Most Overrated General?

[James N.]

I am citing an article from "Civil War Times" a few years back by an Englishman who used Grant and Lee's entire casualty figures throughout the entire war. "Wilderness through Cold Harbor" is cherry picking, I would think.

A good point since Grant's significant victories at Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chattanooga were won with a relatively low "butcher's bill". The Confederate losses on the Peninsula, Antietam, and especially Gettysburg are certainly nothing to sneeze at either!

 

[rpkennedy]

He seems to have done fine in the Chattanooga and Atlanta Campaigns until his resentment over the promotion of his nemesis loser Oliver O. Howard to command the Army of the Tennessee got the better of him, causing him to resign. He should've stayed - it was his former IV Corps ( originally the XI and XII Corps from the Army of the Potomac he had brought west from Virginia to Chattanooga ) that actually occupied Atlanta once Hood finally pulled out after Jonesboro. Fighting Joe could've actually had a great bloodless victory that might've finally erased the stain of Chancellorsville!

Didn't the Eleventh and Twelfth Corps form the Twentieth Corps?

R

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Insubordinate, thereby useless in any capacity other than in independent command. Largely incompetent for the traditional role of cavalry: scouting, screening and reconnaissance. Got whipped when he actually fought against competent Union commanders. Not a real cavalryman in any possible sense of the word. Not much more than Mosby on a larger scale: a big nuisance that caused resources to be diverted, but not much else.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Didn't the Eleventh and Twelfth Corps form the Twentieth Corps?

R

Correct.

 

[CSA Today]

I am citing an article from "Civil War Times" a few years back by an Englishman who used Grant and Lee's entire casualty figures throughout the entire war. "Wilderness through Cold Harbor" is cherry picking, I would think.

Citing the Overland Campaign "Wilderness through Cold Harbor" where Lee and Grant actually fought against each other is hardly cherry picking nor is articles in the Civil War Times always that convincing. It would be helpful if you identified the author of your article, maybe then we could have a more informed understanding. An article in the Civil War Times by an Englishman doesn't tell us much.

 

[Elennsar]

Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Insubordinate, thereby useless in any capacity other than in independent command. Largely incompetent for the traditional role of cavalry: scouting, screening and reconnaissance. Got whipped when he actually fought against competent Union commanders. Not much more than Mosby on a larger scale: a big nuisance that caused resources to be diverted, but not much else.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not arguing - I just want to know what made you come to that conclusion.

And something I'd like to note to my fellow students:
Reading Connelly's history of the Army of Tennessee, Forrest is practically invisible in 1862 and 1863.

He's mentioned now and then, but it's nothing like how a history of the ANV's campaigns can't go a chapter without talking about Stuart.

I don't know much about the other histories of the AoT on the whole, but in light of what Eric said, that is just too striking not to mention.

 

[Billy Yank]

Citing the Overland Campaign "Wilderness through Cold Harbor" where Lee and Grant actually fought against each other is hardly cherry picking nor is articles in the Civil War Times always that convincing. It would be helpful if you identified the author of your article, maybe then we could have a more informed understanding. An article in the Civil War Times by an Englishman doesn't tell us much.

My compliments Major CSA, I will find the cited article tonight and furnish tomorrow, but I must point-out that casualty figures are not opinions from an Englishman, they are historical facts.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not arguing - I just want to know what made you come to that conclusion.

The best advice I can give you is to read my friend Dave Powell's book, Failure in the Saddle. You will get all the detail you could possibly want with respect to the lack of ability as a cavalryman.

http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Saddle-Confederate-Chickamauga-Campaign/dp/1932714871/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406148862&sr=8-1&keywords=failure in the saddle

As to getting whipped, all of his major victories were against rank incompetents. Try Tupelo, for instance, where Ben Grierson was in command, or Selma, where he got thrashed by Wilson.

 

[Elennsar]

The best advice I can give you is to read my friend Dave Powell's book, Failure in the Saddle. You will get all the detail you could possibly want with respect to the lack of ability as a cavalryman.

http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Saddle-Confederate-Chickamauga-Campaign/dp/1932714871/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406148862&sr=8-1&keywords=failure in the saddle

I have to say, given the size of Confederate cavalry forces in that location and period, that they accomplished so little still bewilders me. Hopefully Powell can clarify.

As to getting whipped, all of his major victories were against rank incompetents. Try Tupelo, for instance, where Ben Grierson was in command, or Selma, where he got thrashed by Wilson.

