Deep Thoughts, with Jubal Early

[JeffBrooks]

Delete

 

[JeffBrooks]

Truly one of my favorite CS general officers, to spite his sometime lack of talent in the field.

I don't see a lack of talent. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't understand why he is rated more highly.

Think of what he achieved between June and October of 1864 with a force that never numbered more than 14,000 men. In the first phase of his campaign, he drove Union forces out of the Shenandoah, threatened to capture Washington D.C. itself, won three significant tactical victories (Monocacy, Cool Springs, and Second Kernstown), and then raided into Pennsylvania. He inflicted heavy enemy losses, captured badly-needed supplies, and humiliated the Lincoln administration at a point when a Democratic victory in the upcoming elections was the South's only hope of victory. He also drew away tens of thousands of enemy troops from the Petersburg front, greatly easing the pressure on Lee.

In the second phase of the campaign, Early did much better than anyone had a right to expect. At first, he outmaneuvered and spooked Sheridan, forcing him to fall back to Harper's Ferry. In September, despite being outnumbered three-to-one, he put up a tremendous fight at Third Winchester and actually came close to victory. Despite losing there and at Fisher's Hill, Early still was able to come roaring back and smash up the Yankees in the predawn attack at Cedar Creek, one of the war's great tactical achievements. Yes, he lost the battle in the end, but that it was a near run thing at all is testament to Early's abilities.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I don't see a lack of talent. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't understand why he is rated more highly.

Think of what he achieved between June and October of 1864 with a force that never numbered more than 14,000 men. In the first phase of his campaign, he drove Union forces out of the Shenandoah, threatened to capture Washington D.C. itself, won three significant tactical victories (Monocacy, Cool Springs, and Second Kernstown), and then raided into Pennsylvania. He inflicted heavy enemy losses, captured badly-needed supplies, and humiliated the Lincoln administration at a point when a Democratic victory in the upcoming elections was the South's only hope of victory. He also drew away tens of thousands of enemy troops from the Petersburg front, greatly easing the pressure on Lee.

In the second phase of the campaign, Early did much better than anyone had a right to expect. At first, he outmaneuvered and spooked Sheridan, forcing him to fall back to Harper's Ferry. In September, despite being outnumbered three-to-one, he put up a tremendous fight at Third Winchester and actually came close to victory. Despite losing there and at Fisher's Hill, Early still was able to come roaring back and smash up the Yankees in the predawn attack at Cedar Creek, one of the war's great tactical achievements. Yes, he lost the battle in the end, but that it was a near run thing at all is testament to Early's abilities.

I give him credit for 1864. He did quite a bit with much less man power. Tactical achievements within a battle, while a compelling argument as to his sense on the field, are still battles that he didn't win. He was driven back by Union troops. It can be argued they had the numbers. And my assessment could be erroneous.

I'm looking forward to reading his own account of the war as I have it now, and will post a review as soon as I do. I do love a good first person account. Being published a year after the war, I'm interested to see how much responsibility for failure he took, and how much dumped off on other officers.

That being said he spooked Sheridan, and anything that bothered Sheridan is fine by me.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I'm looking forward to reading his own account of the war as I have it now, and will post a review as soon as I do. I do love a good first person account. Being published a year after the war, I'm interested to see how much responsibility for failure he took, and how much dumped off on other officers.

Thought that's an interesting general point about timing to imply - i.e. how long after the war was the personal account provided, is a relevant factor to consider.

After all for many individuals, 'time heals and reveals' (provided they maintain a sound mind).

 

[Rhea Cole]

If, like me, you have only the vaguest notion of what happened when Early's force approached Washington, this Smithsonian Magazine article will fill you in.

A factor that was news to me was the physical condition of Early's. Soldiers. A drought & extreme heat had left them in very poor shape. Many of them were physically in a state of collapse.

Link:

When Washington, D.C. Came Close to Being Conquered by the Confederacy

The year was 1864, and the South was all but beaten, yet Jubal Early's ragged army had D.C. within its grasp

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Thought that's an interesting general point about timing to imply - i.e. how long after the war was the personal account provided, is a relevant factor to consider.

After all for many individuals, 'time heals and reveals' (provided they maintain a sound mind).

I remember when I was nine I bought a book about the conflict and Desert Shield, which was the defensive role we had. There were a million 100-120 page paperbacks about it.

