Most Underrated General

[rpkennedy]

Why is it such a disadvantage? Lee could beat everyone of Grant's assaults and inflict tremendous losses, while suffering minimal. During both the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, the pattern was that: Grant advances with a specific aim, Lee divines his purpose, armies or parts of them meet, the Confederacy repulses the Union suffering less than half the enemy's casualties, Grant makes a new move, Lee beats him again. For 11 months, Lee was constantly beating an adversary who is constantly praised for his foresight and his skills on the battlefield.
Civil War Scholar.

Inflicting tremendous losses and suffering minimally? Only if we ignore the historical record.

R

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Elennsar,
Don't forget that I am mainly commenting on the EASTERN Theater, where no Union general who could defeat Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.
To cover Diane's comment in my response, I can say that the Army of Northern Virginia was a whip in the hand of Lee. It struck, once, twice, thrice and more, it started wearing off, it still resisted, it collapsed under weight of numbers and starvation.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[GELongstreet]

Pender is definitely not underrated. He is known as one of the more reliable commanders the ANV had to offer and I haven´t heard of anyone denying his solid services be it then or now.

 

[Elennsar]

Inflicting tremendous losses and suffering minimally? Only if we ignore the historical record.

R

Something I've been meaning to do for a while: Yes, Grant lost a pile of troops. But how does that compare to say, McClellan's total numbers lost against Lee (with the ANV) and Johnston?

I'm not sure its quite as ugly when considering it in that light, which is how it really needs to look compared to the other aborted efforts - Hooker's campaign was not pushed to a conclusion, it was aborted.

 

[diane]

Elennsar,
Don't forget that I am mainly commenting on the EASTERN Theater, where no Union general who could defeat Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.
To cover Diane's comment in my response, I can say that the Army of Northern Virginia was a whip in the hand of Lee. It struck, once, twice, thrice and more, it started wearing off, it still resisted, it collapsed under weight of numbers and starvation.
Civil War Scholar.

Not exactly - numbers and starvation wasn't why. If your enemy can't eat, that's just an advantage to you. Shall we say Grant's Vicksburg campaign just amounted to starving out Pemberton's people? Nope. Pemberton needed to figure a way out of getting into that pickle in the first place. Belittling a general because he uses all the tools presented to him is not a fair evaluation. Actually, nothing is fair in war!

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar,
Don't forget that I am mainly commenting on the EASTERN Theater, where no Union general who could defeat Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Meade wasn't a Union general now? What was he, a Vulcan in disguise?

To cover Diane's comment in my response, I can say that the Army of Northern Virginia was a whip in the hand of Lee. It struck, once, twice, thrice and more, it started wearing off, it still resisted, it collapsed under weight of numbers and starvation.
Civil War Scholar.

You can say anything you like, but there's no more truth in that than there would be in me saying Jeb Stuart rode a unicorn bareback (most sources assert he used a saddle).

 

[JohnnnyReb]

I still think Gen. Imboden according to the OP of this thread was one of the leading canidates for being underrated. He still gets my #1 vote.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Inflicting tremendous losses and suffering minimally? Only if we ignore the historical record.

R

For you, I will reproduce the casualties for the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. Here we are:

OVERLAND CAMPAIGN:
Wilderness: 7800 Confederate, 17766 Union
Spotsylvania: 10000 Confederate, 18399 Union
North Anna: 1500 Confederate, 4000 Union
Sheridan's raid: 300 Confederate, 1000 Union
Haw's Shop: 125 Confederate, 400 Union
Totopotomoy Creek: 1100 Confederate, 1100 Union
Cold Harbor: 1500 Confederate, 13000 Union
Trevilian Station: 612 Confederate, 1007 Union
St. Mary's Church: 200 Confederate, 400 Union
TOTAL: 23137 Confederate, 57072 Union

