Most Controversial General

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Spoons Butler, a poor political general, but a wonderful profiteer from the very start. Pre war he returned to Massachusetts warned the governor that hostilities were very likely, and the militia should be readied.Then made sure his mill got the contract for the heavy wool. He would continue to use his powers through out the war for his own profit. To top it off, of course we all know about New Orleans.

Butler as mediocre general and self-serving but prescient political is pretty much the universal opinion of him.

Also, I think most people don't know about New Orleans. Or, more specifically, they only know the propaganda version.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think Bragg, like McClellan, would have the biggest help for their cause in a position other than field command.

Though McClellan was a fairly capable field commander, once you correct for the actual numerical strengths involved - both tactically (Antietam is a good offensive battle for example) and operationally (his manoeuvres in the Seven Days, in Maryland and in Loudoun Valley are quite fluid and well handled). It's perhaps not a coincidence that problems arise wherever McClellan isn't...

 

[Hannover]

I think we may have strayed away a little from the original premise. My original question accepted that McClellan has divided opinion in such a way that quite often only the extreme viewpoints prevail. I just wondered if there were other generals in the same position with a similar dichotomy of opinion. I think Sherman may be a good choice as he certainly divided opinion even though he felt he was doing what he always thought of as necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

 

[James N.]

Where's that perennial "favorite'' Braxton Bragg?

 

[Cornpone and Molasses]

I can't vote as Bragg is not listed.

Both Bragg and Hood should be on the list in my opinion.

 

[Lt R. Blackwell 4th Texas]

I think Bragg is becoming more controversial as the Lost Cause myth dies and more people come to the conclusion that warts and all he was one of the best commanders the rebellion had.

"One of the best..."?? Can't agree with that, although he wasn't as bad as traditionally portrayed. I think his Kentucky campaign in late summer of 1862 was one of the best moves of the war. After Murfreesboro he became much less effective, in large part due to the dysfunctional command structure in the AoT. But he also was poorly prepared for the Tullahoma campaign, got lucky at Chickamauga, and failed to prepare sound defensive positions on Missionary Ridge. Right now I am reading "Braxton Bragg: The Most Hated Man in the Confederacy", and it has shed a lot of light on him.

 

[Pollaco]

I'm curious why "someone else" hasn't gotten more votes in this poll with as much Anti-Bragg sentiment there is on this forum. Unless I've misread it Bragg is not on the list.

 

[Irishtom29]

"One of the best..."?? Can't agree with that, although he wasn't as bad as traditionally portrayed..

Well, by asserting he was one of the best the Confederacy had I don't mean to say he was very good. But I think he was more effective than the other western Confederate commanders, which isn't saying much. I think the Confederacy produced only a single good commander of a large army, Lee.

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

Dont believe Bragg was controversial.

He was elitist and weak at times that he needed to be brave.
He was smart but not good at making smart decisions at critical times. Somewhat like Sherman, he could (sometimes) see the big picture and have creative ides about solving the big issues ----but he had trouble with quick decisions that required changes minute by minute or hour by hour based on changing variables.

He was not good at picking subordinates based on those subordinates strengths and weaknesses. He saw the lineage or family or school before he saw the man.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I'm curious why "someone else" hasn't gotten more votes in this poll with as much Anti-Bragg sentiment there is on this forum. Unless I've misread it Bragg is not on the list.

But is there any Pro-Bragg sentiment?
I think the idea behind this thread is general where there is a big divide between the Anti and the Pro sentiment.
I get the impression that there is very few who are favorable about Bragg

 

[Pollaco]

But is there any Pro-Bragg sentiment?
I think the idea behind this thread is general where there is a big divide between the Anti and the Pro sentiment.
I get the impression that there is very few who are favorable about Bragg

I guess you're right, I misunderstood the idea behind this thread. I can't think of any "Pro-Bragg" stances on this forum.None who'll admit it anyway.

 

[David Knight]

As mentioned earlier I think anyone who is controversial for non command reason can be discounted. I don't find Little Mac as controversial because he was simply not a field army commander. He was a superb trainer and logistics man but he always seems to want to avoid fighting.

I rate political generals as the controversial ones as one is never quiet sure what their motivation was.

