Most Overrated General?

[Elennsar]

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.

1) So? Sidney didn't even deal with making sure the river forts (what turned out to be Donelson and Henry) were properly placed and fortified. Hell, Sidney didn't even deal with making sure Nashville was fortified. He just assumed it would get done. Having more territory to defend also came with control over - for example - the troops in East Tennessee.

2) No, Bragg just had to deal with the lovely group that engaged in borderline mutiny to destroy his authority over the AoT and disobey or ineffectively execute his orders at every turn. If you asked me whether I'd rather have Polk or Pillow as a subordinate, I'd take Pillow any day of the week.

Of course, I'd ask if suicide is an option instead of either, but that's not the point.

3) No thanks to his generalship, however. And not to last long after he died.

4) I certainly hope not. Even if Forrest hasn't earned much of a name for himself yet, dismissing reports like that is almost invariably a blunder.

 

[yankee blue]

Daniel Sickells

 

[JerseyBart]

Daniel Sickells

He overrated himself. History brought him back to earth and beyond.

 

[diane]

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...

Lol! No, don't let Old Joe down! There's plenty of feet to kick him. And we all know Chamberlain only won because George Washington's ghost took up for him there at Little Round Top. He'd been in a pickle without George!

I think Gallagher also considers Jackson over-rated, too. He likes to be the iconoclast and that's a good thing. Sometimes we are like baby birds, just opening our mouths and letting somebody feed us but it's always good to go back and see if our beliefs and what we were taught is still right - or ever was!

 

[Lt R. Blackwell 4th Texas]

1) So? Sidney didn't even deal with making sure the river forts (what turned out to be Donelson and Henry) were properly placed and fortified. Hell, Sidney didn't even deal with making sure Nashville was fortified. He just assumed it would get done. Having more territory to defend also came with control over - for example - the troops in East Tennessee.

2) No, Bragg just had to deal with the lovely group that engaged in borderline mutiny to destroy his authority over the AoT and disobey or ineffectively execute his orders at every turn. If you asked me whether I'd rather have Polk or Pillow as a subordinate, I'd take Pillow any day of the week.

Of course, I'd ask if suicide is an option instead of either, but that's not the point.

3) No thanks to his generalship, however. And not to last long after he died.

4) I certainly hope not. Even if Forrest hasn't earned much of a name for himself yet, dismissing reports like that is almost invariably a blunder.

I think your first point is right on. Did Johnston ever even visit Henry to see how low it was situated? And given the importance of Nashville, why wasn't more done to protect it? And why did he send 1/2 of his available troops to get frittered away at Donelson under a shaky command structure?

I give him credit for then concentrating his forces and striking Grant. It was the first of many "near victories" for this army.

While Bragg is no favorite of mine, his campaign into Kentucky in late 62 exemplified the South's best chance to win - maneuver around Union forces whenever there was an opening and force them to pull back to defend. This would delay further advances into the Confederacy and hopefully, if repeated enough, frustrate the Northern population. Both of Lee's invasions achieved similar results, except Lee should not have fought at Sharpsburg and maybe not even at Gettysburg.

Much of this discussion leads back to the conclusion that the talent pool of Confederate generals capable of high command was just not as deep as we learned back in high school.

 

[BillO]

Well I'm not a professional historian but I do have a little list.
Sheridan has to be #1 on my personal I'd like to hit parade.
#2 would probably be Longstreet.
#3 I'll go with Chanberlain.
And last would have to be poor Bobby Lee. What you ask? Well by 1863 most of the politicians and the common folks at home in the south just assumed that Lee would win the war for them regardless of the poor support, the constant shifting of commands into and out of his army and of Davis paying almost no attention to his suggestions.

 

[Pat Answer]

Lol! No, don't let Old Joe down! There's plenty of feet to kick him. And we all know Chamberlain only won because George Washington's ghost took up for him there at Little Round Top. He'd been in a pickle without George!

I think Gallagher also considers Jackson over-rated, too. He likes to be the iconoclast and that's a good thing. Sometimes we are like baby birds, just opening our mouths and letting somebody feed us but it's always good to go back and see if our beliefs and what we were taught is still right - or ever was!

I'm beginning to wonder how much of my love for Uncle Joe really comes through Sam Watkins. Someone help me - was one of the praises from Watkins: He would feed his army if the country starved. ? If so, it struck me that that's a problem, even if it speaks volumes about his care for his men. Johnston was a master of the art of defense (preserve the army, dig into a good position and watch the enemy shatter himself against it) but may not have truly grasped the purpose of defense (deny the enemy the places he wants). Would he have changed the game to save Richmond as Lee did in 1862? Could he have done more - even to just be a pain in Grant's rear - at Vicksburg? Did Davis perhaps do the wrong thing for the right reason by sacking him at Atlanta?

