-of-moorefield/
Skirmishes during August and start of September: No casualty figures given [pp. 549-570]
3rd Winchester: "Federal, 697 killed, 2983 wounded, and 338 missing for 4018; Confederate estimated at 276 killed, 1827 wounded, and 1818 missing or captured for 3921." [p. 571] Note the vast difference between what is actually in the book and what you claimed was in the book.
Fisher's Hill: Union 528. "Early put his losses at 1235, including almost 1000 men missing." [p. 573] Notice again the difference between what you claimed was in the book and what was actually in the book.
Tom's Brook: "Federals captured over 300 prisoners and lost 9 killed and 48 wounded." [p. 581]
Cedar Creek: "Out of more than 30,000 engaged, the North lost 644 killed, 3430 wounded, and 1591 missing for 5665 casualties. Confederate figures are disputed, with estimates of numbers engaged ranging from 8800 infantry to 18,000. Losses were possibly 320 killed, 1540 wounded, and 1050 missing for 2910." [p. 585] Once again, what you claimed is in the book is not what was in the book.

Care to make up another source for your numbers?

Cash,
I said the book was used as a source. Not an exclusive source. You give an excerpt, but this is not related to what I posted.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The National Park Service has some of the most respected historians around. Ed Bearss is Chief Historian Emeritus of the NPS. Anyone who claims the NPS has no experts or historians is a liar.

Yes, but in many cases, doesn't distinguish Confederate and Union casualties. The historians could give an estimate.

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

Yes, but, when somebody else quotes it, it is right, because it has references to other works. Use the same standards for everyone.

And there was a LOT of hyperbole in that post.



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.

Early in the Valley was a tub to an all-devouring whale. He could do little, apart from delaying and harassing Sheridan, which he did until Waynesboro, in early 1865.

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

But when Lee ordered Longstreet to attack, he delayed, losing any opportunity to break the Union lines.

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.

What you did was to repeat my statement. I said that Meade's casualties were just over 23000, which is recorded and Lee's just over 20000, which is recorded. Don't forget that Lee retreated one day after the battle was over. For one whole day, he remained in the battlefield.

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

You seem to forget that Lee divined every move of Grant's and stopped him before achieving his aim. Lee always inflicted horrendous losses to his adversary and suffering almost half. Foote, Vol.3, o. 188, makes a parallel between the Wilderness and Chancellorsville, which I encourage you to read. How can I call Spotsylvania a draw when all of Grant's attacks were repulsed? How can I say North Anna was a draw, since Grant's army again suffered casualties and only Lee's illness saved it from destruction?

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

At least, Lee was clever enough to entrench. Meade tried to attack and failed, being forced to withdraw. Why is it inconclusive? You can also call Fredericksburg inconclusive, because Lee went behind entrenchments, but you will be simply erroneous.

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.

Nice that we agree somewhere. Yet, Meade didn't perform well even at Gettysburg. He sent men there, but didn't give orders to permanently occupy the place. He did nothing to counter Sickles' redeployment and waited for Hancock to save his line by the sacrifice of the 1st Minnesota. On July 4th, he didn't launch a counterattack, just because his army was shocked behind its fortifications.

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.

Perhaps a reason for considering William Mack Lee ridiculously unreliable is the fact that he eulogizes Lee? Yet, I am not an absolutist. If you want, send me an example of the good Reverend's "fairy tales", because I don't own a copy of his work.

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



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?

I don't think General Lee would lie to his soldiers. I say that he referred to the Pickett's Charge. Yet, Lee always took the burden on his shoulders. Freeman is his chapter "Why was Gettysburg Lost?" tells us that Lee still remained kind to men who had failed him. And, in the next sentence, "he continued to call Longstreet 'my old warhorse". This means that Lee took on his shoulders Longstreet's blunders at Gettysburg.

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.

You seem to have a very low opinion on draftees and substitutes. Yet, they could fight. All soldiers, green or veterans, can fight. If led by good officers, they can do everything, to paraphrase Lee. Hancock had officers like Nelson Miles, good in fighting Indians in the plains, but not so good in the Civil War type of combat.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[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.

President Davis called for troops to defend the Confederacy. South Carolina had seceded from the Union, it was not a member of it. Since it was done by consent of the people of the state, it was valid. Anderson was occupying a seceded territory, thus being an invader. And, the Confederacy existed in order to be a confederation of states and protect their rights.

Because he's knowledgeable. Lee's invasion was stopped and he was forced to retreat. He failed to achieve his objectives.

But, Lee was the one who gained the battlefield victory. McClellan lost any opportunity to defeat Lee's army and suffered 14469 casualties to Lee's just over 8000, as Maury tells us.

The Johnny Reb was brainwashed to hate their country and to coerced to fight against it in order to further the agenda of the elites. (Simply applying your form of analysis evenly.)

The Johnny Reb rushed to fight for his country, the Confederate States of America. He was not brainwashed to hate his late counterparts and countrymen, but became hostile to them as a result of the Federal invasion.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

But, Lee was the one who gained the battlefield victory. McClellan lost any opportunity to defeat Lee's army and suffered 14469 casualties to Lee's just over 8000, as Maury tells us.

Okay, just in case anyone else is able to come up with a nicer explanation than I am for the state of affairs here:

1) When Maury gives the figures CWS wants to use, he's right.
2) When Foote gives the figures CWS wants to use (after allowing for misquoting him), he's right.
3) When they disagree, the Confederate numbers are the lower numbers from the two (or more), the Union numbers are the higher numbers from the two (or more).


Elaboration:

Per Maury Lee had somewhat less than 35,000 men. Call it, for calculation's sake, 34,000.
McClellan's 87,164 number is is referred as four-fifths of his entire army (the fact that includes all the troops that were there, not merely those actively in the fighting, will be ignored for purposes of this). If 80% of X is 87,164, then five fifths would be 108,955.

