Would Johnston Have Fought for Atlanta?

JeffBrooks

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Hutto, TX
The decision by Jefferson Davis on July 17, 1864, to sack General Joe Johnston and replace him with General John Bell Hood remains one of the most controversial of the war. Many maintain that Davis made a terrible mistake, that Johnston would have fought for Atlanta and perhaps held the city long enough to swing the presidential election in the North against Lincoln. Others maintain that Johnston, given his record of withdrawing from strongly held positions in the past, would have abandoned Atlanta without a fight and that Davis's decision was the correct one, despite the fact that Hood eventually lost Atlanta. Each position has its strong advocate.

So, the question: do you think General Johnston would have fought for Atlanta, as he always later claimed was his intention? Or do we think that Johnston would have withdrawn from the city, perhaps after a mere token resistance, rather than risk the survival of his army?
 
I think General Johnstone's army did frustrate the US force. Sherman ordered an ill conceived attack at Keenesaw Mountain. However in Georgia, Sherman had much more room to maneuver. Sherman also had three competent army leaders in Thomas, McPherson and Schofield. Considering what they were facing, I would give the Confederates in Georgia and their commander the higher mark.

Blaming the general(s) for what happened to the Confederacy in 1864 deflects the responsibility from the people who were in charge.
By 1864 the US advantage in logistics and the naval dominance they achieved caused the collapse of the Confederacy. By 1864 the Confederates were fighting against an emerging world power.
Where McPherson and Schofield actually very good? I'm not as well versed to make a definitive statement, but I've heard very mixed things on both.
 
I give Lee an 8 and Johnston a 2. I know @JerryD is much higher on Johnston than I am. My issue as @Luke Freet pointed out earlier, and I think in the books I've read so far of Powell's very good start to the Atlanta campaign, I just feel like Johnston really missed many opportunities to punish Sherman. Johnston doesn't seem to have done a very good job of knowing the land between Chattanooga and Atlanta, and I think it's fair to say that Johnston had enough time to get a good understanding of the geographical data. Great question.
My issue with that is that I think its unrealistic to think he could "punish" Sherman with his force by using offensive tactics. Smaller forces attacking larger forces is a recipe for disaster. And note, other than the second day of the Wilderness, Lee never tried it. He knew better. (I'm talking about Overland Campaign; of course he did it earlier in the war).

But if you really think JJ missed some golden chances, would love to hear what they were, exactly. Not just, "Well, he should have attacked sometime." But on what day, where, and with what forces that were available. And did he have actual intelligence of the opportunity? Until someone can give me that info, I am skeptical that all these golden opportunities existed. For example, wouldn't it have been brilliant for Lee to have attacked Grant while he was crossing the James! So Lee is an idiot for not doing so. Right? Never mind he had no intelligence as to where Grant was or that the opportunity existed. To be fair, I think we need to treat Lee and Johnston to the same standard, and it seems no one wants to do that.

Sherman, Grant, and a great many CSA officers as well held Johnston in high regard. So before we pretend to know better then them, I need pretty good proof. And I have yet to see it. Was he less audacious than Lee? Absolutely. Was Lee the better general? I think so. But it seems folks grade them on different curves, that is all I am saying.
 
Last edited:
I recall Lee's diminished cavalry did not serve him well in regard to providing accurate information on the enemy's activities on May 11 or in mid-June. The record, however, shows that in spite of subsequent events, Lee reacted decisively and prevented major disaster, while the enemy failed to fully press advantages gained by him.

