Most Overrated General?

[Elennsar]

What is so questionable about Bonekemper or Nolan?

 

[Billy Yank]

Ye gods, Edward Bonekemper as a source? When I first saw your source as being the Civil War Times, I looked somewhat askance at your use of that magazine as a reliable fount of information. I subscribed to the Civil War Times for years until canceling years ago as the articles became more partisan and even bazaar. As I recall, the final straw was a copy with Jefferson Davis on the cover and the question something to the effect is this the most hated man in America? Since cancelling my subscription, I have received requests to renew, I've thought about it from time to time but now subscribe to the Blue and Gray magazine, a magazine I find far more informative about battles, the war in general, and with more credible writers. If the Civil War Times is now relying on the likes of Edward Bonekemper or Alan Nolan for something approaching a semblance of historical accuracy then they have reached rock bottom for credibility as far as I am concerned.

If you have information from mainline historians to make your case then I'll be happy to debate you, but if the best you can offer is Bonekemper or heaven forbid Alan Nolan forget it.

Very nice try, Major CSA, but the casualty figures are indisputable. It's patently obvious I'm crossing swords with the reincarnation of Jubal Early. Have a nice day, sir.

 

[cash]

What is so questionable about Bonekemper or Nolan?

They don't accept lost cause nonsense, for one thing.

 

[NedBaldwin]

But it must be noted when weighing his performance that something ike half the Cavalry Corps (Army of the Potomac) are casualties by August, and the cavalry's work of "scouting, screening etc." has been entirely neglected.

Were these casualties out of line with the overall loss% in the AotP during that campaign -- didnt Grant suffer something like 45% loss in the same period?

 

[Elennsar]

They don't accept lost cause nonsense, for one thing.

Well, that went without saying. But it would be nice if there was something more concrete than "they don't agree with the historians I do believe in". I mean, if you or I were going to critique Freeman, there's a specific reason or reasons why his account doesn't match up.

Were these casualties out of line with the overall loss% in the AotP during that campaign -- didnt Grant suffer something like 45% loss in the same period?

They're very, very atypical for cavalry, though. And its not even counting used up horses, which was even for the Union a problem, if hardly crippling.

And 45% sounds right. Possibly on the high end.

 

[cash]

Well, that went without saying. But it would be nice if there was something more concrete than "they don't agree with the historians I do believe in". I mean, if you or I were going to critique Freeman, there's a specific reason or reasons why his account doesn't match up.

I don't think you're going to get anything more concrete.

 

[Elennsar]

I don't think you're going to get anything more concrete.

I don't either, but it's nice to know who is wiling to bother and who isn't.

 

[JPWalton]

It seems to me that the only reason you can't say Joseph E. Johnston is the most overrated general of the war is because nowadays the opinions of him are so bitterly divided. While some people do overrate him, others underrate him. He is like a rag doll being pulled in a tug of war between the revisionists and the Lost Causers.

 

[kenjcruz]

I don't think Sheridan is highly rated by most and this is no defense for Sheridan's personality .. but Sheridan didn't want to be relegated to the traditional cavalry roles .. screening, scouting, etc. He wanted his cavalry to be an offensive force in its own right. In the chase to Appomattox cavalry was indeed an offensive force although in the end it was the arrival of the infantry that closed Lee out.

He probably was pushing this for his own glory, but mobile forces have evolved through time to have more idependent offensive capabilities.

 

[CSA Today]

Very nice try, Major CSA, but the casualty figures are indisputable. It's patently obvious I'm crossing swords with the reincarnation of Jubal Early. Have a nice day, sir.

From post 114

" Lee saw his army suffer 209,000 casualties - losses the South could not afford. Lee's single army suffered 55,000 more casualties than the four armies commanded by Grant in three theaters - all theaters where his armies were victorious. If a single statistic was indicative of the war's outcome, it was Robert E. Lee's army incurring those 209,000 casualties. On the positive side, Lee did impose 240,000 casualties on his foes, for a plus 31,000 margin."

"Robert E. Lee by the numbers: Seven Days, Cedar Mountain, Second Manassas, Chantilly, Harpers Ferry, Crampton's Gap/South Mountain, Antietam/Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Kelly's Ford, Chancellorsville, Brandy Station, Winchester, Aldie/Middleburg/Upperville, Hanover, Gettysburg, Retreat from Gettysburg, Bristoe Station, Kelly's Ford & Rappahannock Stn., Mine Run, Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna River, Cold Harbor, Petersburg Assaults, Petersburg Siege/Campaign, Appomattox Campaign."
Does Bonekemper mention the number, size and intensity of battles fought by Lee as compared to Grant in the west?