And while Wilson certainly had superior resources, superior resources + inferior generalship has a strong tendency to mean a more, not less, humiliating outcome for the Union.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I have to say, given the size of Confederate cavalry forces in that location and period, that they accomplished so little still bewilders me. Hopefully Powell can clarify.

Trust me when I say that he will do so amply. It's a great book.

 

[Elennsar]

Trust me when I say that he will do so amply. It's a great book.

I do trust you, I just wish to emphasize the extent to which something like this is needed to make sense of it to me.

Speaking of of overrated generals elsewhere, judging by your book you regard Sheridan as another. Do you think that would be as true if looking only at his career in the Western theater?

He seems to have been an even worse subordinate to Meade than Forrest in the Confederacy and with less tactical sense (At least with cavalry).

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I do trust you, I just wish to emphasize the extent to which something like this is needed to make sense of it to me.

Speaking of of overrated generals elsewhere, judging by your book you regard Sheridan as another. Do you think that would be as true if looking only at his career in the Western theater?

He seems to have been an even worse subordinate to Meade than Forrest in the Confederacy and with less tactical sense (At least with cavalry).

He was a capable infantry division commander. He was grossly incompetent as a Cavalry Corps commander, and his insubordination left him completely useless to Meade. If you examine the record, they only served together for about a month after the Richmond Raid. He was a really bad human being.

 

[CSA Today]

My compliments Major CSA, I will find the cited article tonight and furnish tomorrow, but I must point-out that casualty figures are not opinions from an Englishman, they are historical facts.

Englishmen make great historians, I'm not questioning that. Since you apparently think face to face encounters between Lee and Grant is cherry picking, I would like to know more about what your author has to say, and what he is comparing to what if he is not comparing actual battle contact between the two-- so any additional information is welcome.

 

[Elennsar]

He was a capable infantry division commander. He was grossly incompetent as a Cavalry Corps commander, and his insubordination left him completely useless to Meade. If you examine the record, they only served together for about a month after the Richmond Raid. He was a really bad human being.

What baffles me there - Grant didn't just agree with Sheridan as far as what he would do. He - and I can't imagine him being oblivious enough to not realize he was doing it, even if he wasn't doing it for that purpose - undermined Meade in saying (roughly) "So Sheridan wants to do something? Let him do it." after Sheridan has acted in a way that can be politely described as inappropriate.

Longstreet protesting a moment too long to Lee is one thing. Sheridan throwing a hissy fit because Meade expects the cavalry to serve the interests of the main army instead of its commander's longing for a fight . . .

"Failing in the most basic responsibilities assigned to a soldier" isn't half as harsh as he deserves even before we address the outcome of that or his campaigning against Early.

 

[JPWalton]

By putting Forrest at the top of his list and then mentioning Chamberlain at all, Gallagher is showing himself to be full of sh*te. Up to his eyeballs, in fact.

Forrest was one of the best cavalry generals of the war. Period. In terms of raiding and fighting, he was undeniably the best. Others certainly surpassed him in intelligence collecting and providing army security, but those are only two jobs in the cavalry roster.

As lionized as Chamberlain is, no one rates him past the jobs he actually carried out. He is admired as a heroic figure, not as a brilliant strategist. In those terms, let's face it, where someone does something is every bit as important as what he actually does.

Jesus! Reading that article has me so boiling it has actually taken Gallagher down several notches in my estimation. I was thinking of picking up his book about Chancellorsville, but now I don't think I will!

Here's Gary Gallegher's answer, http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-overrated-civil-war-officers.htm.

 

[JPWalton]

The thing is, no one actually thinks very highly of Henry Halleck.

For my 2 cents worth, see this post from the Civil War Trust on Henry Halleck :

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/henry-w-halleck.html

 

[JPWalton]

I wouldn't say he never accomplished a "great tactical feat," but it would be absolutely correct to say he never proved himself in independent field command. So, while he may or may not have made a good corps commander, the people who think he could have won the war as an army commander in place of Hood haven't got a leg to stand on. Ditto for Forrest, although Forrest at least had the independent field standing at the division level.

Even though he is among my favorites, I would say Patrick R. Cleburne is a bit overrated. There is no doubt he was great brigade and division commander, but he should not be praised as the "Stonewall of the west."

Cleburne was without a doubt a natural leader to his men, but he never accomplished any great tactical feat like those of Stonewall Jackson or Grant, mostly due to his position as a division commander, though he is often given equal praise. Many suspect he would make a great corps commander, but the only instance where he temporarily took command of a corps (Hardee's Corps at Jonesboro) didn't turn out so well. The praise should actually be given to the brigadiers, colonels, NCOs, and privates that made up Cleburne's division. There were other division and brigade commanders of the AoT that were just as daring as Cleburne.