The story told by Lee's Dispatches (not published until 1915 -- the damage of the "memoir era" already being done) is that Grant hardly "fooled" Lee or anyone else in the Confederacy (including J.B. Jones and the Richmond Examiner) when he established a base on James River. Colonel Thomas L. Livermore produced the absurd idea that the Army of N. Va. did not leave the Cold Harbor battlefront until June 17. But the record as told by D.S. Freeman shows: "By the afternoon of June 14 [Lee is at Riddell's Shop], but not before that time, the Confederate command knew Grant's approximate position and perceived how readily the Union army could move over the James to Petersburg. . . Hoke's division was ordered to the pontoon bridge above Drewry's Bluff. . . As night of June 16 approached [Lee is at Drewry's], the unsettled question remained: It had not been possible to ascertain whether Butler alone, or Butler with large help from Grant, was attacking Petersburg. . . Beauregard reported the presence of Hancock's II Corps, but beyond that he confessed, 'No satisfactory information yet received of Grant's crossing James River. . .' [By June 17], the Confederate troops were disposed for a shift to Petersburg if that, as now seemed probable, should be the next turn of the wheel of fortune: Hoke was already with Beauregard; the First Corps was, or soon would be, entirely on the Bermuda Hundred front; the Third Corps was marching toward Chaffin's Bluff. If Beauregard found that the whole of Grant's army was on the south side of the James, part of the First Corps could easily be moved to Petersburg the next morning, and Hill could be sent on before the 18th was out, leaving the remainder of Anderson's troops on the Bermuda Hundred line. If, again, Grant should be contemplating a surprise attack on Richmond, Hill was still on the north bank and close enough to the outer defenses to man them against assault. . ."
You're forgetting some context here.

The beauty of Grant's move is that Lee couldn't move, or react, until positive information was known. Lee couldn't leave the immediate vicinity of Richmond for several days (perhaps until June 17th, as my memory fails me on this matter) because he could not know where Grant was headed. Those messages shout as pleas for information. Grant has his cavalry screen well out and Lee's horsemen could not penetrate.

Was Grant heading north? - unlikely, but he was feinting in that direction with one division of cavalry.

Was he heading to Fair Oaks environs to try McClellan's campaign again? - Heavy cavalry screen, action, and intense bridging operations suggest that maybe the case.

Or, was Grant heading south of the James -- Lee rightly feared this move as the worse of the bunch but couldn't move his army until he had positive information otherwise he risked absolute disaster with a fighter willing to throw a punch like Grant. He couldn't risk Grant hitting part of his army or hitting him in the open on the march.

So, in essence, Grant did "steal" a march on Lee by providing him with information that did not allow him to make a decisive choice until AFTER Grant had concentrated on the key point -- Petersburg.

If Grant had Sherman, or Logan, or McPherson or Thomas leading the Federal vanguard to Petersburg he could have seized it in a coup de main and the Richmond campaign would have been over in June of '64. Smith and co. fumbled a touchdown pass in the end zone with no one covering them.
 
I give Lee an 8 and Johnston a 2. I know @JerryD is much higher on Johnston than I am. My issue as @Luke Freet pointed out earlier, and I think in the books I've read so far of Powell's very good start to the Atlanta campaign, I just feel like Johnston really missed many opportunities to punish Sherman. Johnston doesn't seem to have done a very good job of knowing the land between Chattanooga and Atlanta, and I think it's fair to say that Johnston had enough time to get a good understanding of the geographical data. Great question.
I am reminded of Sherman's comment on this topic.

"I knew more of Georgia than the rebels did".
 
My issue with that is that I think its unrealistic to think he could "punish" Sherman with his force by using offensive tactics. Smaller forces attacking larger forces is a recipe for disaster. And note, other than the second day of the Wilderness, Lee never tried it. He knew better. (I'm talking about Overland Campaign; of course he did it earlier in the war).
Lee actually made a number of attacks during the Overland campaigns - Po River, Harris Farm, Jericho Mills, Bethesda Church, that doesn't even count the the actions at Petersburg like Globe Tavern, Ream's Station, Peeble's Farm, ect. Not all of these were perfect or achieved what Lee had hoped, so my using them is to not act as if Lee was some mastermind, but does show that Lee continued een after the Wilderness to find opportunities to strike at Grant, and sometimes to great effect.
But if you really think JJ missed some golden chances, would love to hear what they were, exactly. Not just, "Well, he should have attacked sometime." But on what day, where, and with what forces that were available. And did he have actual intelligence of the opportunity? Until someone can give me that info, I am skeptical that all these golden opportunities existed. For example, wouldn't it have been brilliant for Lee to have attacked Grant while he was crossing the James! So Lee is an idiot for not doing so. Right? Never mind he had no intelligence as to where Grant was or that the opportunity existed. To be fair, I think we need to treat Lee and Johnston to the same standard, and it seems no one wants to do that.
100% agree that we shouldn't just assume things. @Luke Freet I apologize, I'm not sure how to quote your post into here, but I wanted to give you credit for most of this!!!

