Most Overrated General?

[JeffBrooks]

We talk a lot about who was the best general of the war or who was the worst general of the war. Here's a question I haven't seen on the forum, though. Who is the most overrated general of the war? And I'm speaking from the standpoint of history, not from the standpoint of what contemporaries thought.

 

[Elennsar]

Albert Sidney Johnston.

His record does not indicate "potential greatness" except in the sense that anyone who died that soon could have developed more. It indicates someone who was about equal to division command at best - continually we see him focusing on smaller scale events (the events around Bowling Green, leading individual regiments at Shiloh to name two examples) at the expense of his broader department or his role as commanding general.

Yes, he might have done better than that if he had survived and learned from his mistakes, but if we're going with "might have" we could just as easily say that Edward Baker (killed at Ball's Bluff) might have been another Hannibal too. Judging by his actual accomplishments, even within the context of the resources he had to work with, Sidney Johnston was not going to turn out to be the general needed for the Western theater Confederates to do as well as the Eastern Theater Confederates.

But he's still treated as if his death was more costly than that of say Brigadier Gladden (also killed at Shiloh).

 

[dlofting]

Gotta agree with Elennsar.....my sentiments exactly.

 

[diane]

My choice would be Sheridan. Nothing wrong with his courage or charisma but I don't see that he did too much that was really brilliant or daring. Grant liked him because of his aggressive nature and his ability to boost the men's morale, but I think he had some better candidates at hand, or within call.

 

[JerseyBart]

My choice would be Sheridan. Nothing wrong with his courage or charisma but I don't see that he did too much that was really brilliant or daring. Grant liked him because of his aggressive nature and his ability to boost the men's morale, but I think he had some better candidates at hand, or within call.

I'll second that. He liked to throw other generals under the bus...wagon train...too. (See Warren and Meade.)

 

[Albert Sailhorst]

Albert Sidney Johnston.

His record does not indicate "potential greatness" except in the sense that anyone who died that soon could have developed more. It indicates someone who was about equal to division command at best - continually we see him focusing on smaller scale events (the events around Bowling Green, leading individual regiments at Shiloh to name two examples) at the expense of his broader department or his role as commanding general.

Yes, he might have done better than that if he had survived and learned from his mistakes, but if we're going with "might have" we could just as easily say that Edward Baker (killed at Ball's Bluff) might have been another Hannibal too. Judging by his actual accomplishments, even within the context of the resources he had to work with, Sidney Johnston was not going to turn out to be the general needed for the Western theater Confederates to do as well as the Eastern Theater Confederates.

But he's still treated as if his death was more costly than that of say Brigadier Gladden (also killed at Shiloh).

As a Ghost, A.S. Johnston was STILL better suited than Bragg in the west...... .....Had Johnston NOT been killed, Bragg would have been a footnote in history.....Johnston's death, left the door open for Bragg, which we all know how THAT affected the war......Had Johnston survived, who knows??.....Let him live, learn from mistakes, etc.....see what happens.....Is Johnston over-rated??.....In my opinion, no.....he was never given the chance that Bragg definitely had.....

 

[ole]

Gotta agree. A.S. Johnston had a sterling record and was one of the most senior officers in the U.S. Army.

We will never know if he was as good as all thought he was.

He was given an impossible job. He did not perform well.

He was obviously a fighter and attacking Grant before Buell showed was a daring move.

Sheridan? Well. Yes. But the commanding general of all US Armies liked and used him. That has to mean something.

My choice would be Sheridan. Nothing wrong with his courage or charisma but I don't see that he did too much that was really brilliant or daring. Grant liked him because of his aggressive nature and his ability to boost the men's morale, but I think he had some better candidates at hand, or within call.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

I got to say P.G.T. Beauregard.

He is known as the officer that ordered the firing on Fort Sumter as the start of his career,

He often gets the praise for First Manassas, when it was really Stonewall Jackson and Joseph E Johnston who saved the day, Johnston especially for utilizing railroads to send confederate reinforcements.

Then he losses at the battle of Shiloh

he does a fine job defending South Carolina and Petersburg, but does not do much to really win any decisive victories for the South.

I'm not saying he is a bad general, but he's not the greatest.

