Most Controversial General

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

The final results of this poll will be very interesting.

 

[GwilymT]

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.
N
The final result of the poll should be interesting.

I agree, it's ultimately subjective but hopefully it can offer an avenue for us all to look past our own preferences . Heck, my vote is for Sherman and I don't think anyone has ever accused me of not being a "unionist".

 

[GwilymT]

After a day, McClellan holds a heavy lead with a three way tie for second between Sickles, Sherman, & Forrest.

Grant, Rosecrans, & Sheridan have no votes.

"Some Else" has two votes, I believe these are for Bragg.

 

[Saphroneth]

Which is weird; I don't even think McClellan is especially controversial in terms of people holding differing viewpoints on him. I know full well that my own view on his competence is not the mainstream. (I think the mainstream is incorrect, which is a different thing.)

 

[gregorymiller708@comcast.]

I think DURING the war the obvious answer is Butler.

 

[Crazy Delawares]

I voted for Sickles. He was controversial before the war, during the war, and after the war. The man was a walking definition of controversial.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I voted for Sickles. He was controversial before the war, during the war, and after the war. The man was a walking definition of controversial.

Of all the candidates for "most controversial", Sickles is the only one who I think would particularly enjoy it.

 

[GwilymT]

Of all the candidates for "most controversial", Sickles is the only one who I think would particularly enjoy it.

Absolutely! One can't help but think that dirty dan would relish the title.

 

[gregorymiller708@comcast.]

I think DURING the war the obvious answer is Butler.

I thought about Sickles, but decided he was beyond controversial and was just a ******. Butler on the other hand, was an obvious political general diliked in the North and South.

 

[Jamieva]

I'm not sure you can all Bragg "controversial" because he has so few defenders. To me controversial means you have a reasonable amount of people on either side of the argument. I tried to narrow down my choices on each side to vote and ended up at McClellan.

For the Confederacy it's either Longstreet or Johnston
For the Union it's either McClellan or Sickles. The problem with Sickles is that it really boils down to Gettysburg and Chancellorsville for him.

 

[Jamieva]

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.

Where exactly did Bragg pick his subordinates? He was handed Polk and Hardee he didn't choose them.

 

[neyankee61]

John Pope. Completely divided the officer corps, caused problems even after relieved, cast doubts about the men who served in his army.( See comments MCClellan made about the 1st Corps early in Antietam Campaign) Seems there are no neutrals about him

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

Bragg was handed some less than stellar generals, that is true. But he chose Wheeler over Forrest.
Forrest was also handed some less than stellar subordinates - some given to him by Bragg- like Pegram and Adams but he managed to get the most out of their lesser abilities. I cant recall Bragg being able to do the same.

 

[CaptSpook]

The answer to the question depends I think on how we define divided opinion/controversy and how we measure it. For example if it's the opinion among laypeople I think Grant comes high on the list, simply because he's one most people have heard of and there's the two simpler schools of thought about him (pro and anti).

Among people who are involved in serious historical discussion it varies depending on time, obviously; I believe that Gettysburg (and The Killer Angels) had a significant impact on the perception of several generals just as one example. Then there's the ones who are written off as a simple story who probably should not be.


I for example think McClellan was much better than most do, but I would not consider him a general who's provoked much controversy or differences of opinion simply because I think the view on him is quite uniform these days (at least among laypeople - among those who study his campaigns it's rather more mixed as far as I can tell). That someone is a cliche of civil war historiography doesn't exactly speak well to him being the subject of controversy, after all.

By its definition, an opinion is purely subjective and dependent on one's perspective.

I tend to agree with those whose opinions are based on in depth knowledge of the past, meaning, primary and secondary source materials rather than trendy, contemporary narratives that usually have some political motivation behind it.

For myself, the question of which General Officer generates the most controversy is so broad a question that I would have to retreat with the answer: "It depends", as some of you have done here.

cheers...