Johnston had the advantage of terrain features at multiple points throughout the campaign, with three rivers running generally east to west along the path of Sherman's advance. He began the campaign in a strong defensive position around Rocky Face Ridge. He had months to scout the terrain in his rear in the case of a retreat or fallback line needing to be established.

Yet, except for June 27th, Johnston was outsmarted time and again by Sherman on the strategic board. Johnston was turned out of the Dalton position because he left only marginal forces to screen his left flank. He failed to scout the ground south of the Oostanaula at any point since taking command and the start of his campaign, which affected his decision making on the 16th of May. That day, Sherman had divided his army group to cross at different point. Given the marching order and delays with the crossings, the Union forces were divided and unsupported, leaving multiple isolated columns to strike, most notably Howard's Corps advancing from Resaca to Calhoun, and Dodge's Corps advancing from Lay's Ferry, neither of whom were in condition to support the other. An enterprising commander would have crushed these isolated wings in detail, improving the Confederate situation dramatically.

Instead, Johnston called a retreat; if he had waited a day, he could have destroyed Dodge or Howard; indeed, Hardee's Corps, left behind as a rearguard, nearly pulled off just that at Rome's Crossroads, when Tom Sweeny's isolated division was nearly crushed by converging attacks by Walker's and Cleburne's Divisions which was called back due to false reports of Howard's capture of Calhoun (Howard had halted some distance north of the town upon hearing fighting on Sweeny's front).

Once south of the Etowah, Johnston (whose army by now numbered some 70,000 men, far more than Lee would have at ANY POINT for the entire year going into 1865) missed a chance to pull off a Wilderness-esque fight in the brushes north of New Hope Church and Dallas; given the terrain and the local advantage, Johnston could have neutralized Sherman's artillery advantage (if Sherman couldn't outmaneuver Johnston, he'd drive him back with well coordinated artillery barrages, another showcase of Sherman's ability as a commander), and delivered a blow to Sherman's isolated left wing. Instead, Johnston played defensive instead, resulting in inconsequential defensive victories (which I'd argue were more Union defeats than Confederate victories) on May 25th and 27th.

Far more egregious are his actions at the Chattahoochee. There, in one of the few examples of pre-planning defensive positions during the campaign, his chief of artillery Shoup devised a defensive line which could have allowed Johnston to hold a line against Sherman's army with about a division's worth of infantry and artillery, while freeing up the rest of the army to pull south of the river and strike at any of Sherman's crossing points. Instead, Johnston left his entire army north of the CHattahoochee, and when Sherman did cross near Roswell with a fraction of his army group, Johnston simply abandoned the line, and fell back to the outer works of Atlanta, not even considering striking at the isolated Union troops on the south bank of the river.

LUKE doees a great job of mapping out where Johnston failed to even give himself a chance to damage Sherman's army. Perhaps if he had, which would of damaged his own, but I'd argue the constant retreating was driving up desertion rates as is, so I think it would be better to try and hold out longer at his river crossing and meet Sherman when he crossed as opposed to falling back on the next river. I think with all that said above I'm within the ball park of being able to lob some criticism Johnston's way in his handling of the campaign. Reality is I don't believe Johnston ever won a single battle during the civil war.
Sherman, Grant, and a great many CSA officers as well held Johnston in high regard. So before we pretend to know better then them, I need pretty good proof. And I have yet to see it. Was he less audacious than Lee? Absolutely. Was Lee the better general? I think so. But it seems folks grade them on different curves, that is all I am saying.
I just think that the evidence points to major failings on Johnston's part during the campaign. I don't have a personal vendetta against him. From all I can tell he was civil and courteous to his fellow generals.
 
Lee actually made a number of attacks during the Overland campaigns - Po River, Harris Farm, Jericho Mills, Bethesda Church, that doesn't even count the the actions at Petersburg like Globe Tavern, Ream's Station, Peeble's Farm, ect. Not all of these were perfect or achieved what Lee had hoped, so my using them is to not act as if Lee was some mastermind, but does show that Lee continued een after the Wilderness to find opportunities to strike at Grant, and sometimes to great effect.

