Most Underrated General


So why do you have so much of a problem with giving the Army of the Potomac credit for beating Lee at Gettysburg?

You gave me a good piece to read, Elennsar. Really, was not aware of it. Yet, if a Union general wrote an OR that had no relation to the actual event, what would be your reaction?
Civil War Scholar.

It's a good piece other than his fantasies on the terrain and the fact he had an exaggerated notion of the Union opposition.

But as for your question: "General Soandso wrote this nonsense." is something I fault on both sides. I wish I could say the same for everyone in this discussion.

I actually have to somewhat about Imboden; indeed, in an army with a somewhat notorious bias against non-professionals - particularly on the part of Davis - few civilians achieved the sort of success that Forrest and Gordon did.

But few civilians were up to their level, either. And they had to learn the hard way stuff that Ewell (say) entered knowing from previous experience.
 
It is easy to say now what we know happened and where the troops were at the time. But put yourself in this man's shoes, you are wore out, tired, wet, your main army just got tore all to peices; you have a huge cavalry force on your butt, you have 4k wagons to protect you don't exactly know where your cavalry is at the time, it's just you with your back up against the wall( or river in this case) and you decide to fight it out and hope for the best. Many a man would have just surrendered their little command which quite a few did during the war. Not Imboden, he chose to stand and fight and he did it well. I mean, I would be a little worried putting a few hundred teamsters on my flanks with a cavalry force opposing me. Pretty ballsy.

So he put it in a shineir light than it was? Explain.

I think according to the orginal post, he is one of the most underrated generals of the war. JMO

He was pretty ballsy. But his description of events makes it sound like he was facing an even harder situation - as stated, Buford's division isn't even four thousand men strong at this point, and Imboden may have received reinforcements that he's not counting (I'd have to check if the units I'm thinking of arrived before or after the fight you're referring to) - not much but a few hundred men would go a long way.

I don't disagree on your conclusion, I just think that we need to check his report more carefully before relying on his assertion on numbers (regrettably, I wouldn't trust Kilpatrick as far as I could throw him, and Buford didn't live to write anything postwar) and thus how much of a long shot he was in.

But as stated, definitely ballsy. That took steady nerves in a situation that would shred a lesser man's, whether or not it was "brilliant" I leave to those more fond of that as a compliment. Steady nerved focus is more impressive to me and he had that here.
 
Last edited:
He was pretty ballsy. But his description of events makes it sound like he was facing an even harder situation - as stated, Buford's division isn't even four thousand men strong at this point, and Imboden may have received reinforcements that he's not counting (I'd have to check if the units I'm thinking of arrived before or after the fight you're referring to) - not much but a few hundred would go a long way.

I don't disagree on your conclusion, I just think that we need to check his report more carefully before relying on his assertion on numbers (regrettably, I wouldn't trust Kilpatrick as far as I could throw him, and Buford didn't live to write anything postwar) and thus how much of a long shot he was in.

But as stated, definitely ballsy. That took steady nerves in a situation that would shred a lesser man's, whether or not it was "brilliant" I leave to those more fond of that as a compliment. Steady nerved focus is more impressive to me and he had that here.

I do believe they had been going back and forth with cannon's for about 4 or 5 hours and there was quite a bit of hand to hand combat going on before kilpatricks men came up on Buford's right, think being chased by Chambliss cavalry which is when Buford stopped the siege on Williamsport. Stuart had sent Fitz Lee towards Williamsport as well and these are the cavalry forces that saved the day.

I am just glad Pegram wasn't in charge...the Yanks would have had 4k wagons.
 
So why do you have so much of a problem with giving the Army of the Potomac credit for beating Lee at Gettysburg?



It's a good piece other than his fantasies on the terrain and the fact he had an exaggerated notion of the Union opposition.

But as for your question: "General Soandso wrote this nonsense." is something I fault on both sides. I wish I could say the same for everyone in this discussion.



But few civilians were up to their level, either. And they had to learn the hard way stuff that Ewell (say) entered knowing from previous experience.

No, apart from that this is not the case. Seldom are battles won due to the fighting qualities of soldiers only. Superior generalship is more important. If Longstreet was prompt in his actions, Gettysburg would be a clear-cut Confederate victory. Meade was the defender and was practically forced into doing so. He didn't select the position. Buford, Reynolds and Hancock did.
You say that you would condemn every OR, US or CS, if it had no relation to the truth. Yet, you are limited in condemning every Southern source, from the Southern Historical Society Papers to Shelby Foote.
Civil War Scholar.
 
I actually have to somewhat about Imboden; indeed, in an army with a somewhat notorious bias against non-professionals - particularly on the part of Davis - few civilians achieved the sort of success that Forrest and Gordon did.
There were plenty of Brigadier Generals (Imboden's rank) who had been civilians.
 