This "baby bird" is on the fence now...

 

[diane]

I'm beginning to wonder how much of my love for Uncle Joe really comes through Sam Watkins. Someone help me - was one of the praises from Watkins: He would feed his army if the country starved. ? If so, it struck me that that's a problem, even if it speaks volumes about his care for his men. Johnston was a master of the art of defense (preserve the army, dig into a good position and watch the enemy shatter himself against it) but may not have truly grasped the purpose of defense (deny the enemy the places he wants). Would he have changed the game to save Richmond as Lee did in 1862? Could he have done more - even to just be a pain in Grant's rear - at Vicksburg? Did Davis perhaps do the wrong thing for the right reason by sacking him at Atlanta?

This "baby bird" is on the fence now...

I was very critical of Halleck - still am in some regards - then somebody stuck up for him and I seen the light! I'd just been accepting the standard opinions - so I know all about being a baby bird!

 

[damYankee]

The Boy Wonder,,,,Custer

 

[Stony]

Fighting Joe Hooker.

 

[diane]

Fighting Joe Hooker.

Hooker is another one whose battleship mouth overloaded his tugboat. If he had lived up to his own hype, he would have been the greatest general on earth. He was, however, reasonably good. His biggest accomplishment was re-ordering the AoP and being almost too open to innovation. Some of that, particularly the communications, caused him to fumble some actions but he did try out things other generals were able to better use.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Fighting Joe Hooker.

Actually, I consider Hooker rather underrated. History records him as just another dim-witted commander outwitted and outfought by Lee, but his reorganization of the AotP was very well done, especially in terms of the cavalry, and his overall plan for the Chancellorsville Campaign was perhaps the best the Union came up with during the war in Virginia.

 

[Billy Yank]

Gen. Robert E. Lee was a gentleman of the highest order. As a battlefield commander however, he was overrated. His casualties were worse than Grant's, and once he lost Gen. Thos. Jackson at Chancellorsville, his outcomes suffered - suggesting Jackson was the true basis for the ANV's early successes.

 

[CSA Today]

Gen. Robert E. Lee was a gentleman of the highest order. As a battlefield commander however, he was overrated. His casualties were worse than Grant's, and once he lost Gen. Thos. Jackson at Chancellorsville, his outcomes suffered - suggesting Jackson was the true basis for the ANV's early successes.

A statistical anomaly due to Lee's much smaller army, had Lee lost in actual numbers comparable to Grant's butcher bill, his army would have been virtually gone before the two armies reached Petersburg.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1962) pp.419-420

 

[Pat Answer]

Good points about Hooker. Chancellorsville is all many will ever know about him, so maybe he is more under- than over-rated.

At the very least, when talking overall strategic impact on the war, I don't see how either Lee or Grant can be over-rated. That may be the baby bird chirping again, but...

 

[diane]

Gen. Robert E. Lee was a gentleman of the highest order. As a battlefield commander however, he was overrated. His casualties were worse than Grant's, and once he lost Gen. Thos. Jackson at Chancellorsville, his outcomes suffered - suggesting Jackson was the true basis for the ANV's early successes.

I'm not sure I'd give Jackson all that much credit but he should certainly have his due. Even Lee acknowledged he needed Jackson like he needed his right arm. To carry it just a little further, what would have Grant been if Forrest had shot Sherman dead at Fallen Timbers? There's nothing a commander needs more than a great subordinate.

 

[AUG]

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.

 

[Billy Yank]

A statistical anomaly due to Lee's much smaller army, had Lee lost in actual numbers comparable to Grant's butcher bill, his army would have been virtually gone before the two armies reached Petersburg.

"In the whole campaign from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor, the Union's losses were approximately 55,000, nearly as much as Lee's whole army. As a defensive accomplishment in fighting off superior numbers, the campaign stands as a significant chapter in Confederate annals."

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1962) pp.419-420

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.

 

[James N.]

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.

Or Strong Vincent and Stephen Weed who both had the bad judgement to get themselves killed doing the same thing as Chamberlain.

 

[James N.]

Actually, I consider Hooker rather underrated. History records him as just another dim-witted commander outwitted and outfought by Lee, but his reorganization of the AotP was very well done, especially in terms of the cavalry, and his overall plan for the Chancellorsville Campaign was perhaps the best the Union came up with during the war in Virginia.

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 XX 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!