It not only had the role we and our allies played at the time, it also had a pretty descent description of what would happen when/if the war that hadn't started yet ended. Sans exact details. I found it in some boxes I was moving ten years ago and I marveled at how bad it was, and how eerily true it was months before the action started.

You can write some pretty hot stuff the second something ends and it's fresh in your mind. But it must have taken an intelligence analyst or crystal ball to write that before hand. When I find it again I'll scan the cover. Provided my wife didn't chuck it in the Great Box Purge.

 

[JerryD]

I don't see a lack of talent. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't understand why he is rated more highly.

Think of what he achieved between June and October of 1864 with a force that never numbered more than 14,000 men. In the first phase of his campaign, he drove Union forces out of the Shenandoah, threatened to capture Washington D.C. itself, won three significant tactical victories (Monocacy, Cool Springs, and Second Kernstown), and then raided into Pennsylvania. He inflicted heavy enemy losses, captured badly-needed supplies, and humiliated the Lincoln administration at a point when a Democratic victory in the upcoming elections was the South's only hope of victory. He also drew away tens of thousands of enemy troops from the Petersburg front, greatly easing the pressure on Lee.

In the second phase of the campaign, Early did much better than anyone had a right to expect. At first, he outmaneuvered and spooked Sheridan, forcing him to fall back to Harper's Ferry. In September, despite being outnumbered three-to-one, he put up a tremendous fight at Third Winchester and actually came close to victory. Despite losing there and at Fisher's Hill, Early still was able to come roaring back and smash up the Yankees in the predawn attack at Cedar Creek, one of the war's great tactical achievements. Yes, he lost the battle in the end, but that it was a near run thing at all is testament to Early's abilities.

Just a few comments;

Early never seriously threatened to capture DC. He made a demonstration against it, but that is about it.

I tend to agree that tactically he punched above his weight in the Valley in 1864, but I still maintain that the whole Valley Campaign, from a strategic standpoint, was a total failure. In the end he was driven from the Valley, was fired by Lee for lack of confidence in his abilities and led to the Burning Time by Sheridan where the lower Valley was devastated. Early's Corps could have been put to much better use in Georgia against Sherman. Combined with the troops already there they could have at least greatly proscribed Sherman's freedom to do what and go where he pleased. I realize the timing is not exactly aligned, but I have a hard time seeing any benefit to the ANV by Early's Valley Campaign, from a strategic perspective.

 

[jackt62]

I give him credit for 1864. He did quite a bit with much less man power. Tactical achievements within a battle, while a compelling argument as to his sense on the field, are still battles that he didn't win. He was driven back by Union troops. It can be argued they had the numbers

Early was a competent enough senior commander, although his notoriety is based on his hard-driving, often abusive personality. While he is historically burdened by the loss of the Valley to Sheridan in the fall of 1864, his original posting to the Valley by Lee that spring was successful in thwarting Hunter's movements, which could have posed a danger to Lee's logistical line. And the war could very well have been prolonged by Grant's need to send Sheridan and units of Sixth Corps away from the Petersburg front to deal with Early.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Early was a competent enough senior commander, although his notoriety is based on his hard-driving, often abusive personality. While he is historically burdened by the loss of the Valley to Sheridan in the fall of 1864, his original posting to the Valley by Lee that spring was successful in thwarting Hunter's movements, which could have posed a danger to Lee's logistical line. And the war could very well have been prolonged by Grant's need to send Sheridan and units of Sixth Corps away from the Petersburg front to deal with Early.

I think you will find that military historians cite Lee's diversion / loss of irreplaceable men & material as a major tactical error. The temporary diversion of the VI Corps had no tactical impact on the siege of Petersburg.

From Grant's point of view, Early's expedition was a prime opportunity to run down & destroy a significant element of Lee's army outside of earthworks.

That is what Sheridan did. Following that, Grant took the Shenandoah Valley permanently off the board. He ordered Sherman to cut off Lee's lifeline to Georgia & the Trans-Mississippi. Compared to that, Early's raid was, as a wise man said, a "…sideshow of a sideshow."

 

[Rebforever]

He won the battle of Cedar Mountain for Stonewall but Early never got the credit for it.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

So, started reading Early's autobiography about ten minutes ago. With the first two pages of the preface he wrote that in his service he was, of many things, "cheerful'. There was a word I did not expect.

This gonna a be a fun fun read. I can tell.