 

[Billy Yank]

Englishmen make great historians, I'm not questioning that. Since you apparently think face to face encounters between Lee and Grant is cherry picking, I would like to know more about what your author has to say, and what he is comparing to what if he is not comparing actual battle contact between the two-- so any additional information is welcome.

My compliments Major CSA, Please. Let's not twist this. My cited comparison is not a head-to-head comparison of actual contact between the two, and not intended as such. This is something you inserted. The point of the article is Lee's total number of casualties in all battles fought versus Grant's total number of casualties in all battles fought. Lee's casualties outnumber Grant's which, as a result, prompt me to assess Gen. Lee as being overrated. I also rush to point-out that because of limited resources, Lee simply did not have the resources available to him - making casualties even more critical.

***** However in commenting on the "Overland Campaign," by this stage of the war, Grant did employ a "berserker" or "brute force" strategy where he hoped to put an end to the hostilities by taking advantage of his superior numerical and seemingly unlimited resources. His reputation suffered dearly, but it hastened the end of the war.*****

I'll put-up the side-by-side comparison tomorrow for your edification.

 

[Elennsar]

By putting Forrest at the top of his list and then mentioning Chamberlain at all, Gallagher is showing himself to be full of sh*te. Up to his eyeballs, in fact.

Forrest was one of the best cavalry generals of the war. Period. In terms of raiding and fighting, he was undeniably the best. Others certainly surpassed him in intelligence collecting and providing army security, but those are only two jobs in the cavalry roster.

Per a professionally trained (And thus familiar with how "the use of cavalry" was understood at the time) officer of some competence:

Reliable information of the enemy's position or movements, which is absolutely necessary to the commander of an army to successfully conduct a campaign, must be largely furnished by the cavalry. The duty of the cavalry when an engagement is imminent is specially imperative—to keep in touch with the enemy and observe and carefully note, with time of day or night, every slightest indication and report it promptly to the commander of the army. On the march, cavalry forms in advance, flank and rear guards and supplies escorts, couriers and guides. Cavalry should extend well away from the main body on the march like antennae to mask its movements and to discover any movement of the enemy.


Cavalry should never hug the army on the march, especially in a thickly wooded country, because the horses being restricted to the roads, the slightest obstacle in advance is liable to cause a blockade against the march of infantry. Moreover, in camp it furnishes outposts, vedettes and scouts. In battle it attacks the enemy's flanks and rear, and above all other duties in battle, it secures the fruits of victory by vigorous and unrelenting pursuit. In defeat it screens the withdrawal of the army and by its fortitude and activity baffles the enemy. In addition to these active military duties of the cavalry, it receives flags of truce, interrogates spies, deserters and prisoners, makes and improves topographical maps, destroys and builds bridges, obstructs and opens communications, and obtains or destroys forage and supplies.
- William W. Averrell, taken from http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=2147

Forrest was certainly a skillful raider. How good a fighter he was against the Union A team I leave to the experts. But to dismiss intelligence gathering and providing army security as "but two jobs in the cavalry roster" is tantamount to saying that being blind and deaf is only a minor inconvenience.

 

[JPWalton]

It seems to me that most of the arguments mounted against Forrest would be best directed against John Hunt Morgan, who was only a raider, and one who eventually became so reckless as to destroy himself.

Come to think of it, Morgan would be ten times a better candidate for "most overrated general" than Forrest, and yet no one has mentioned him yet. Why? Because people love denigrating Forrest, yet somehow doing the same thing to Morgan doesn't get books published or score PC points with the peanut gallery....

I write that and I think anyone who knows my record here knows that I am NOT a Lost Causer or Neo-Confederate. Not by a hundred miles.

If you said to me "some people overrate Forrest," I would completely agree. In another comment, I mentioned the idea that he should have been given charge of a field army is ridiculous. There is no merit to that idea. Yet to say he is the most overrated general of the entire war has equal merit, that is to say zero. There are several generals with high reputations and only a fraction of the accomplishment, so to say Forrest is more overrated than them is laughable, and points not to the facts of the case but to pushing an agenda.

Forrest was certainly a skillful raider. How good a fighter he was against the Union A team I leave to the experts. But to dismiss intelligence gathering and providing army security as "but two jobs in the cavalry roster" is tantamount to saying that being blind and deaf is only a minor inconvenience.