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

Bragg- as I stated previously- had some favorable qualities. Being all 'pro' or all 'anti' is not so easy. Each general has positive and negative abilities.
Bragg's development and execution of the movement of most his army from Tupelo to TN and then into KY was amazing. Could others have done the same? yes. but he did it. Once he arrived in Ky did he 'mess up'? Yes.
Sherman did a superior job in most of the ATL Campaign Did he 'mess up' at Kennesaw Mt? Yes.

J. E Johnston is more controversial than Bragg - in my opinion. Questions concerning his leadership in VA in 1862, TN in 1863, MS in 1863 and GA in 1864 abound. His leadership in NC in 1865 was, I believe, satisfactory. But he many chances to lead and lead with positive results He failed. He was a potential difference maker that didnt.

 

[A. Roy]

Very good arguments here for several generals as 'most controversial.' I voted for Forrest in the poll. What about him? I thought of Forrest because I've run into some devoted fans who praise him up and down as a great cavalry commander and a fearsome bad***, but many others who are appalled at the idolization of a slave-trader who (might have) presided over atrocities at Fort Pillow and led the KKK after the war. I personally find it intriguing that he might have undergone some profound changes in his later years.

Roy B.

 

[Saphroneth]

As mentioned earlier I think anyone who is controversial for non command reason can be discounted. I don't find Little Mac as controversial because he was simply not a field army commander. He was a superb trainer and logistics man but he always seems to want to avoid fighting.

I rate political generals as the controversial ones as one is never quiet sure what their motivation was.

I think the problem is that the historiography on McClellan is heavily distorted. For example the idea that McClellan was not a field army commander, or always seemed to want to avoid fighting - you just need to look at the Maryland campaign and the period after that to see the reasons why this doesn't work.
McClellan's advance to South Mountain on the 13th is swift, and he hits hard on the 14th; on the 17th he launches the attacks on the bloodiest day of the war, and he's even planning another attack in the north (sending for his last reserves to join 6th Corps there) when Burnside collapses and he calls it off. Subsequently McClellan pursues Lee over the Potomac on the 19th-20th (but gets repulsed by a Confederate force equivalent to a Union army corps, eight to nine brigades in total) and then makes preparations to cross the majority of his army into the Shenandoah to pursue Lee; Halleck prevents him from doing this by banning him from spending money on a permanent bridge (i.e. one which will survive a sudden flood, as a sudden flood destroys the one he'd set up beforehand).

I should also note that, adjusted for army size, the South Mountain and Antietam battles are by far the most successful attacks against Lee that anyone manages (up until Appomattox, which I didn't analyze because by that time Lee's army was in a state of impending collapse). McClellan achieves this not with a force he's been training for months, but with the thrown-together residue of three different armies - much of which had been routed at Second Bull Run - which is literally being organized en route (French's division forms very late, 12th Corps is still being referred to as "2nd (Banks') Corps, Army of Virginia", and 5th Corps marches all the way from Washington in only a few days to arrive on the field when it does).

 

[Cavalier]

Not knowing much about him myself, but based on the comments I see on this site, I voted for Forrest as the most controversial.

John

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

Bragg didnt think much of Forrest either.
Sherman and Grant and Halleck did but not Bragg.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Please note, this isn't who you like/dislike the most but who do you think has engendered the most controversy and differences of opinion.

Sherman and Forrest will always be at the top of almost every "liked/disliked " list relating to the American Civil War.
And they both were indeed controversial from an emotional view.

But I don't think that was what the OP was asking ....

This is a great poll, but will ultimately be subjective.
(Much like judging a beauty pageant )

Every General on the ballot has been debated repeatedly over the years on this site.
There are pros & cons for all of these guys.

The final result of the poll should be interesting.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

J. E Johnston is more controversial than Bragg - in my opinion. Questions concerning his leadership in VA in 1862, TN in 1863, MS in 1863 and GA in 1864 abound. His leadership in NC in 1865 was, I believe, satisfactory. But he many chances to lead and lead with positive results He failed. He was a potential difference maker that didnt

Johnson had good strategy and poor tactics. Not put in charge when he should have been (after Stones River) then assigned a task that he clearly wasn't up for (relieving the Siege of Vicksburg). He had some of the same contrast as McClellan: popular with the rank-and-file, but a terrible relationship with his president. He also has the "thank goodness he got wounded so Lee got to take over" factor and Jeff Davis hating him. (I wonder how different our understanding of the war would be if Jeff Davis never writes his two-volume apologia and thus never gets a chance to ingratiate himself into the Lost Cause?)