 

[Rhea Cole]

So, started reading Early's autobiography about ten minutes ago. With the first two pages of the preface he wrote that in his service he was, of many things, "cheerful'. There was a word I did not expect.

This gonna a be a fun fun read. I can tell.

I am inclined to say that Early bragging about what a bone deep bigot he was in the intro sums him up completely. In any case, when was the last or first time Early's memoir appeared in a footnote?

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

I am inclined to say that Early bragging about what a bone deep bigot he was in the intro sums him up completely. In any case, when was the last or first time Early's memoir appeared in a footnote?

Its interesting actually. It's what I expected so far. But I'm getting the feeling that it comes from hunger.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Jubal Early was one of Franklin County’s most famous sons

Editor’s Note: This story about Jubal Early, remembered as a curmudgeon and brilliant military strategist during the Civil War, kicks off an occasional series in the Smith Mountain Eagle about

www.smithmountaineagle.com

It's interesting that Early apparently has descendants but you never hear them claiming descent the way you hear about someone being related to Lee, Grant, Pickett, etc. They have some sort of reunion but that's all I could find.

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

Jubal Early was one of Franklin County’s most famous sons

Editor’s Note: This story about Jubal Early, remembered as a curmudgeon and brilliant military strategist during the Civil War, kicks off an occasional series in the Smith Mountain Eagle about

www.smithmountaineagle.com

It's interesting that Early apparently has descendants but you never hear them claiming descent the way you hear about someone being related to Lee, Grant, Pickett, etc. They have some sort of reunion but that's all I could find.

I don't know. Never got into the man's personal life. I think it was on here that someone commented that the rumor was that he had a child out of wedlock, which was a no-no. I don't know if it's true or not.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Its interesting actually. It's what I expected so far. But I'm getting the feeling that it comes from hunger.

Are you familiar with Early's leadership of the Southern Historical Society?

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I don't know. Never got into the man's personal life. I think it was on here that someone commented that the rumor was that he had a child out of wedlock, which was a no-no. I don't know if it's true or not.

He had four children out of wedlock and claimed them with his name. His girlfriend went on to marry someone else eventually and have another child, so a half-sibling to these four.

Lee put up (and that's the operative words) with him because at the lower levels he was a good fighter and leader, but he was not in on Lee's war counsels or anything like that. Morally, he was everything Lee wasn't and Lee wasn't about to invite him home to see the girls. Lee kept him at arm's length.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Early never seriously threatened to capture DC. He made a demonstration against it, but that is about it.

Thought Lee's strategic aim was for Early to threaten (not unrealistically capture) Washington, in order to take the heat off his Richmond-Petersburg lines, by compelling Grant to divert significant numbers away to protect the national capital. (Interestingly, Lee maintained this aim until Sep., '64). But Early was less than effective in accomplishing Lee's aim, when he merely tentatively and temporarily demonstrated against the fort defenses on the Washington outskirts. (When Early withdrew, the opportunity to again menace Washington was lost, as Grant sent divisions to reinforce the city).

Early's campaign in the Valley also proved to be costly. By the end of this campaign his command had suffered large irreplaceable losses, which included the deaths of highly capable subordinates like Rodes, Ramseur and Sandie Pendleton.

In summary. Thought Early's command performances at key times (e.g. Fort Stevens, Cedar Creek) during the campaign could be labelled as tentative or indecisive. In retrospect, believe he was probably not the appropriate commander to appoint to prosecute Lee's aim at this stage of the war. Also believe his less than satisfactory command performances in this campaign probably tarnished his overall reputation for being considered as an able high commander, at least at corps level.

 

[Sbc]

I think you will find that military historians cite Lee's diversion / loss of irreplaceable men & material as a major tactical error. The temporary diversion of the VI Corps had no tactical impact on the siege of Petersburg.

From Grant's point of view, Early's expedition was a prime opportunity to run down & destroy a significant element of Lee's army outside of earthworks.

That is what Sheridan did. Following that, Grant took the Shenandoah Valley permanently off the board. He ordered Sherman to cut off Lee's lifeline to Georgia & the Trans-Mississippi. Compared to that, Early's raid was, as a wise man said, a "…sideshow of a sideshow."

It was a matter of time after the Federals invested Petersburg. Can't agree with this assessment

 

[Rhea Cole]

It was a matter of time after the Federals invested Petersburg. Can't agree with this assessment

That is why Early's raid is deemed frittering away limited resources.