Pegram as in John Pegram, right?

Trying not to imagine that. I'm for Buford getting glory, but I still wince at the thought of that kind of humiliation for the guys in gray.

Yes, John Pegram. 1 of my gggranduncles and 1 of my gggrandfathers started out in the 25th Va which he nicely surrendered. They were paroled and one joined the 11th va cav with his brother and my gggf joined the 18th va cav with two of my other ggguncles.
 
No, apart from that this is not the case. Seldom are battles won due to the fighting qualities of soldiers only. Superior generalship is more important. If Longstreet was prompt in his actions, Gettysburg would be a clear-cut Confederate victory. Meade was the defender and was practically forced into doing so. He didn't select the position. Buford, Reynolds and Hancock did.

If wishes were horses, beggars would fly. Misrepresenting Longstreet's actions and Meade's actions is still not accurate history.

And what the derp does "being the defender" have to do with anything? Are you going to deny Lee credit for success at Fredericksburg because he was the defender, or do only Union generals get denied credit for their accomplishments?

You say that you would condemn every OR, US or CS, if it had no relation to the truth. Yet, you are limited in condemning every Southern source, from the Southern Historical Society Papers to Shelby Foote.
Civil War Scholar.

I repeat an earlier comment: I regularly reference a Georgian and a Tennessean when talking about the Army of Tennessee, and quote a Virginian when talking about the ANV when he hasn't been superseded by better work. And that's not counting regarding a Georgian who actually fought in gray (No, not Longstreet) as a credible writer. But you seem intent on ignoring that because I don't rely on one sided partisan sources like Early or on Foote's unsupported work.

When people claim Lee had more men than he actually did at Antietam, I am just as critical as when people claim he had less. But very few (if any) people base their arguments on Antietam on McClellan's claim that Lee outnumbered him there, whereas people defending Lee regularly downplay his numbers there. Of course the issue of the lack of credibility of "Southern sources" is going to come up more when the unreliable "Southern sources" are used.
 
Yes, John Pegram. 1 of my gggranduncles and 1 of my gggrandfathers started out in the 25th Va which he nicely surrendered. They were paroled and one joined the 11th va cav with his brother and my gggf joined the 18th va cav with two of my other ggguncles.
Smart men (your ancestors).

I think Pegram early in the war deserves a little slack, but he never seems to have been much of a commander. When the nicest thing Freeman can say about how he looked coming into the ANV is referring to his artillerist brother, you know his record is disappointing.
 
Let's forget Chancellorsville. :smile: Yep, Lee beat Grant to Spotsylvania but only because Stuart told his men to run! And Anderson, in one of those strange things, was camped on a creepy piece of old battlefield amid dead bodies - he was up and booking it out of there way before he would have been...and so was on the road at just the right time. Despite any numbers - and the figures really don't matter because outcome is what matters - Lee and Grant wrasseled all over the Virginia countryside and the upshot is neither of them won a decision and neither of them lost one, either. In the end, the decisive outcome of the Overland Campaign was Grant finally treed Lee in Petersburg.

Also there was a Cavalry battle of a sorts that slowed down the Union army movement at Todd's Tavern. Eric could tell more about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...ewer/File:Spotsylvania_Court_House_May_07.png
 
Smart men (your ancestors).

I think Pegram early in the war deserves a little slack, but he never seems to have been much of a commander. When the nicest thing Freeman can say about how he looked coming into the ANV is referring to his artillerist brother, you know his record is disappointing.

He is lucky he was wounded and not at Bethesda Church....Ramseur got the 49th va annihlated and Pegram would have probably died earlier in the war. I had alot of ancestors fight in the war and only one actually was killed which is surprising since they were in so many battles, the one that got killed was in the 52nd Va and died at Bethesda church. The 52nd and 49th took heavy losses, my other gggf and gggu were in the 31st Va but luckily didn't take part in charging the enemy works that day or I might not be here today writing this LOL.
 
Did Ramseur misdeploy of the 49th, or was it just caught up in the worst of it? He seems to have taken a bit of effort to get used to division command.
 
If he meant which of his opponents was the easiest to fight, he ought to say Burnside. He said that McClellan was the best general opposing him.
If Meade was Lee's match, why did he admit Lee bullied him at Bristoe? Why did he withdraw from Mine Run? Why did he fail to reach Spotsylvania? Why he left all chances unexploited at Second Ream's Station?
I never said something degrading about Union soldiers. I admire the fighting qualities, the courage and determination of both the average Billy Yank and the average Johnny Reb.

