Most Underrated General

[JPWalton]

Let's turn the fiery debate of the day around, and in the process start something with a clean, not so contentious slate: who was the Civil War's most underrated general?

I'm going to go with Nathaniel "Commissary" Banks.

First, let's take a look at why he got whipped by Stonewall Jackson in the Valley: the War Department stripped him of troops and sent them off to join McDowell and McClellan. Banks might have delayed skeddadling out of Winchester longer than was advisable, but the bottom line is he would have made a hasty retreat whatever happened, and the reasons were not altogether his fault.

Next, Cedar Mountain. Banks came very close to winning revenge on Jackson that day. If A.P. Hill had not made another one of his timely interventions, he probably would have. So good luck for Jackson and bad luck for Banks, but not necessarily a bad performance for Banks.

Then he captured Port Hudson, but got walloped in the Red River Campaign and was lucky to save Porter's fleet.

Overall, I'm not saying Banks was a good general, merely that he is underrated. He is often lumped in with the usual suspects of dawdlers, bumblers, drunks and crooks that populate any list of political generals, but the thing is that almost all of those guys were much, much worse than Banks. He is far from the worst general of the war, or even the worst general of the Union Army, but he routinely makes the short list as such.

 

[BillO]

Would you feel better if we just called him about the worst?

 

[67th Tigers]

If the definition of underrated is the biggest gap between the abilities and achievements and their current image then I'll maintain it is McClellan, with honourable mentions for Rosecrans and McClernand.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

On the Confederate side, I've been generally impressed with John Bankhead Magruder. The fact that he got tossed by Lee (after an admittedly bad showing at Malvern Hill) has probably depressed his "stock" below its actual level.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Overall, I'm not saying Banks was a good general ....

I'll say it: Banks was a good general. Therefore, because of the attitude that prevails, he is very underrated.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I don't think Jubal Early has ever gotten nearly the credit he deserves. The first phase of his 1864 Campaign was a brilliant success: driving the Union forces out of the Valley, threatening Washington, inflicting three sharp defeats on the Union army (Monocacy, Cool Springs, Second Kernstown), drawing nearly two entire enemy corps away from Petersburg, vastly raising Southern morale, and humiliating the Lincoln administration at a point where Confederate strategy depended on causing Lincoln's electoral defeat. And all of this with less than 15,000 men! It was one of the great achievements of the war and, in my opinion, fully matches the achievement of Jackson's 1862 Valley Campaign.

Against Sheridan, outnumbered more than any other Southern commander in a major campaign, Early stayed game until the end, fighting hard at Third Winchester and nearly pulling off a spectacular victory at Cedar Creek. Against odds of 3.5 to 1, I doubt anybody else could have done nearly as well. As a division and occasional corps commander under Lee, Early always did pretty well, too.

I honestly think Early should rank among the greatest Confederate commanders of the war.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

General John Brown Gordon, CSA

From the Battle of First Manassas Junction (Bull Run Creek) to Appomattox Court House, I personally believe Gordon doesn't receive the notoriety as his fellow counterparts (both sides). I am currently studying his actions at the Battle of Opequon (Third Winchester). He was definitely involved in some hell-holes.

 

[JPWalton]

Rosecrans is somewhat underrated.

McClernand and McClellan are treated pretty fairly. No one denies that McClernand could fight or that McClellan was a brilliant staff man and inspiring figure. They just don't let those things overshadow their enormous, ugly warts and blemishes.

As for Banks, I'd never call him a "good" general. Too many faults. "Average" sounds better. He had successes, near successes, and failures. Some were his doing and some were not. Overall he tried to do his job, sometimes got it done, and gave Lincoln only a reasonable degree of fuss when compared to some of his colleagues.

"Prince John" Magruder was definitely underrated, then and now.

 

[JeffBrooks]

General John Brown Gordon, CSA

From the Battle of First Manassas Junction (Bull Run Creek) to Appomattox Court House, I personally believe Gordon doesn't receive the notoriety as his fellow counterparts (both sides). I am currently studying his actions at the Battle of Opequon (Third Winchester). He was definitely involved in some hell-holes.

His wife was also an underrated general.

 

[JPWalton]

Early was certainly a better student of the Lee & Jackson school than Hood.

I don't think Jubal Early has ever gotten nearly the credit he deserves. The first phase of his 1864 Campaign was a brilliant success: driving the Union forces out of the Valley, threatening Washington, inflicting three sharp defeats on the Union army (Monocacy, Cool Springs, Second Kernstown), drawing nearly two entire enemy corps away from Petersburg, vastly raising Southern morale, and humiliating the Lincoln administration at a point where Confederate strategy depended on causing Lincoln's electoral defeat. And all of this with less than 15,000 men! It was one of the great achievements of the war and, in my opinion, fully matches the achievement of Jackson's 1862 Valley Campaign.

Against Sheridan, outnumbered more than any other Southern commander in a major campaign, Early stayed game until the end, fighting hard at Third Winchester and nearly pulling off a spectacular victory at Cedar Creek. Against odds of 3.5 to 1, I doubt anybody else could have done nearly as well. As a division and occasional corps commander under Lee, Early always did pretty well, too.

I honestly think Early should rank among the greatest Confederate commanders of the war.

 

[chellers]

Wade Hampton doesn't get much love.

