Trivia 9-6-18 Never Won

[Stony]

Irvin McDowell and John Charles Frémont.

 

[lelliott19]

According to this site https://acws.co.uk/archives-misc-misc the answer is:
John Charles Fremont (21 January 1813 – 13 July 1890)
Irvin McDowell (15 October 1818 – 4 May 1885)
https://acws.co.uk/archives-misc-misc

To his credit, although there was no battle, I believe Fremont was a Maj Gen when the Confederates were forced to retire from Springfield, MO? wiki/First_Battle_of_Springfield

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Since the question has only two requirements, I believe that the answer could be two of hundreds of Union generals during the Civil War. The generals in my answer were generals who were in actual command of battles that they never won and were killed in action during the years 1861 or 1862:
1. Brigadier-General Nathaniel Lyon
2. Major-General James B. McPherson
3. Major General Jesse L. Reno
4. Major-General Israel B. Richardson

A number of sources including a thread or two on CWT claim that Union generals William T. Sherman and William Rosecrans "never won a battle" but I've found just as many sites that claim this isn't correct, hence my answers above that meet the two requirements of the question.

 

[mofederal]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_McDowell

wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Halleck


Irvin McDowell and Henry Halleck

 

[ErnieMac]

I assume that the intent of the question is army commanders in the field. I could name several (e.g.: Lorenzo Thomas, Catharinus Buckingham, James Ripley, Montgomery Meigs) who held administrative positions with the rank of General who never didn't fight a battle while a general and therefore never lost one. My answer is the John Fremont and Irvin McDowell never won a battle while exercising army command.

 

[GS]

James Wilkinson and Benjamin Butler

 

[Zella]

I'm drawing a blank on this, though I suspect I'll feel like a goober when the answers are revealed. LOL Looking forward to seeing what the answer is!

 

[Eleanor Rose]

This is a complete guess - General Nathaniel Banks and General Don Carlos Buell. I look forward to seeing the answers.

 

[SWMODave]

I held off answering this in hopes of some clarification. There were numerous Union generals that never saw battle and thus "never won a battle". General Lorenzo Thomas, Robert Allen, Timothy Andrews - all in logistics or pay would name just a few of many.

I suspect by the way the question is worded "name the two", the OP is looking for a particular pair. And from what I can find, this is a very debatable idea. The first that jumps out on the internet, and has been discussed on numerous threads as never winning a battle is William T Sherman. For a source I add the following - although there appear to be numerous

The second one was harder. I found references to two other generals - one being Franz Sigel and the other, Nathaniel Banks. Sigel was a general at Pea Ridge so am not sure why a US Senator stated this about him during a Congressional debate. In the April 20, 1898 Congressional Record, Senator Allen states "He reminds me very much of a distinguished Union General during the recent Civil War - I do not know that he is yet alive - he never won a battle in his life - not one, and he was in many of them - but he had a peculiar genius for extricating himself from critical situations. So, Mr President, it became known in the Army that General So-and-so was "not much in action, but was hell on retreat". - Sigel appears to be the Union General that was widely known as being 'hell on retreat'.

The third general may be the second the OP is looking for. Nathaniel Banks. Banks actually won a "tactical" victory at Pleasant Hill, but surrendered the field, and in most circles, that is a defeat. It is hard for one to claim a victory while one is in full retreat, although many generals tried it - McClellan, Rosecrans, etc. However, I did find numerous sources that states Banks never won a battle, so ....

I just do not understand the US Senator's comment on Sigel, although he was hell on retreat, and while I see some references to McClellan never winning a "major battle", I classify Antietam as more than a skirmish, so I will go with the two names I have documented above - Sherman and Banks.

 

[roberts]

They said Sherman never won a battle or lost a campaign. They called Banks "Stonewall Jackson's Commissary" and said he never won a battle....

But my answer for Generals who never won a Battle (whilst Generals) will be John C. Fremont and Irvine McDowell (from an article in the ACWS Newsletter, August 1999)

 

[hoosier]

I have a feeling that, among the lengthy list of men who served as Union generals, our players are going to find a lot more than two who never won a battle.

My first answer is William Hammond. Hammond was promoted to brigadier general upon being named Surgeon General of the U. S. Army in 1862. His duties as Surgeon General precluded him from participating in any battles, so he never won a battle (nor did he ever lose one) from the time he became a general until the time he was dismissed in 1864.