 

[Elennsar]

As a Ghost, A.S. Johnston was STILL better suited than Bragg in the west...... .....Had Johnston NOT been killed, Bragg would have been a footnote in history.....Johnston's death, left the door open for Bragg, which we all know how THAT affected the war......Had Johnston survived, who knows??.....Let him live, learn from mistakes, etc.....see what happens.....Is Johnston over-rated??.....In my opinion, no.....he was never given the chance that Bragg definitely had.....

The AoT under Bragg did better at holding off the Federals than it did before or after he took command.

That's not a small something, even when we look at all the stuff I know people will bring up about Bragg's decisions in detail.

What, in Sidney Johnston's career, indicates he would have done any better with the situation Bragg stumbled through than Bragg?

 

[Pat Answer]

I have to agree with those who are cautious about AS Johnston; we really can never know but, had he lived, I could see the Army of Tennessee leadership being a bit less dysfunctional, even if only because Johnston commanded more respect than Bragg managed to. But he would have had to get a better handle on the big picture and stop playing battalion commander for sure.

I think Seth has it right about Beauregard: competent if not brilliant (though Petersburg was some inspired generalship). OTOH, history hasn't really over-rated him.

Good question and tough call because the historical reputations of most of these generals rise and fall so over the years.

 

[diane]

The impossibly high expectations were put on Johnston the minute he showed up for service with the Confederacy. He was good - had a good reputation, good record and all else going for him. He showed such promise that Davis overloaded his plate! His subordinates were undisciplined and...well, Polk is in a class by himself. Given the chance to learn and grow like Grant - who would have made nobody's list had it been him killed at Shiloh - he might have been one of many of bright generals who survived long enough. That will always make A S Johnston a cypher - he died too early in the war to see if all that promise was the real deal.

 

[Nathanb1]

The AoT under Bragg did better at holding off the Federals than it did before or after he took command.

That's not a small something, even when we look at all the stuff I know people will bring up about Bragg's decisions in detail.

What, in Sidney Johnston's career, indicates he would have done any better with the situation Bragg stumbled through than Bragg?

Well, yeah. Bragg had to contain a third less territory than Johnston was given. He didn't have to deal with Beauregard or the lovely group responsible for the....er....fun and games at Donelson. I'm not saying there was anything certain about Johnston--but remember, he was winning when he died. But for one little errant bullet, as diane points out, we might be talking about "Hey, remember Grant? He lost at Shiloh." LOL. I'm pretty sure if Forrest had gone and found Albert Sidney in the middle of the night and told him what was going on, he wouldn't have simply dismissed it and gone back to bed.

 

[Littlestown]

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

 

[Old Bay]

Who is the most overrated general of the war?

Now you've gone and done it...

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

I don't think Mosby is overrated at all. I think he's rated just about right, considering what he did with the amount of men he had.

 

[1SGDan]

Forrest

 

[frontrank2]

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

 

[JeffBrooks]

he does a fine job defending South Carolina and Petersburg, but does not do much to really win any decisive victories for the South.

I'd argue that the defense of Petersburg was a decisive victory for the South. In winning that amazing victory, Beauregard allowed the Confederacy to survive for months longer than it otherwise would have done.

 

[JerseyBart]

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

Nowhere near smart enough to disagree with Gary Gallagher, so much so I cannot think of a comparable distance reference. But ewwww, Suze is going to get him for putting Chamberlain on the list.

 

[JeffBrooks]

But ewwww, Suze is going to get him for putting Chamberlain on the list.

I love Chamberlain and what he did at Little Round Top will make his name immortal as long as men remember the Civil War. But his historical reputation stems largely from writing a masterful memoir, which appealed to Michael Shaara and Ken Burns and made his very well known.

If we really thought about it, I'm sure we could come up with two dozen other colonels and brigadier generals who performed feats just as heroic and important as that of Chamberlain at Little Round Top but get nowhere near the same recognition and credit. George Greene at Culp's Hill comes to mind.

 

[Pat Answer]

Gallagher makes good points. I don't know if history (historians, that is) over-rates these gentlemen, but in the popular imagination Shelby Foote's Forrest is close to "Superreb" and Chamberlain all but won the war thanks to Ron Maxwell. (IIRC, in the book, Michael Shaara's "Chamberlain" did acknowledge that someone had to be holding the extreme right of the line and wished him luck. He was also smart enough not to toot his own horn once he learned about the 1st Minnesota.)

Oh, and y'all are chipping away at my adoration for J Johnston by the day...