 

[diane]

Speaking of cavalrymen, one of the most under-rated generals is A J Smith. He was a career soldier, had a solid background and wealth of experience, and was one of the very few Union cavalrymen able to smack Forrest around. He did an excellent job on the unfortunate Red River campaign - just wasn't used well. That seemed to be his problem. He and his men were moved around a lot and so couldn't get a share of the spotlight. In fact, they were shifted so often they were nicknamed "The Lost Tribes of Israel"!

 

[NFB22]

N.B. Forrest, everyone seems to forget he was a pretty darn good leader when they are all arguing about other things.

Also, Patrick Cleburne for sure. Most here know who he is but if you asked a typical person who he was vs Lee or Grant they would be clueless.

 

[Malingerer]

This stuff gets trickier when you add that some guys got much better (or at least more recognized) as they developed experience and were given greater responsibility (eg Mahone, Gordon, Grimes, and Hampton) while others seemed to peak early and then fall apart as the war progressed (eg Ewell and AP Hill). Also, its so hard to know whether someone like Mahone would have made a good corps commander earlier in the war or whether he had maxed out his talents as a division commander - and then only after years of seasoning.

 

[Nathanb1]

This stuff gets trickier when you add that some guys got much better (or at least more recognized) as they developed experience and were given greater responsibility (eg Mahone, Gordon, Grimes, and Hampton) while others seemed to peak early and then fall apart as the war progressed (eg Ewell and AP Hill). Also, its so hard to know whether someone like Mahone would have made a good corps commander earlier in the war or whether he had maxed out his talents as a division commander - and then only after years of seasoning.

And, frankly, there are so many potentially talented guys who died just when they seemed to be on the verge of becoming something special....or the ones under abysmal commanders who followed orders and we remember them in history as underperforming or performing badly. Let's face it....employees -- or soldiers -- at some point are only as good as the guy ahead of them in the chain of command. It's not the only factor, but it is sort of important.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Speaking of cavalrymen, one of the most under-rated generals is A J Smith. He was a career soldier, had a solid background and wealth of experience, and was one of the very few Union cavalrymen able to smack Forrest around. He did an excellent job on the unfortunate Red River campaign - just wasn't used well. That seemed to be his problem. He and his men were moved around a lot and so couldn't get a share of the spotlight. In fact, they were shifted so often they were nicknamed "The Lost Tribes of Israel"!

I feel I hear this so much that he seems overrated to me.
While he could claim to have won the battle of Tupelo, i dont think he smacked Forrest around.

 

[diane]

I feel I hear this so much that he seems overrated to me.
While he could claim to have won the battle of Tupelo, i dont think he smacked Forrest around.

Yes, that's an overstatement! Tupelo was S D Lee's battle but Forrest did catch it pretty good. A J Smith was not afraid of Forrest and did well against him, though. Forrest never fought anybody more than once or twice so it's a little hard to judge. Sherman kept rotating cavalry - think he was looking for the guy with the killer blow. He probably needed to be looking for the correct combination - Grierson and Smith, for instance.

 

[Malingerer]

How about James Wilson as both an underrated general and a late bloomer? Besides the raid that bears his name, he made some big contributions in Sheridan's Valley Campaign and Hood's retreat from Nashville. Solid organizer, tactician, leader, etc..., nothing fancy, just a hard working guy doing his job.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

There are probably a couple of different types of "under-rated" officers: (1) those that did well but did not get the press or were maligned for some reason (such as Magruder), and (2) those that might have done well if they'd been given a chance to do more (thinking Wilson here as an example, or someone like Phil Kearny or Nathaniel Lyon... since they didn't serve out the war, they might have been more effective and be better known, but that's really crystal-ball gazing since it didn't happen...)

As examples on the naval side, I give you Samuel F. Du Pont and James Harmon Ward. Du Pont, as shown by his work on the Commission of Conference (AKA "Blockade Strategy Board"), his performance in seizing Port Royal SC, and his organization of the blockade on the southern Atlantic coast, was clearly among the first rank of US commanders in terms of capability and results; yet what he's mostly known for is the failure of the ironclad attack on Fort Sumter and his subsequent save-his-name-and-career behavior. Ward was killed very early on in the conflict serving in the Potomac Flotilla, yet he'd had a promising career up to that point; if he'd lived, it would likely have been a safe bet that he'd have made a larger name for himself.

 

[Malingerer]

There are probably a couple of different types of "under-rated" officers: (1) those that did well but did not get the press or were maligned for some reason (such as Magruder), and (2) those that might have done well if they'd been given a chance to do more (thinking Wilson here as an example, or someone like Phil Kearny or Nathaniel Lyon... since they didn't serve out the war, they might have been more effective and be better known, but that's really crystal-ball gazing since it didn't happen...)

As examples on the naval side, I give you Samuel F. Du Pont and James Harmon Ward. Du Pont, as shown by his work on the Commission of Conference (AKA "Blockade Strategy Board"), his performance in seizing Port Royal SC, and his organization of the blockade on the southern Atlantic coast, was clearly among the first rank of US commanders in terms of capability and results; yet what he's mostly known for is the failure of the ironclad attack on Fort Sumter and his subsequent save-his-name-and-career behavior. Ward was killed very early on in the conflict serving in the Potomac Flotilla, yet he'd had a promising career up to that point; if he'd lived, it would likely have been a safe bet that he'd have made a larger name for himself.

Yes. And - underrated by whom? The general public? Historians? Members of this forum? If the last then I think we could potentially have some interesting and helpful conversations - if the first two....meh, not so much. IMHO.