For my second answer, I will name Joseph Holt, who was named Judge Advocate General of the Union Army in 1862 and was promoted to brigadier general two years later, becoming the first Judge Advocate General to hold a general's rank. He served as Judge Advocate General for the rest of the war, so he never won (or lost) a battle while he was a general, either.

 

[DBF]

I took a few days to think about this question - the "2" - indicates the answer is just "2" possible generals who never won a battle. My search first brought up the name General Irwin McDowell (promoted to General, 1861). I also found a source that claimed McClellan never won a battle - I wasn't convinced because he is credited with The Battle of Rich Mountain, and to most, the Battle of Antietam is viewed as a draw or a tactical Union strategic win.

When I got the list of all commanders of the various armies, each one seems to have had at least 1 victory - even (Pope/Burnside/Hooker). I did find General Nathaniel Lyons died in his 1st major battle which was a Union defeat at The Battle of Wilson Creek. He won at Boonville, Missouri, but I saw this described as a skirmish.

However, as I reflected on the question - and the lack of specifics on "generals" - (could it be a general that wasn't in over-all command), I found several that fit the parameter of the question as written.

General (promoted to general May, 1861) Samuel Heintzelmam. He led a division at the 1st Bull Run, led men in the Peninsula Campaign and Second Bull Run but due to his age he retired never having a victory. He's a general, led men in battle, never won a battle.

General Charles Stone (the 1st man to enlist in what would become the Army of the Potomac) was promoted to brigadier general May 1861, and led men also at Bull Run and at Ball's Bluff (where he was blamed for the defeat) and was removed from command and put in prison on orders from Secretary of War Stanton. When released from confinement - he was denied chances to serve again and when he did go out into the field in the West, he was quickly pulled out. He would eventually resign in September, 1864 - never seeing a victory.

It appears that when General Franz Siegel was in "command" of an army in battle - he lost Carthage/Wilson's Creek/New Market. General Siegel was at The Battle of Pea Ridge yet it lists General Samuel Curtis as the commander of that victory.

The question also seems to allow for General Dixon Miles, killed on September 16, 1862 following the Battle of Harpers Ferry - he was in command and had previously fought at Bull Run never experiencing a victory.

It looks like the answer posted will explain to me the specifics of the question. The bottom line is (excluding General Lyons and General Miles): they may have lost their battles - but in the end they won the war.

All material was mostly gathered from Wikipedia.
https://www.quora.com/Who-were-the-worst-commanders-in-the-American-Civil-War

 

[ami]

Answer:
John Charles Freemont 1813 - 1890

A renowned explorer but an incompetent military commander. John Freemont was given the rank of Major General in the Union Army in 1861, and soon suffered his first defeat at the Battle of Wilson's Creek in Missouri. After a string of defeats to a numerically inferior Confederate Army in The Shenandoah Valley, he resigned from the Army in 1864.

Irvine McDowell 1818 - 1864

Because of his political connections Irvine McDowell was promoted from the rank of Major to Brigadier General at the outbreak of The American Civil War. In 1861 McDowell's army was routed at the first Battle of Bull Run, because of his timidity. At the second Battle of Bull Run, he was again defeated, after which he was never given another Battlefield Command.

Source: The above article first appeared in the ACWS Newsletter, August 1999

Edit - Several players posted a link to the exact words shown above. The article is headed "Generals who never won a Battle (whilst Generals)." It does not say that they were the only two Union generals who never won a battle. In fact, as our players' answers show, there were a lot more than two who never won a battle.

Maybe there was more to the article in the indicated newsletter than what we see here. Maybe the complete article went on to explain the criteria the author used to single out John C. Fremont and Irvin McDowell in this manner. But we don't have that information here.

The question as stated in post # 1 asked for "the" two Union generals who never won a battle, implying that there were only two. It didn't include any additional information to help players zero in on Fremont and McDowell.

Given the wide variety of answers that were submitted, as well as the number of players who indicated that they weren't able to come up with any answer at all, it's clear that many players were confused in trying to figure out what the question was asking for.

I am going to rule that the question was too confusing, and for that reason it is being thrown out. It will not be counted in the scoring.

hoosier