100% agree that we shouldn't just assume things. @Luke Freet I apologize, I'm not sure how to quote your post into here, but I wanted to give you credit for most of this!!!

Johnston had the advantage of terrain features at multiple points throughout the campaign, with three rivers running generally east to west along the path of Sherman's advance. He began the campaign in a strong defensive position around Rocky Face Ridge. He had months to scout the terrain in his rear in the case of a retreat or fallback line needing to be established.

Yet, except for June 27th, Johnston was outsmarted time and again by Sherman on the strategic board. Johnston was turned out of the Dalton position because he left only marginal forces to screen his left flank. He failed to scout the ground south of the Oostanaula at any point since taking command and the start of his campaign, which affected his decision making on the 16th of May. That day, Sherman had divided his army group to cross at different point. Given the marching order and delays with the crossings, the Union forces were divided and unsupported, leaving multiple isolated columns to strike, most notably Howard's Corps advancing from Resaca to Calhoun, and Dodge's Corps advancing from Lay's Ferry, neither of whom were in condition to support the other. An enterprising commander would have crushed these isolated wings in detail, improving the Confederate situation dramatically.

Instead, Johnston called a retreat; if he had waited a day, he could have destroyed Dodge or Howard; indeed, Hardee's Corps, left behind as a rearguard, nearly pulled off just that at Rome's Crossroads, when Tom Sweeny's isolated division was nearly crushed by converging attacks by Walker's and Cleburne's Divisions which was called back due to false reports of Howard's capture of Calhoun (Howard had halted some distance north of the town upon hearing fighting on Sweeny's front).

Once south of the Etowah, Johnston (whose army by now numbered some 70,000 men, far more than Lee would have at ANY POINT for the entire year going into 1865) missed a chance to pull off a Wilderness-esque fight in the brushes north of New Hope Church and Dallas; given the terrain and the local advantage, Johnston could have neutralized Sherman's artillery advantage (if Sherman couldn't outmaneuver Johnston, he'd drive him back with well coordinated artillery barrages, another showcase of Sherman's ability as a commander), and delivered a blow to Sherman's isolated left wing. Instead, Johnston played defensive instead, resulting in inconsequential defensive victories (which I'd argue were more Union defeats than Confederate victories) on May 25th and 27th.

Far more egregious are his actions at the Chattahoochee. There, in one of the few examples of pre-planning defensive positions during the campaign, his chief of artillery Shoup devised a defensive line which could have allowed Johnston to hold a line against Sherman's army with about a division's worth of infantry and artillery, while freeing up the rest of the army to pull south of the river and strike at any of Sherman's crossing points. Instead, Johnston left his entire army north of the CHattahoochee, and when Sherman did cross near Roswell with a fraction of his army group, Johnston simply abandoned the line, and fell back to the outer works of Atlanta, not even considering striking at the isolated Union troops on the south bank of the river.

LUKE doees a great job of mapping out where Johnston failed to even give himself a chance to damage Sherman's army. Perhaps if he had, which would of damaged his own, but I'd argue the constant retreating was driving up desertion rates as is, so I think it would be better to try and hold out longer at his river crossing and meet Sherman when he crossed as opposed to falling back on the next river. I think with all that said above I'm within the ball park of being able to lob some criticism Johnston's way in his handling of the campaign. Reality is I don't believe Johnston ever won a single battle during the civil war.

I just think that the evidence points to major failings on Johnston's part during the campaign. I don't have a personal vendetta against him. From all I can tell he was civil and courteous to his fellow generals.
Yeah, color me skeptical. What I am hearing is someone with no military training, who was not there, being a Monday morning quarterback and saying you could have done better. This when professionals like Sherman, Grant, Hardee and others who were there, who were trained, who knew the situation, disagreed.

I am always amused by those on this board who think they make better generals than the actual generals. Gives me a good chuckle.
 
Yeah, color me skeptical. What I am hearing is someone with no military training, who was not there, being a Monday morning quarterback and saying you could have done better. This when professionals like Sherman, Grant, Hardee and others who were there, who were trained, who knew the situation, disagreed.