I've run into some devoted fans who praise him up and down as a great cavalry commander and a fearsome bad***

Forrest is praised as a cavalry commander, but really operated more as a raider with mounted infantry. He also was one of the few figures of the war to approach mythical status during the war (Lee, Stonewall, and Stuart being the others).

He wasn't good in a traditional cavalry role, not the least because he was basically insubordinate.

I should also note that, adjusted for army size, the South Mountain and Antietam battles are by far the most successful attacks against Lee that anyone manages

Given the relative forces (D. H. Hill's division vs as most of the AOTP), South Mountain certainly should have been a massive Union success. As it was, it proved an effective delaying action. Then the following day the AOTP didn't act with the haste they should have.

On a related note: I would very much like to see someone write a book that covers the AOTP and ANV in depth from Sept 21 to Nov 5, 1862. In other words, from when the ANV was safely across the Potomac until McClellan was relieved of duty. Something in the vein of Jeffrey William Hunt's Meade and Lee After Gettysburg: From Falling Waters to Culpeper Court House, July 1863. I don't think there's any in-depth coverage of this period, especially not with maps.

 

[Saphroneth]

Given the relative forces (D. H. Hill's division vs as most of the AOTP), South Mountain certainly should have been a massive Union success. As it was, it proved an effective delaying action. Then the following day the AOTP didn't act with the haste they should have.

DH Hill's division against 9th and 1st Corps; they couldn't fit the rest of the force down the road to get involved, and indeed it takes hours to squeeze 9th and 1st Corps up to the fighting front in the first place. Later on Longstreet joins in.

In terms of pre-straggle PFD (which is fair because most of the straggling takes place after this point):

DH Hill is about 10,000.
9th Corps and 1st Corps combined are about 30,000 PFD (which is the available strength once the whole of both corps have had time to arrive and deploy).
Longstreet's division(s) when they arrive are about 14,000.

3:1 odds defending a mountain pass is not all that bad a situation (it's certainly better than doing so in an open plain) though this situation was never actually going on at any specific time to the best of my understanding (i.e. the whole of 1st and 9th Corps hadn't had time to arrive before DR Jones, Hood and Evans start to turn up and join in). The CEV numbers for it are around .64 (including Cramptons Gap) which is pretty good on the attack against Lee especially as this doesn't adjust for the mountain pass (which prevents the force with superior numbers from employing that superiority, at least once the force with smaller numbers has enough that they can form a complete block across the gap).


The next day everyone gets moving in a timely fashion except 9th Corps, which can probably be laid on Cox.

Cox delayed considerably after getting the order (in his write up of the situation after the fact he claimed that he didn't get the order to move until nearly noon), so when Sykes arrived he pushed through first. It is not clear whether Burnside or Cox erred, but the formal written order to Burnside was to "advance with your whole corps upon boonsborough" and was dated 8AM; if Cox says he didn't get the order until nearly noon, either Burnside erred in not passing it on or Cox erred in not following it.

The other column to the north sees Richardson passed through first as a fresh division, then 1st Corps follows, and Sykes (first through to the south) and Richardson (first through to the north) are at the Antietam by the late afternoon - an advance of 7-8 miles from the positions at the end of the 14th, and more importantly an advance to the point where they have to stop and "go firm" to await reinforcements, as Longstreet + DH Hill combined outnumber Sykes + Richardson considerably.

On a related note: I would very much like to see someone write a book that covers the AOTP and ANV in depth from Sept 21 to Nov 5, 1862. In other words, from when the ANV was safely across the Potomac until McClellan was relieved of duty. Something in the vein of Jeffrey William Hunt's Meade and Lee After Gettysburg: From Falling Waters to Culpeper Court House, July 1863. I don't think there's any in-depth coverage of this period, especially not with maps.

I've done a look at it, if that would help? Starts here:
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/putting-all-the-mcclellan-stuff-in-one-place.182980/post-2387484

And goes through the rest of the thread until I start doing the summing-up.