Fourth-greatest C.S. general?

Who Was the 'Fourth Greatest' CSA General?

  • J. E. B. Stuart

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • T. J. Jackson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J. Longstreet

    Votes: 14 25.9%
  • N. B. Forrest

    Votes: 19 35.2%
  • W. Hampton

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • A. P. Hill

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • D. H. Hill

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J. E. Johnston

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • P. R. Cleberne

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • J. A. Early

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • R. S. Ewell

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • J. B. Hood

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • Braxton Bragg

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • P. G. T. Beauregard

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • Total voters
    54

Billy1977

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Location
Flippin, Arkansas (near Yellville)
Hello everybody, I have a question regarding who is considered by the general consensus of historians to be the fourth-greatest Confederate general of the war. Now I think we can all agree that Gen. Robert E. Lee is typically considered to be the greatest, with Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson considered the runner-up. J.E.B. Stuart I am presuming is regarded as the third-greatest of the C.S.A. generals (correct me if I'm wrong) but who is thought to be the fourth-greatest? Maybe A.P. Hill? I'm just asking, I'm not devoted to this answer of A.P. Hill being it, so I can promise I am not going to argue the point with anyone, just looking for some input. Great thanks to whomever can answer this for me.
 
Fourth greatest? That's a new one! :D Are you meaning the eastern theater? If so, I wouldn't mind putting Longstreet third and Stuart fourth. Actually, think I'd put Stuart second. He got the info the others needed to be first, third and fourth!
After one leaves the eastern theater, there really is only one really good rebel general: Forrest.
 
You'd have to define "greatest" for me. There were some fine general officers in the Confederacy--where would we put John B Gordon for instance? Or, as mentioned above, Patrick Cleburne ? I'm always leery of these kinds of "rankings" because they are often more of a "gut feeling" than based on qualitative or quantitative, ie., measurable criteria.
Do we put a cavalry general officer, commanding far smaller units above an infantry general officer that commanded far more men in far more stressful situations?
What definable characteristic(s) would put an A.P. Hill ahead of a Longstreet, a Ewell, or an Early?
Speculation for speculators.
 
A fair number of historians I have read (sorry can't recall which) say that Wade Hampton was an improvement over Stuart. If so, then Stuart was not number 3.

Wade Hampton sure was good, and he's second only to Forrest for personal combat kills. :eek: I think what might knock him down a half peg is Lee didn't know him as well as he knew Stuart. Stuart was really Lee's most trusted subordinate and he was a master collector of accurate, real time intelligence which Lee could masterfully analyze. Hampton couldn't match Stuart on that account - almost nobody could, really.
 
Forrest would be MY 4th Greatest CSA General.
Time and time again he defeated much larger forces in battle. By bold & quick movement, accompanied by a genius for terrain & for surprising his opponents, he tied down or diverted large opposing Armies.
There is a story that a year or two after the ACW, a visiting Englishman asked Gen. Robert E. Lee: “ Who was the Greatest Soldier produced by the War.” Without hesitation Lee replied: “A Gentleman in Tennessee whom I have never met. His name is Forrest “
Even Sherman said that Forrest was “ the most remarkable Man the Civil War produced on either side”.
 
...Stuart ... was a master collector of accurate, real time intelligence which Lee could masterfully analyze. Hampton couldn't match Stuart on that account ...

I´ll throw in that during the whole of Stuart`s career as cavalry general Hampton was serving under his command which means that he has a share, if not more, on at least some of that intelligence collecting, too.
 
My thought is that in order to make these kind of comparisons, it is necessary to compare on the basis of the type of command the general was associated with. In other words, I think you must rank generals who commanded corps and army separately from those who commanded divisions and brigades. The reason this distinction is necessary is because someone like A.P. Hill would be highly considered as a division commander, whereas at the corps level, he would not be.
 
There are no subjective criteria to measure "Generalship". I am certain that if one asks 10 people about their top 5 Confederate (or Union for that mater) Generals, you might find 10 different answers.

All subjective and, really, it does not matter much...
 
I´ll throw in that during the whole of Stuart`s career as cavalry general Hampton was serving under his command which means that he has a share, if not more, on at least some of that intelligence collecting, too.

Their loss was a big deal for Lee. For example, that unfortunate shad bake would never have occurred under either of them! Fitzhugh Lee was a good cavalryman but Lee needed a great one.
 
Back
Top