I am always amused by those on this board who think they make better generals than the actual generals. Gives me a good chuckle.
So you ask for examples and then poo poo the examples. Dave Powell a credentialed historian has gone through all of these decisions and make very evidence backed critiques to Johnston in these situations, but that would be dumb because he's being a Monday Mornging QB. That's always your resonse, the monday morning qb the thing. BTW. Hardee back stabbed Johnston like crazy so I wouldn't say he agreed with Johnston. In fact none of Johnston's corps commanders was happy with his performance. Though to be fair to Johnston he wasn't happy with any of theirs either.

Under your logic, there should be no discussion on this board of battles and decisions because the general all made the best decisions and can't be critiqued. That's a ridiculous take.
 
Yeah, color me skeptical. What I am hearing is someone with no military training, who was not there, being a Monday morning quarterback and saying you could have done better. This when professionals like Sherman, Grant, Hardee and others who were there, who were trained, who knew the situation, disagreed.

I am always amused by those on this board who think they make better generals than the actual generals. Gives me a good chuckle.
Why ask for examples if you're just gonna say "nuh-uh" and dismiss them without engaging at all. SMH
 
To give more credence here is Powell citing Hardee and his staff, as well as others on the order to retreat at Cassville.

"At Hardee's headquarters Maj. Henry Hampton, voicing Macbeth, mourned, "But Alas! 'How often is the word of promise held to the ear, but broken to the hope.'" Captain Irving Buck wrote that Pat Cleburne "expressed his disappointment and surprise…. He could not understand why, after the order read to the troops, General Johnston should have changed his plan." Maj. Thomas J. Barnett of the 17th Alabama (Zach Deas's Brigade, Hood's Corps) sourly complained that he "wanted to go to Va for the reason that this army is too much disposed it seems to me to fall back, and I cannot yet understand when they Flank us, why we cannot flank them." Pvt. John Cotton of the 10th Confederate Cavalry noted that "there is a heap of our men thinks we are whiped because we have fell back," admitting that "I hate it very much haveing to give up so much of our own ****ry … to bee destroyed." Ugly rumors began to circulate. Texan Samuel Foster, a captain in Hiram Granbury's Brigade, recorded that "we hear that some of Genl Johnsons Genls made a slip some way, and disarranged his whole plan for the fight."

Or this:

"Wheeler was ordered to burn the wagon and pontoon bridges, but his destruction of the Western & Atlantic trestle was a mistake. The Federals had the engineering assets to reconstruct rail bridges quickly, but the Rebels were poorly fixed for such work. It would take weeks or even months for them to rebuild any large rail bridge. Johnston would need that bridge if he harbored any hopes of a long-term move back north of the Etowah River. Further, the railroad was still state-owned, and Governor Brown insisted the army do as little damage as possible to the tracks. Wheeler's troopers paid no heed to any of this and ignited all four bridges."

But we already no Johnston had harbored no thought of ever moving north of the river again. That much is clear.

You say you want to listen to the Generals. Let's look at what General Thomoas says:

"General Thomas took time to examine Johnston's defensive line at Cassville. He described it as "very strong" with "a series of very formidable breastworks and batteries." Mystified by Johnston's decision to retreat, Thomas could only conclude that "our move upon them yesterday [May 19] was so unexpected that I am inclined to think that they were so demoralized that they dared not remain."

Even Thomas can't understand why Johnston gave up the positioin without so much as a fight. On top of this Johnston had been reinforced with every possible brigade, bringing him up to nearly 75,000 men, and much closer parity to SHerman than anything Lee faced.


Lastly here is Powell's assessment of Johnston from Dalton to Cassville:

"Joseph E. Johnston, by contrast, proved himself unready. Despite months at Dalton, he failed to anticipate Sherman's likeliest moves and to devise counters. At Snake Creek Gap, while correct in his postwar assessment that he could concentrate on Resaca faster than could the enemy, when the time to do so was at hand he dithered, needlessly marching divisions back and forth. His failure to reconnoiter suitable battlefields in his rear (such as at Calhoun), despite intending a Fabian strategy from the start, is inexplicable. So, too, is the failure to understand the road network at Cassville.