PETERSBURG CAMPAIGN:
1st Petersburg: 80 Confederate, 40 Union
2nd Petersburg: 3000 Confederate, 12000 Union
Jerusalem Plank Road: 570 Confederate, 3000 Union
Wilson-Kautz Raid: 400 Confederate, 1600 Union
1st Deep Bottom: 500 Confederate, 700 Union
Crater: 1500 Confederate, 6000 Union
2nd Deep Bottom: 1000 Confederate, 3000 Union
Globe Tavern: 1600 Confederate, 4500 Union
2nd Ream's Station: 800 Confederate, 3000 Union
Beefsteak Raid: 14 Confederate, 304 Union
Chaffin's Farm: 2000 Confederate, 3000 Union
Peebles' Farm: 900 Confederate, 3000 Union
Darbytown and New Market Roads: 700 Confederate, 700 Union
Darbytown Road: 400 Confederate, 500 Union
Fair Oaks and Darbytown Road: 100 Confederate, 1603 Union
Boydton Plank Road: 1000 Confederate, 2000 Union
Hatcher's Run: 1100 Confederate, 1600 Union
Fort Stedman: 4000 Confederate, 2800 Union
TOTAL: 19664 Confederate, 49347 Union

TOTAL FOR BOTH CAMPAIGNS: 42801 Confederate, 106419 Union
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

I still think Gen. Imboden according to the OP of this thread was one of the leading canidates for being underrated. He still gets my #1 vote.

Any particular accomplishment/s, or just not given sufficient credit for what he did overall?

What I know of his career on the whole is cursory at best, mostly the Wagon Train of Wounded post-Gettysburg.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Meade wasn't a Union general now? What was he, a Vulcan in disguise?



You can say anything you like, but there's no more truth in that than there would be in me saying Jeb Stuart rode a unicorn bareback (most sources assert he used a saddle).

Elennsar,
Meade was no match for Lee. He was almost defeated at the formidable heights of Gettysburg, pushed back in the Bristoe Campaign, stalled in the Mine Run and didn't behave well as Grant's subordinate in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Not exactly - numbers and starvation wasn't why. If your enemy can't eat, that's just an advantage to you. Shall we say Grant's Vicksburg campaign just amounted to starving out Pemberton's people? Nope. Pemberton needed to figure a way out of getting into that pickle in the first place. Belittling a general because he uses all the tools presented to him is not a fair evaluation. Actually, nothing is fair in war!

Diane,
If Johnston had joined forces with Pemberton, we wouldn't read about the surrender of Vicksburg.
As for Petersburg and Appomattox, General Lee gave the best explanation in his farewell address and when he said to Grant: "Grant, you didn't whip me, you just overpowered me, I surrender this day 28,000 men; I do not surrender them to you, I surrender on conditions; it shall not go down in history I surrendered the Northern Confederate Army of Virginia to you. It shall go down in history I surrendered on conditions; you have ten men to my one; my men, too, are barefooted and hungry."
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar,
Meade was no match for Lee. He was almost defeated at the formidable heights of Gettysburg, pushed back in the Bristoe Campaign, stalled in the Mine Run and didn't behave well as Grant's subordinate in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns.
Civil War Scholar.

No, he was not almost defeated at Gettysburg, Mr. Civil War Dilettante

Edit:
I'm not an expert on Bristoe and Mine Run, but at this point I have no faith whatsoever in your scholarly integrity or interest in even discussing historical facts, so I doubt very much that this is any different. You repeatedly use the same understated Confederate causalities and overstated Union causalities even to the point of absurdity, you rely heavily on the most one sided accounts possible, and have no qualms about making claims unsupported by the historical record when characterizing the actions of generals other than Lee.

As for the Overland Campaign and Petersburg campaigns: I'm going to let someone else address the specifics there.

Edit 2: I know we're supposed to attack the evidence, not the poster. But we can't discuss any general, liked or loathed, if things long since disproven like the supposed order to attack at dawn (for Longstreet at Gettysburg) are the sort of "evidence" offered up for discussion.

 

[CSA Today]

Longstreet started it. After Lee died, he started criticizing him unfairly, finding "mistakes" the great Virginian made in every one of his campaigns and battles. General Lee could not respond to those charges, because he was in his grave. Early, Fitzhugh Lee and others defended their old commander and did a very creditable job.
Civil War Scholar.

Longstreet turned scalawag during reconstruction, it didn't hurt to build up his credentials with the Republicans by being critical of Lee.