"Ulysses S. Grant by the numbers: Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Iuka, Corinth/Hatchie River, Vicksburg Campaign, Return to Jackson, Chattanooga, Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna River, Cold Harbor, Petersburg Assaults, Petersburg Siege/Campaign, Appomattox "

Does Bonekemper claim that Grant was at Corinth/Hatchie River?"

Grant had the 3 major campaign and battles before coming east -- Fort Donelson, Shiloh [Grant had the greater loss] and Vicksburg. I don't mean to take all the credit for success from Grant but he did have a lot of help from the navy at these battles – especially Fort Donelson and Vicksburg

 

[JPWalton]

Indeed. It's no surprise to me that the band leader who is so critical of Sheridan as a cavalry leader is even more critical of Nathan Bedford Forrest, and for much the same reasons as you point to here.

I don't think Sheridan is highly rated by most and this is no defense for Sheridan's personality .. but Sheridan didn't want to be relegated to the traditional cavalry roles .. screening, scouting, etc. He wanted his cavalry to be an offensive force in its own right. In the chase to Appomattox cavalry was indeed an offensive force although in the end it was the arrival of the infantry that closed Lee out.

He probably was pushing this for his own glory, but mobile forces have evolved through time to have more idependent offensive capabilities.

 

[Billy Yank]

From post 114

" Lee saw his army suffer 209,000 casualties - losses the South could not afford. Lee's single army suffered 55,000 more casualties than the four armies commanded by Grant in three theaters - all theaters where his armies were victorious. If a single statistic was indicative of the war's outcome, it was Robert E. Lee's army incurring those 209,000 casualties. On the positive side, Lee did impose 240,000 casualties on his foes, for a plus 31,000 margin."

"Robert E. Lee by the numbers: Seven Days, Cedar Mountain, Second Manassas, Chantilly, Harpers Ferry, Crampton's Gap/South Mountain, Antietam/Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Kelly's Ford, Chancellorsville, Brandy Station, Winchester, Aldie/Middleburg/Upperville, Hanover, Gettysburg, Retreat from Gettysburg, Bristoe Station, Kelly's Ford & Rappahannock Stn., Mine Run, Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna River, Cold Harbor, Petersburg Assaults, Petersburg Siege/Campaign, Appomattox Campaign."
Does Bonekemper mention the number, size and intensity of battles fought by Lee as compared to Grant in the west?


"Ulysses S. Grant by the numbers: Belmont, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Iuka, Corinth/Hatchie River, Vicksburg Campaign, Return to Jackson, Chattanooga, Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, North Anna River, Cold Harbor, Petersburg Assaults, Petersburg Siege/Campaign, Appomattox "

Does Bonekemper claim that Grant was at Corinth/Hatchie River?"
Nope, but he was in overall command. (My claim.)
Grant had the 3 major campaign and battles before coming east -- Fort Donelson, Shiloh [Grant had the greater loss] and Vicksburg. I don't mean to take all the credit for success from Grant but he did have a lot of help from the navy at these battles – especially Fort Donelson and Vicksburg

...and Lee had a ton of help in his earlier campaigns from Thos. Jackson.

First cherry picking, now nitpicking.

 

[CSA Today]

...and Lee had a ton of help in his earlier campaigns from Thos. Jackson.

First cherry picking, now nitpicking.

How is a widely known fact nitpicking? Is this something Edward Bonekemper thought his readers might not know or is it you that thinks it is new news and revealing? In either case, I would agree with whomever that said it that Thomas J. Jackson was most definitely "a ton of Help" to Lee while alive.

 

[Elennsar]

I don't think Sheridan is highly rated by most and this is no defense for Sheridan's personality .. but Sheridan didn't want to be relegated to the traditional cavalry roles .. screening, scouting, etc. He wanted his cavalry to be an offensive force in its own right. In the chase to Appomattox cavalry was indeed an offensive force although in the end it was the arrival of the infantry that closed Lee out.

He probably was pushing this for his own glory, but mobile forces have evolved through time to have more idependent offensive capabilities.