Despite postwar claims, Johnston seemed to think of little else but retreat. At Calhoun, he was thinking only of defense. As a result, he missed probably his best chance at a counterpunch on May 16. Something similar happened at Cassville, which stands as the most enigmatic incident of the entire campaign. It was a quintessential Army of Tennessee moment: confusion among the army's leadership, plans going awry, arguments, and in the end, another morale-destroying retreat. Further, obscured by the historical debate about what was happening among the Confederate generals, the fact that Sherman never took the offered bait has rendered almost all of that debate moot. Expecting a fight at Kingston, Sherman concentrated his army there. No significant Federal force was headed to Cassville. Johnston's enduring belief that subordinates bungled his best chance at a damaging counterattack was simply wrong because that chance never existed. Why John Bell Hood thought Howard's IV Corps was on the Coppermine Road, or why Johnston believed there was a Union corps to attack on the Adairsville Road, must be marked down to intelligence failures. Either the cavalry failed to determine the truth, or the generals were too caught up in internal squabbling to fully appreciate that truth. Cassville must be marked not as a lost opportunity, but as a serious Confederate blunder."

I would argue it's on you to show that Johnston did anything positive to support the Confederate War effort during the Atlanta campaign.
 
Even the West Point history calls Johnston out for "vacillating," (Battlefield Trust calls it a "peculiar indolence") most notably along the Chattahoochee, where he could have left a comparatively small force in the Shoup line and moved to crush or contain Schofield's bridgehead. If Johnston understood the views and concerns of the Government he might have made a better effort, as it is revealing that Davis believed the former had "failed" as soon as he left the Chattahoochee.
 
Last edited:
Even the West Point history calls Johnston out for "vacillating," (Battlefield Trust calls it a "peculiar indolence") most notably along the Chattahoochee, where could have left a comparatively small force in the Shoup line and moved to crush or contain Schofield's bridgehead. If Johnston understood the views and concerns of the Government he might have made a better effort, as it is revealing that Davis believed the former had "failed" as soon as he left the Chattahoochee.
West Point is just being a monday morning qb.
 
So you ask for examples and then poo poo the examples. Dave Powell a credentialed historian has gone through all of these decisions and make very evidence backed critiques to Johnston in these situations, but that would be dumb because he's being a Monday Mornging QB. That's always your resonse, the monday morning qb the thing. BTW. Hardee back stabbed Johnston like crazy so I wouldn't say he agreed with Johnston. In fact none of Johnston's corps commanders was happy with his performance. Though to be fair to Johnston he wasn't happy with any of theirs either.

Under your logic, there should be no discussion on this board of battles and decisions because the general all made the best decisions and can't be critiqued. That's a ridiculous take.
Not really, but I give much more weight to the opinions of professionals at the time, than I do to historians who have never commanded a squad, much less an army. And of course we can discuss what really happened, but when I hear amateurs claim they would have done better, yeah, I am pretty skeptical.
 
To give more credence here is Powell citing Hardee and his staff, as well as others on the order to retreat at Cassville.

"At Hardee's headquarters Maj. Henry Hampton, voicing Macbeth, mourned, "But Alas! 'How often is the word of promise held to the ear, but broken to the hope.'" Captain Irving Buck wrote that Pat Cleburne "expressed his disappointment and surprise…. He could not understand why, after the order read to the troops, General Johnston should have changed his plan." Maj. Thomas J. Barnett of the 17th Alabama (Zach Deas's Brigade, Hood's Corps) sourly complained that he "wanted to go to Va for the reason that this army is too much disposed it seems to me to fall back, and I cannot yet understand when they Flank us, why we cannot flank them." Pvt. John Cotton of the 10th Confederate Cavalry noted that "there is a heap of our men thinks we are whiped because we have fell back," admitting that "I hate it very much haveing to give up so much of our own ****ry … to bee destroyed." Ugly rumors began to circulate. Texan Samuel Foster, a captain in Hiram Granbury's Brigade, recorded that "we hear that some of Genl Johnsons Genls made a slip some way, and disarranged his whole plan for the fight."

Or this:

"Wheeler was ordered to burn the wagon and pontoon bridges, but his destruction of the Western & Atlantic trestle was a mistake. The Federals had the engineering assets to reconstruct rail bridges quickly, but the Rebels were poorly fixed for such work. It would take weeks or even months for them to rebuild any large rail bridge. Johnston would need that bridge if he harbored any hopes of a long-term move back north of the Etowah River. Further, the railroad was still state-owned, and Governor Brown insisted the army do as little damage as possible to the tracks. Wheeler's troopers paid no heed to any of this and ignited all four bridges."