 

[Crazy Delawares]

Of all the candidates for "most controversial", Sickles is the only one who I think would particularly enjoy it.

I believe you are correct!

 

[General Butler]

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.
If we were talking post war my choice would have to be Longstreet.

Hold on here.
There is no proof of Butler stealing spoons or the church silver. In fact the LSU press had a great mini book large pamphlet that showed Butler turned over the silver he did use to Banks and that was never seen again.
So the spoons thing is a myth...period.
Did he play fast and loose with Lincolns approval to shore up a ters in the south and keep some form of economy going...yes.
Was he the only person. Who took advantage of war time? Hardly. In fact Butler forbade officers from resigning only to come back as a Dept. sutler.
Ok...he saw that the military needed cloth and cloth was either coming in from overseas or was shoddy...yep he bought the mill and produced the cloth. Is seizing on an opportunity wrong? To my knowledge there isnt a journal out there that process Butler was price gauging.
After the war he was a business man and dang good one with the help of his contacts.
So?
Do you mean to suggest no one then or now grabs an opportunity when they see it? Come on man!
The Union Cartridge Co...Cape Ann granite...the Mill...silver mines all made his very wealthy.
Did you want him waving a sword and leading soldiers forward...no.
Did you want him watching the backs of his troops..heck ya.

 

[A. Roy]

There is no proof of Butler stealing spoons or the church silver. In fact the LSU press had a great mini book large pamphlet that showed Butler turned over the silver he did use to Banks and that was never seen again.
So the spoons thing is a myth...period.
Did he play fast and loose with Lincolns approval to shore up a ters in the south and keep some form of economy going...yes.
Was he the only person. Who took advantage of war time? Hardly. In fact Butler forbade officers from resigning only to come back as a Dept. sutler.

I was hoping you might weigh in here! Gen Butler does seem controversial to me, as he provokes strong reactions, sometimes negative and sometimes positive. But in dimensions very different from someone like McLellan or Lee.

Roy B.

 

[edfranksphd]

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.

Bravo. Well said. I think that makes 2 of us voting for Bragg! : )

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Gen Butler does seem controversial to me, as he provokes strong reactions, sometimes negative and sometimes positive. But in dimensions very different from someone like McLellan or Lee.

Roy B.

Agreed.

(Whether or not) he was a good or bad general officer/administrator is not the question.

@GwilymT 's poll asks "most controversial".
General Butler does qualify under that criteria.
He's the only general (that I'm aware) ... who had his image emblazoned on the bottom of chamber pots.
That's sounds to me like Butler was perhaps controversial.



I don't know much about the man, but overall ... he seemed to be a decent fellow.

One thing I've noticed about some of these guys in the poll, a few acted before they thought about long term consequences.

 

[J C J Barefoot]

Controversy is defined as: "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Under the definition it would be Forrest because all the others though labeled by some degree or another with disputation concerning their generalship, no one is more so than Forrest and all are less so.
Forrest is identified by the great Shelby Foote as the single authentic genius on the Confederate side ( Lincoln on the Union side). He raised and funded his own volunteers. He rose the fastest of any commander from the ranks to Generalship. He created attack principles that were studied and even followed in WWII.
He murdered men in cold blood before the war. He was a wicked, brutal slave trader. He helped blacks financially after the war. We don't know for sure what his personal role was at Ft. Pillow but it most likely was somewhere between tolerance and and full approval. But , again it's in dispute. He threatened Bragg with murder. Why did Bragg not arrest him? Finally, the stories about his being the grand "Pooh Ba" of the KKK ( for which modernist anti-slavery types despise his guts) are crossed against his resignation thereof and the clear and seemingly very real late life conversion to Protestant Christianity. His late life was passive and compliant. He encouraged black-white reconciliation. Was it real?
What was he? Who was he at his core? Which legends are true about the man? What can be proved from the record and what can not? He evokes a strong reaction—and mostly so on this site.