Which would be a little over three times Lee's army per Maury. But McClellan's 87,164 represented the troops at Antietam, regardless of the strength of parts of the Army of the Potomac elsewhere.

34,000 is 39% of 87,164 - a little worse than five to two.

Next, causalities for McClellan on "the 14th through the 17th" per Maury are 14,469.

Maury refers to Lee's casualties "on the field of Sharpsburg" as not to exceed 8,000. What Lee's causalities at South Mountain were is not stated by Maury, making this an imperfect comparison at best even if his numbers are to be trusted (which, a look at McClellan's reported 87,164 indicates that for purposes of the odds at Sharpsburg, they cannot).

Now for Foote:

Foote gives, with A. P. Hill, "no more than 40,000" total Confederates vs. 87,164 Federals. It would seem to be 35,000+3,000 from Hill in practice per page 699.

Per page 702 of volume one, "nearly 11,000 Confederates" and "more than 12,000 Federals" had fallen at Antietam. Including South Mountain raises this to 13,609 to 14,756 per Foote.

So one can either rely on Maury, marred at least in one regard by his misstatement of McClellan's forces, or on Foote, which gives different numbers in regards to Lee's forces and the causalities suffered (on both sides) than Maury.

Using the two together will produce an incoherent description at best.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Okay, just in case anyone else is able to come up with a nicer explanation than I am for the state of affairs here:

1) When Maury gives the figures CWS wants to use, he's right.
2) When Foote gives the figures CWS wants to use (after allowing for misquoting him), he's right.
3) When they disagree, the Confederate numbers are the lower numbers from the two (or more), the Union numbers are the higher numbers from the two (or more).

I chose Maury, because he lived during the era. He is a primary source.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

I chose Maury, because he lived during the era. He is a primary source.
Civil War Scholar.

Both are secondary sources.
http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

Primary source: A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:

• ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage, autobiographies, official records
• CREATIVE WORKS: Poetry, drama, novels, music, art
• RELICS OR ARTIFACTS: Pottery, furniture, clothing, buildings

Examples of primary sources include:

• Diary of Anne Frank - Experiences of a Jewish family during WWII
• The Constitution of Canada - Canadian History
• A journal article reporting NEW research or findings
• Weavings and pottery - Native American history
• Plato's Republic - Women in Ancient Greece

Secondary source: A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of secondary sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Examples of secondary sources include:

• A journal/magazine article which interprets or reviews previous findings
• A history textbook
• A book about the effects of WWI

But fine, you pick Maury. Let us analyze his work.

Here is McClellan in his own words giving the figure of 87,164:

"Our own forces at the battle of Antietam were as follows:

First Corps 14,856
Second Corps 18,813
Fifth Corps (one division not arrived) 12,930
Sixth Corps 12,300
Ninth Corps 13,819
Twelfth Corps 10,126
Cavalry Division 4,320
Total in action 87,164"
http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=19 - or if you prefer I can post a link to the Cornell and/or ehistory site.

Whether that is a correct count of the cavalry or if it includes regiments not present at Antietam has been discussed before, but to characterize this as "four fifths of McClellan's army" would require us to count units that were not present at Antietam. And doing that to determine the odds against Lee is dishonest.

 

[Rebel from Finland]

The troops were raised then sent to Pickens and Sumter to be used in their capture, that is not a defensive posture...

It depends totally on the persons point of view. I, for one, see it as a defensive posture.

 

[Elennsar]

It depends totally on the persons point of view. I, for one, see it as a defensive posture.

How is it defensive to surround an undermanned fort held by a foreign country (its only an enemy county if there's hostility involved)?

 

[CSA Today]

You're lying again. Long says, "Federal casualties were put at 2010 killed, 9416 wounded, and 1043 missing for a total of 12,469 out of over 75,000 estimated effectives. Confederate casualties were estimated at 2700 killed, 9024 wounded, and about 2000 missing for a total of 13,724 out of around 40,000 engaged, although the exact figures are uncertain." [pp. 267-268] Nothing in there about 88,000 at all.

Do you regularly insinuate that anyone expressing a pro Southern sentiment is a liar because you know you will get away with it?

 

[Rebel from Finland]

How is it defensive to surround an undermanned fort held by a foreign country (its only an enemy county if there's hostility involved)?

It is made in the defense of your country. This is the part I just don´t get, and I´m very doubtful that I ever will. To me, leave a federal fort in commanding position of your most important harbor, would be idiotic. They didn´t leave when asked, so they were driven off..

 

[CSA Today]

It is made in the defense of your country. This is the part I just don´t get, and I´m very doubtful that I ever will. To me, leave a federal fort in commanding position of your most important harbor, would be idiotic. They didn´t leave when asked, so they were driven off..

You get the impression that some of the people here would see nothing non-threatening about a potential hostile fort left in Boston or New York Harbours.

 

[Elennsar]

It is made in the defense of your country. This is the part I just don´t get, and I´m very doubtful that I ever will. To me, leave a federal fort in commanding position of your most important harbor, would be idiotic. They didn´t leave when asked, so they were driven off..

"Commanding position"?

Eighty men, dependent on provisions from either outside the area under their control or from your good will, in an unfinished fort do not have a commanding position over anything. Anderson had less influence over the use of Charleston harbor than Gibraltar has over Spain's Mediterranean trade.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't mind if the Confederates stationed troops to defend Charleston harbor - defending it is an utterly unobjectionable thing to do in the context of a wannabe nation - but they went well beyond "stationing troops to defend Charleston harbor" in their treatment of Fort Sumter.