Most Overrated General?

[diane]

I love Halleck. Easily the most interesting guy in the war. If I was smart, or not plain lazy, maybe I'd write something on him. The O.R. and what's been written about him differ greatly.

That would be a welcome addition here! Halleck didn't win spectacular battles or look very pretty - rather homely fellow! - and wasn't personally attractive but he sure was the key figure in the war for the Union side.

 

[CSA Today]

Between 3500 and 4000 for the assault on June 3rd.

So Is Rhea saying Grant suffered 9,000 -9,500 casualties from June 4th to 12th, Grant suffered no casualties during that period or is he saying the battle of Cold Harbor ended on June 3rd, 1864?

 

[rbasin]

That would be a welcome addition here! Halleck didn't win spectacular battles or look very pretty - rather homely fellow! - and wasn't personally attractive but he sure was the key figure in the war for the Union side.

But, I'd have to research things that were more important than battles, i.e. Supplies, Railroads, horses, pay, etc. and for that I really have no idea where to begin

 

[Civil War Scholar]

One note for Keyser Soze,
Rhea begins his history at May 26, right? The Battle of North Anna was over. It stopped during the previous day. The only engagements prior to Cold Harbor were some cavalry ones, Haw's Shop and Old Church which cost to both sides little more than 1500. The infantry clash at the Totopotomoy was also minor. The most those battles would have cost Grant is 6000, counting the clash on June 1. So, surely 7000 is the figure for the June 3rd assault.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[rbasin]

Reading this thread about Grant specifically, I've been thinking, was Grant over-rated, or did he just have excellent press after the war through today?

 

[diane]

But, I'd have to research things that were more important than battles, i.e. Supplies, Railroads, horses, pay, etc. and for that I really have no idea where to begin

You could start with his epic legal trek through California, making sure of whose land was whose! Reddick McKee's journey, for instance. He was Halleck's gofer and hurried around California with a fistful of treaties for the tribes to sign. I actually think his California adventures had more impact on the country as a whole than anything he did during the CW.

 

[rbasin]

You could start with his epic legal trek through California, making sure of whose land was whose! Reddick McKee's journey, for instance. He was Halleck's gofer and hurried around California with a fistful of treaties for the tribes to sign. I actually think his California adventures had more impact on the country as a whole than anything he did during the CW.

Agreed. Too bad he couldn't beat Fremont for Cali's first Senator.

 

[KeyserSoze]

So Is Rhea saying Grant suffered 9,000 -9,500 casualties from June 4th to 12th, Grant suffered no casualties during that period or is he saying the battle of Cold Harbor ended on June 3rd, 1864?

No, you are saying Grant suffered 13,000 casualties during that period. Rhea has done the research that shows that casualty figure to be as fanciful as most other Lost Cause stories.

 

[CSA Today]

No, you are saying Grant suffered 13,000 casualties during that period. Rhea has done the research that shows that casualty figure to be as fanciful as most other Lost Cause stories.

You seem to put a lot of reliance on what Rhea has to say, surely he must have given Grant's casualties for the Battle of Cold Harbor (May 31-June 12)?

 

[JerseyBart]

What order did Longstreet disobey at Gettysburg?

The one about daring to be critical of Lee and take a job from his friend Grant.

 

[Nathanb1]

Interesting list but DH Hill certainly doesn't seem over rated. If anything he seems to me to be under rated and Sedgewick was a very well liked man but I haven't noticed many people giving him much credit as a great general.

Amen on D.H.Hill. That guy (oops, that's trademarked for someone else!) was amazing at so many battles. I'm thinking it was just his nasty personality......can we say OCD? Then he got shuttled off and sort of forgotten. To me, he was the backbone of a lot of the success enjoyed by Lee and Jackson...one of the saving graces of Antietam, too. I'd say underrated is a good point.

 

[diane]

Amen on D.H.Hill. That guy (oops, that's trademarked for someone else!) was amazing at so many battles. I'm thinking it was just his nasty personality......can we say OCD? Then he got shuttled off and sort of forgotten. To me, he was the backbone of a lot of the success enjoyed by Lee and Jackson...one of the saving graces of Antietam, too. I'd say underrated is a good point.

D H Hill wasn't impulsive like the other Hill! He could get the job done, too. I don't think his finest hour was Chickamauga, but he'd allowed himself to get stuck in the hog waller in the AoT command. His problem, in the same way the original That Guy gets criticized, is he didn't work and play well with others. Not to mention his acid sense of humor was often not appreciated....

 

[Nathanb1]

D H Hill wasn't impulsive like the other Hill! He could get the job done, too. I don't think his finest hour was Chickamauga, but he'd allowed himself to get stuck in the hog waller in the AoT command. His problem, in the same way the original That Guy gets criticized, is he didn't work and play well with others. Not to mention his acid sense of humor was often not appreciated....

I was once told by my boss that I was "intolerant" of other people who didn't work as hard as I did and didn't have the knowledge base I did. She was absolutely right. It's still difficult for me to tolerate anyone who doesn't work their tail off and try their hardest. I will give a student all sorts of bonuses and help if they'll work. Not so much for the lazy ones. And I've mellowed a LOT.