But we already no Johnston had harbored no thought of ever moving north of the river again. That much is clear.

You say you want to listen to the Generals. Let's look at what General Thomoas says:

"General Thomas took time to examine Johnston's defensive line at Cassville. He described it as "very strong" with "a series of very formidable breastworks and batteries." Mystified by Johnston's decision to retreat, Thomas could only conclude that "our move upon them yesterday [May 19] was so unexpected that I am inclined to think that they were so demoralized that they dared not remain."

Even Thomas can't understand why Johnston gave up the positioin without so much as a fight. On top of this Johnston had been reinforced with every possible brigade, bringing him up to nearly 75,000 men, and much closer parity to SHerman than anything Lee faced.


Lastly here is Powell's assessment of Johnston from Dalton to Cassville:

"Joseph E. Johnston, by contrast, proved himself unready. Despite months at Dalton, he failed to anticipate Sherman's likeliest moves and to devise counters. At Snake Creek Gap, while correct in his postwar assessment that he could concentrate on Resaca faster than could the enemy, when the time to do so was at hand he dithered, needlessly marching divisions back and forth. His failure to reconnoiter suitable battlefields in his rear (such as at Calhoun), despite intending a Fabian strategy from the start, is inexplicable. So, too, is the failure to understand the road network at Cassville.

Despite postwar claims, Johnston seemed to think of little else but retreat. At Calhoun, he was thinking only of defense. As a result, he missed probably his best chance at a counterpunch on May 16. Something similar happened at Cassville, which stands as the most enigmatic incident of the entire campaign. It was a quintessential Army of Tennessee moment: confusion among the army's leadership, plans going awry, arguments, and in the end, another morale-destroying retreat. Further, obscured by the historical debate about what was happening among the Confederate generals, the fact that Sherman never took the offered bait has rendered almost all of that debate moot. Expecting a fight at Kingston, Sherman concentrated his army there. No significant Federal force was headed to Cassville. Johnston's enduring belief that subordinates bungled his best chance at a damaging counterattack was simply wrong because that chance never existed. Why John Bell Hood thought Howard's IV Corps was on the Coppermine Road, or why Johnston believed there was a Union corps to attack on the Adairsville Road, must be marked down to intelligence failures. Either the cavalry failed to determine the truth, or the generals were too caught up in internal squabbling to fully appreciate that truth. Cassville must be marked not as a lost opportunity, but as a serious Confederate blunder."

I would argue it's on you to show that Johnston did anything positive to support the Confederate War effort during the Atlanta campaign.
This is the kind of opinions I am more willing to take seriously. Thanks.
 
All this talk about the Overland Campaign and whether Lee did well or poorly, in a thread originally about Johnston, leads to a question...

If we're scoring early May to mid-July 1864 campaigns on a scale of 1-10, what do we give Lee and what do we give Johnston?
You know of the popular "S-F" ranking system commonly used nowadays? I wonder if anyone has graded Civil War campaigns or individual battles based on it.

My take is S being flawless, A+ being excellent, A- being very good, B being good or solid, C being fair or mediocre, D being below average or poor, E/F being very poor or disastrous.

For the 1864 spring campaign I'd give Lee an A-, Grant and Sherman a B, and Johnston a D+ or a C- if I'm being charitable.
 
You know of the popular "S-F" ranking system commonly used nowadays? I wonder if anyone has graded Civil War campaigns or individual battles based on it.

My take is S being flawless, A+ being excellent, A- being very good, B being good or solid, C being fair or mediocre, D being below average or poor, E/F being very poor or disastrous.

For the 1864 spring campaign I'd give Lee an A-, Grant and Sherman a B, and Johnston a D+ or a C- if I'm being charitable.
Yep, and later in the year Grant's grade would go UP (A), Sherman UP (A), and Lee consistent on defense going down with a B+.
 