 

[diane]

Diane,
If Johnston had joined forces with Pemberton, we wouldn't read about the surrender of Vicksburg.
As for Petersburg and Appomattox, General Lee gave the best explanation in his farewell address and when he said to Grant: "Grant, you didn't whip me, you just overpowered me, I surrender this day 28,000 men; I do not surrender them to you, I surrender on conditions; it shall not go down in history I surrendered the Northern Confederate Army of Virginia to you. It shall go down in history I surrendered on conditions; you have ten men to my one; my men, too, are barefooted and hungry."
Civil War Scholar.

We'd read about the surrender of Vicksburg - just larger numbers surrendered. Lee never said that quote, by the way. William Mack Lee did - and, well, the good reverend isn't the most reliable of sources! What Lee did say, however, was to his cousin Cassius Lee - he'd remarked that Grant had been a lucky drunk with lots of men and resources. Lee replied, "That's not much of a compliment to me!" He then went on to describe Grant as one of history's truly great generals. He had a lot of respect for the man, and Lee would not have said anything about him if he had not really considered Grant a great general.

 

[Elennsar]

We'd read about the surrender of Vicksburg - just larger numbers surrendered. Lee never said that quote, by the way. William Mack Lee did - and, well, the good reverend isn't the most reliable of sources! What Lee did say, however, was to his cousin Cassius Lee - he'd remarked that Grant had been a lucky drunk with lots of men and resources. Lee replied, "That's not much of a compliment to me!" He then went on to describe Grant as one of history's truly great generals. He had a lot of respect for the man, and Lee would not have said anything about him if he had not really considered Grant a great general.

Lee strikes me as preferring to err on stinginess with praise, in that regard. Polite and civil even when not complimentary, but if he said someone was high quality, it wasn't just because he couldn't think of a polite way of saying they weren't.

 

[wilber6150]

Why is it such a disadvantage? Lee could beat everyone of Grant's assaults and inflict tremendous losses, while suffering minimal. During both the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, the pattern was that: Grant advances with a specific aim, Lee divines his purpose, armies or parts of them meet, the Confederacy repulses the Union suffering less than half the enemy's casualties, Grant makes a new move, Lee beats him again. For 11 months, Lee was constantly beating an adversary who is constantly praised for his foresight and his skills on the battlefield.
Civil War Scholar.

And yet Lee was unable to drive Grant back or not allow himself to be cornered in the way he feared most...Lets not forget that Lee also failed in his objective in beating the AoP as they were travelling thru the Wilderness..Lee didn't devine Grants purposes, Grant got the jump on Lee several times and Lee had to rush to catch up to him...

 

[wilber6150]

Meade wasn't a Union general now? What was he, a Vulcan in disguise?



You can say anything you like, but there's no more truth in that than there would be in me saying Jeb Stuart rode a unicorn bareback (most sources assert he used a saddle).

Don't you know that he doesnt consider Gettysburg a Union victory..

 

[Civil War Scholar]

We'd read about the surrender of Vicksburg - just larger numbers surrendered. Lee never said that quote, by the way. William Mack Lee did - and, well, the good reverend isn't the most reliable of sources! What Lee did say, however, was to his cousin Cassius Lee - he'd remarked that Grant had been a lucky drunk with lots of men and resources. Lee replied, "That's not much of a compliment to me!" He then went on to describe Grant as one of history's truly great generals. He had a lot of respect for the man, and Lee would not have said anything about him if he had not really considered Grant a great general.

But, as Foote tells us, he considered McClellan the best general he ever faced.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

Elennsar,
Meade was no match for Lee. He was almost defeated at the formidable heights of Gettysburg, pushed back in the Bristoe Campaign, stalled in the Mine Run and didn't behave well as Grant's subordinate in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns.
Civil War Scholar.

What formidable heights of Gettysburg? Almost defeated = being the winner

 

[Elennsar]

Don't you know that he doesnt consider Gettysburg a Union victory..

I'm vaguely surprised at this point that he's willing to acknowledge that the ACW was a Union victory. He's all but quoted the idea that the ANV "wore itself out beating the Yankees", and the only reason the AoT doesn't seem to get the same credit is that he thinks less of Johnston and Bragg.

I miss Larry. Larry at least didn't pull anyone down when talking about how the Confederate soldier was brave.