Bristoe was A P Hill's goof. He didn't do the reconnaissance and got whacked for it. You'll have to source where Meade said Lee bullied him there - don't seem to recall that. Meade withdrew from Mine Run, for other reasons to be sure, but mainly because Lee was snugged down in fortified positions. He'd proven he was mostly unbeatable when he did that. Spotsylvania? Well, gosh - guess the rebs were just faster runners than the Yanks! Reams Station the second time around - what unexploited chances? Not that much - Hancock was the guy to exploit it, too.

Oh. I stand corrected. You admire Union soldiers just not the incompetent bozos who led them. Thanks! Again, you do know what you're really saying with that stance, don't you? :whistling:
 
He is lucky he was wounded and not at Bethesda Church....Ramseur got the 49th va annihlated and Pegram would have probably died earlier in the war. I had alot of ancestors fight in the war and only one actually was killed which is surprising since they were in so many battles, the one that got killed was in the 52nd Va and died at Bethesda church. The 52nd and 49th took heavy losses, my other gggf and gggu were in the 31st Va but luckily didn't take part in charging the enemy works that day or I might not be here today writing this LOL.

My G-Grand was wounded at Bethesda Church battle.
 
Last edited:
Imboden reported directly to General Lee and did everything he was asked to do. I would say underrated.

I tend to think Imboden was, while better than expected, about as good as he's given credit for by people after the fact.

Still, I'm not going to complain when it comes to a general genuinely treated as of inferior material deserving better. That sort of thing might not be quite the same as "underrated by historians', but its worth commendation.
 
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.
The authenticity of this is much in doubt, as it is, it sounds nothing like anything Lee had written, and defintily doesn't sound anything that a general would say to the man hes surrandering to.
 
Heres a series of letters between Grant and Lee now compare that to what he supposedly said to Grant


The correspondence below follows the letters of Grant and Lee as they seek to find an honorable and acceptable end to this bloody war.


APRIL 7, 1865

General R. E. LEE:

The result of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood, by asking of you the surrender of that portion of the C. S. Army known as the Army of Northern Virginia.

U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General

_____


HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
APRIL 7, 1865

Lieut. Gen. U.S. GRANT:

I have received your note of this date. Though not entertaining the opinion you express on the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia, I reciprocate your desire to avoid useless effusion of blood, and therefore, before considering your proposition, ask the terms you will offer on condition of its surrender.

R. E. LEE,
General.

________

APRIL 8, 1865

General R. E. LEE:

Your note of last evening, in reply to mine of same date, asking the condition on which I will accept the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, is just received. In reply I would say that, peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist upon, namely, that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms again against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged. I will meet you, or will designate officers to meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point agreeable to yell, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.

U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.

________

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
APRIL 8, 1865

Lieut. Gen. U.S. GRANT:

I received at a late hour your note of to-day. In mine of yesterday I did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition. To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army, but as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all, I desired to know whether your proposals would lead to that end. I cannot, therefore, meet you with a view to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia, but as far as your proposal may affect the C. S. forces under my command, and tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 a.m., to-morrow; on the old stage road to Richmond, between the picket-lines of the two armies.

R. E. LEE,
General.

________

APRIL 9, 1865

General R. E. LEE:

Your note of yesterday is received. I have no authority to treat on the subject of peace; the meeting proposed for 10 a.m. to-day could lead to no good. I will state, however, general, that I am equally anxious for peace with yourself, and the whole North entertains the same feeling. The terms upon which peace can be had are well understood. By the South laying down their arms they will hasten that most desirable event, save thousands of human lives, and hundreds of millions of property not yet destroyed. Seriously hoping that all our difficulties may be set-tied without the loss of another life, I subscribe myself, &c.,

U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.

__________


Robert E. Lee (Library of Congress)
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
APRIL 9, 1865

Lieut. Gen. U.S. GRANT:

I received your note of this morning on the picket-line, whither I had come to meet you and ascertain definitely what terms were embraced in your proposal of yesterday with reference to the surrender of this army. I now ask an interview in accordance with the offer contained in your letter of yesterday for that purpose.

R. E. LEE,
General.

___________

APPOMATTOX COURT-HOUSE, VA.
April 9, 1865

General R. E. LEE:

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit: Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate, one copy to be given to an officer to be designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged; and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. The arms, artillery, and public property to be parked and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side-arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by U. S. authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.

U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.

__________


HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
April 9, 1865

Lieut. Gen. U. S. GRANT:

I have received your letter of this date containing the terms of surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia as proposed by you. As they are substantially the same as those expressed in your letter of the 8th instant, they are accepted. I will proceed to designate the proper officers to carry the stipulations into effect.

R. E. LEE,
General.
 

Learn About Us
►About CivilWarTalk
►Contact the Webmaster
►Meet the Staff
►Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
►Register
►Browse Forums
►View Today's Discussions
►Search the Forum
Get Help
►FAQ
►Student Guide
►Forum Rules & Etiquette
►Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top