Yep, and later in the year Grant's grade would go UP (A), Sherman UP (A), and Lee consistent on defense going down with a B+.
I'm probably higher on Lee for most of Petersburg, and maybe slightler lower than @SWS on the Overland. You can give him knocks for pulling out the guns at Spotsylvania, and for not placing his 3 corps within closer supporting distance (specifically Longstreet's corps) before the campaign began. I'd probably give Lee a B+ for the Overland, and a A - for Petersburg. I'd give Grant a B- for the Overland and a A- for Petersburg. Altogether I'd give Lee a B+ and Grant a B, maybe a B+ as well. I think Lee handled his officers better than Grant did. I think strategically Grant what Grant's overall trying to do was very sound, his execution of it was less so. His chain of command which he had full control of and could of fixed was unwieldy. Ultimately choosing to keep on Meade when the two were oftentimes at odds was really not good for either. They'd been better finding Meade another command, even sending Meade to command the Valley would of been a smart move. I don't think Grant handled the Warren situation at the end of the Petersburg campaign all that well either. Lastly, Grant sending Sheridan with all his cavalry away after the wilderness was a head scratching decisions, I think handling cavalry was Grant's weakest attribute, and he never really seemed to know how to use them. Just letting Sheridan who he liked do as he pleased. Ultimately I think Grant and Lee were rather close in skill, though I'm probably personally more persuaded by what Lee accomplished with his limited resources and I think he was probably the outstanding commadner on either side when it came to maintaining a espirit de corps in his army, and his handling of his officer corps. But I think those who would rate Grant slightly ahead could make the case as well, where I usually have issues is with people who act like there was some large gap between them.
 
I'm probably higher on Lee for most of Petersburg, and maybe slightler lower than @SWS on the Overland. You can give him knocks for pulling out the guns at Spotsylvania, and for not placing his 3 corps within closer supporting distance (specifically Longstreet's corps) before the campaign began. I'd probably give Lee a B+ for the Overland, and a A - for Petersburg. I'd give Grant a B- for the Overland and a A- for Petersburg. Altogether I'd give Lee a B+ and Grant a B, maybe a B+ as well. I think Lee handled his officers better than Grant did. I think strategically Grant what Grant's overall trying to do was very sound, his execution of it was less so. His chain of command which he had full control of and could of fixed was unwieldy. Ultimately choosing to keep on Meade when the two were oftentimes at odds was really not good for either. They'd been better finding Meade another command, even sending Meade to command the Valley would of been a smart move. I don't think Grant handled the Warren situation at the end of the Petersburg campaign all that well either. Lastly, Grant sending Sheridan with all his cavalry away after the wilderness was a head scratching decisions, I think handling cavalry was Grant's weakest attribute, and he never really seemed to know how to use them. Just letting Sheridan who he liked do as he pleased. Ultimately I think Grant and Lee were rather close in skill, though I'm probably personally more persuaded by what Lee accomplished with his limited resources and I think he was probably the outstanding commadner on either side when it came to maintaining a espirit de corps in his army, and his handling of his officer corps. But I think those who would rate Grant slightly ahead could make the case as well, where I usually have issues is with people who act like there was some large gap between them.
As often happens, the Wizard comes through with a well-conceived assessment of the situations involved in a post.
 
I just think that the evidence points to major failings on Johnston's part during the campaign. I don't have a personal vendetta against him. From all I can tell he was civil and courteous to his fellow generals.
The problem stems from Bragg to be fair the AOT higher command sucked there were no outstanding Corps commanders that could turn the tide of battle they had some good division commanders but that's no good if your high command it too timid , drunk or just inept I remember Bragg at Perryville having to place his troops personally because his top commanders could not.

It seems that JJ inherited this elite inept bunch and Hood after that and here's the problem while JJ was as you say courteous and diplomatic he still had the same bunch of top officers as Bragg had he made no major changes and if you combine that with JJs reluctance to go on the offensive and protect his supply lines at all costs then of course Atlanta was doomed there was never going to be any other outcome.

There is a theory that when Lee took over command from JJ in the Seven Days Battles he wanted to test his new army and their commanders and by all account he wasn't impressed he made sweeping changes over a period and up to Fredericksburg and eventually sorted the Chaff from the Wheat something JJ never did because he never truly tested his army & the interference of Davis.

In my view JJ took that command to stay relevant he never made any sweeping changes never challenged Davis or tested the army he had inherited it was basically Braggs army under a more cordial less aggressive commander a recipe for disaster when your tasked with defending the second most important City in the Confederacy.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top