And the responsibility for screening, scouting etc. has also changed. But in his day, that responsibility had to rest on the shoulders of the cavalry, and Sheridan "not wanting to" is the kind of behavior one expects of a politician turned general aka Extra Billy Smith - not a West Pointer (if one held back a year) who had served in the army prewar.

It's not just bad personality, its bad soldiering.

Also:
Sheridan wasn't even successful at beating the Confederate cavalry with his approach, which is less than can be said for how Forrest's record as an independent fighter and raider at least has some notable wins.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Ye gods, Edward Bonekemper as a source? When I first saw your source as being the Civil War Times, I looked somewhat askance at your use of that magazine as a reliable fount of information. I subscribed to the Civil War Times for years until canceling years ago as the articles became more partisan and even bazaar. As I recall, the final straw was a copy with Jefferson Davis on the cover and the question something to the effect is this the most hated man in America? Since cancelling my subscription, I have received requests to renew, I've thought about it from time to time but now subscribe to the Blue and Gray magazine, a magazine I find far more informative about battles, the war in general, and with more credible writers. If the Civil War Times is now relying on the likes of Edward Bonekemper or Alan Nolan for something approaching a semblance of historical accuracy then they have reached rock bottom for credibility as far as I am concerned.

If you have information from mainline historians to make your case then I'll be happy to debate you, but if the best you can offer is Bonekemper or heaven forbid Alan Nolan forget it.

I saw that - wasn't it ANNOYING?? It wasn't just those who would have liked to have seen a less inflammatory cover-story on Jefferson Davis, it's just that pasting something like that on the cover of a ' History' magazine relegated the stupid thing to a place in the racks in the supermarket aisle between The National Enquirer and People magazine. May as well have had teasers on the cover, " Was Belle Boyd Lincoln's Love Child? " and " New Research shows Mary Lincoln and Elizabeth Keckley Secret Lovers, page 8 ". OH! And " The Gray Ghost and General Chamberlain, same person? No photos of the 2 ever taken together! "

Sorry, off thread, will bribe someone not to report me, just PM, we'll come to terms...... . Thought it was a stupid cover too, pretty counter productive to selling History, and nobody asked me, can you imagine?

 

[rbasin]

Did Grant have a choice?

Halleck would have happily left Washington. Lincoln used him and abused him. But, since Grant didn't want to stay in D.C. and do the day to day work of his position, he had to have Halleck. And Grant threw him under the bus on more than one occasion.

 

[Elennsar]

JPK Huson: I'll take my bribe in the form of a commitment to making posts like the ones you've made on the Summers and Koontz thread.

Halleck would have happily left Washington. Lincoln used him and abused him. But, since Grant didn't want to stay in D.C. and do the day to day work of his position, he had to have Halleck. And Grant through him under the bus on more than one occasion.

When did Grant throw Halleck under a bus?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

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.

 

[Pat Answer]

I stand by what I said earlier: Grant and Lee emerged as the titans of this particular conflict with good reason - that neither was perfect goes without saying. But Lee directed and struck the blows that enabled the Confederacy to survive as long as it did, and Grant directed and struck the blows that eventually won the war for the Union. When they faced each other, the one with the difficult job of the strategic and tactical offense and the other with the limits of his resources - a situation reflecting their respective sides throughout the war - they administered a mutual beating that would have had just about any other commander I can think of running back home to mother. In the context of the war they fought and in comparison to the rest of the list on each side, I just don't see how either can be over-rated.
Forgive the pat answer here but we can always compile lists of the mistakes made by every general in this war who also happened to be a human being. I don't think that approach takes in the big picture sufficiently.

My $0.02...

Edit: "Like a fine lady at a party, Longstreet was often late in his arrival at the ball. But he always made a sensation and that of delight, when he got in, with the grand old First Corps sweeping behind him as his train." -Pvt. William Dane, CSA

 

[Elennsar]

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.

But do those mistakes mean as much as his successes?

I'm not a huge Grant fan when the issue of fan or not breaks out. And I haven't read Bonekemper's writings on Grant, so I don't intend to defend them.

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.

Longstreet's assault as it was actually launched did all that could reasonably be expected and then some at crushing Pope. I'm not familiar enough with Second Bull Run to say whether or not an earlier assault would have, but it certainly counts as one of his most successful decisions.

What order did Longstreet disobey at Gettysburg?