 

[KeyserSoze]

You seem to put a lot of reliance on what Rhea has to say, surely he must have given Grant's casualties for the Battle of Cold Harbor (May 31-June 12)?

You seem to discount what he had to say. Disappointing, but not surprising. But I'm afraid I can't help you. Rhea's fourth volume on the campaign covers the period of May 26 through June 3. Rhea did not publish any casualty figures for most of the period you're looking for.

 

[CSA Today]

You seem to discount what he had to say. Disappointing, but not surprising. But I'm afraid I can't help you. Rhea's fourth volume on the campaign covers the period of May 26 through June 3. Rhea did not publish any casualty figures for most of the period you're looking for.

Thanks

 

[KeyserSoze]

One note for Keyser Soze,
Rhea begins his history at May 26, right? The Battle of North Anna was over. It stopped during the previous day. The only engagements prior to Cold Harbor were some cavalry ones, Haw's Shop and Old Church which cost to both sides little more than 1500. The infantry clash at the Totopotomoy was also minor. The most those battles would have cost Grant is 6000, counting the clash on June 1. So, surely 7000 is the figure for the June 3rd assault.
Civil War Scholar.

As mentioned before, Rhea has written a four volume history of the Overland campaign and covers the period of May 5th through June 3rd. You are clinging to the wildly inflated figure of 13,000 casualties for Cold Harbor alone. Rhea shows that the actual total was less that a third of that.

 

[James N.]

For me, two are the most overrated generals of the Civil War, one Confederate and one Union.
1) Ulysses S. Grant. Despite the popular belief, Grant was not the victor Boonekemper wants to show us. He committed a good deal of blunders, even in his best moments. For example, he was forced back at Belmont, his flanks almost crumbled before C.F. Smith's arrival at Ft. Donelson, was surprised at Shiloh and Prentiss saved him by standing fast and didn't play an active role in the Iuka- Corinth theater. Yet, he committed his worst errors in Virginia, such as being surprised and flanked at Wilderness, made costly and mostly disjointed attacks at Spotsylvania, was saved due to Lee's illness at North Anna and himself regretted his assault at Cold Harbor. In conclusion, Grant was a good fighter, yet he made many often overlooked mistakes.
2) James Longstreet. Lee's "old war horse" has many cons as a general. Whenever he was left to exercise independent command, in detached duty at Suffolk and against Burnside at Knoxville, he performed lacklusterly wasting time and men. Overall, his deliberateness was his main defect. On August 29, 1862 he refused three times to perform an assault which would probably crush Pope and destroy the Army of Virginia, perfecting the Confederate victory at Second Manassas. Yet, his most serious error was disobeying Lee's order at Gettysburg. Having Longstreet do his duty, the Union lines should have been broken and the Army of the Potomac demoralized in its own home country.
Think about what I have said and tell me your opinions.
Civil War Scholar.

No arguments about the problems of Longstreet - But with Grant, the mistakes you cite are tactical rather than strategic and that ignores the fact that Grant was directing the strategic moves of the army while leaving the execution ( pun not intended! ) to the commander of the Army of the Potomac, George Meade. In this convoluted chain-of-command ( not exactly of Grant's making ), Meade served in effect as Grant's executive officer and most of the tactical decisions were made by him, Burnside, and their subordinates, much as Lee had done with his own subordinates at Gettysburg.

 

[JPWalton]

It strikes me that all this talk about how Forrest and Sheridan were bad cavalry leaders because they allegedly were failures at traditional cavalry roles of screening and scouting is flawed statement, and for reasons that would lead no actual cavalry officer to make it.

Keep in mind that all arms of a service like to think that they are capable of striking a decisive blow in battle, and not that they are merely supporting the arm that strikes that blow. What self-respecting horse soldier would ever pin the lion's share of his assessment of a fellow cavalryman on supporting the infantry, let alone all of it?

Of course, American military practice before the war treated cavalry as mounted infantry, and technology made massed charges of heavy cavalry for shock value a thing of the past. Yet dismissing fighting battles and raiding is basically to look at cavalry through a foot soldier's eyes: it discounts that which isn't useful to a different arm of the service, not what matters to the arm in question.

This would be akin to a historian of WW2 arguing that strategic bombing was a waste of resources, the generals who fought the campaign were therefore second-rate, and that the U.S. and British should have stuck with air superiority and close air support the way the Germans did. Some make that argument, but it's not one that gains a lot of traction, and certainly not one shared by the U.S. Air Force, even back when it was the U.S. Army Air Force.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Keyser Soze,
You have told me what Rhea has stated. I again ask you, why do the Official Records of the US War Department say the figure was 13000? Did Grant and Meade want to maximize their losses? Sounds impossible to me ears.
James N. Grant supervised Meade's actions. Meade always deferred to the judgment of Grant. It was Grant who ordered the costly attacks at Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. Meade's decision, either strategic or tactical was carried out with the approval of Grant. This makes sense, since Grant was the commander-in-chief and Meade an army commander.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[james99]

Reading this thread about Grant specifically, I've been thinking, was Grant over-rated, or did he just have excellent press after the war through today?

No, he won battles.