Most Underrated General

[Elennsar]

Um, CSA Today, the Civilwar.org page refers to Hooker having 97,382 engaged vs. Lee having 57,352 engaged. I think the 130,000 to 60,000 is roughly accurate (though it might not properly account for the fact most of the cavalry corps is away) for total forces present, but if we're using "engaged", let's stick to that - not use "engaged" and "present" interchangably when it suits us.

I don't mind using Hooker's total force vs. Lee's total force, but I think we should be clear it was not the force Hooker actually sent into the fight.

But in more picky areas:

As for Second Bull Run, per the latest research ( http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/...l-level-orders-of-battle-second-bull-run-oob/ )

71,327 Federals on the battlefield as of August 29. (65,184 as of August 30)
50,734 Confederates on the battlefield as of August 29. (55,297 as of August 30)

Causalities per the civilwar.org site are 13,824 Federals to 8,353 Confederates.

Very regrettably I am unaware of anything comparable to Allen's thesis for Chancellorsville.


Second Manassas/Bull Run was undeniably a Confederate victory, Chancellorsville was a forfeit by Hooker as much as anything else (which is still a Union defeat, so I won't object to counting it as a Confederate win).

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

The Federals had 88000 engaged, according to Long.

No, Long said that McClellan had 88,000 on the field, not 88,000 engaged, and setting aside the fact that Long's work is a summary of variable accuracy, it's also forty-three years old, and every single reputable work written since then contradicts those numbers.

Foote tells us that the disparity the Confederate troops faced at Sharpsburg was three to one. Mr. Dabney Maury puts Lee's strength to 27000 infantry and 8000 cavalry and artillery.

Neither of those is considered a reliable source for numbers, neither is accurately sourced, and the younger of the two is so old its copyright just expired.

The Confederate troops besieging Forts Sumter and Pickens were army troops, because Anderson's garrison and the US detachment at Ft. Pickens were comprised of regular soldiers. President Davis called for troops to take the forts. The very presence of Federal garrisons on Confederate soil was itself an act of hostility.

There is no such thing as Confederate soil. Unilateral secession was an act of insurrection, which the United States Constitution authorizes and requires the President to respond to. Besieging Federal property with artillery was the act of hostility, not the presence of Federal troops in an authorized Federal facility. Post hoc ergo propter hoc-fueled delusions with no basis in Constitutional reality are a sorry excuse for war.

As for casualties at Sharpsburg, I used Dabney Maury's masterpiece. You should avail yourself by reading it, too.

Seriously, kid, if you're going to be patronizing and suggest that a group of Civil War aficionados don't have ready access to fairly common works, we're going to stop being nice to you and just treat you with the same lack of respect; get this through your head: Maury's papers are well over century old partisan works written with a specific political agenda in mind and have been contradicted by more accurate scholarship - yes, there's that word you still need to look up - almost since their authorship.

Lee retreated in the morning of September 19, not just after the battle. For one day, he stood there, eager to renew the contest with McClellan.

Oh, you're inside Lee's head now, are you? You suddenly have insight into his emotional state after losing a quarter of his strength in a single day and can suddenly answer questions that actual historians have been trying to answer for a century-and-a-half? That's fantastic! In that case, maybe you can tell us this: if he was so "eager" to renew the contest, why didn't he?!?

He lost the battle, suffered greater comparative losses, and retreated. Period. The only reason McClellan's tactical victory (another phrase you still haven't learned) wasn't a strategic victory (also that one) was because McClellan couldn't conduct a competent pursuit of an escaped chicken, much less an actual enemy army.

Finally, I know that I belong in a community where the study of the Civil War is a pastime for the members. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be called civilwartalk.com.
Civil War Scholar.

Then perhaps you should stop acting like your comparatively amateur word and admitted lack of broad knowledge about the topic should be enough to change history, because right now, you wouldn't pass a junior high social studies test on the subject.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

No, Long said that McClellan had 88,000 on the field, not 88,000 engaged, and setting aside the fact that Long's work is a summary of variable accuracy, it's also forty-three years old, and every single reputable work written since then contradicts those numbers.


Neither of those is considered a reliable source for numbers, neither is accurately sourced, and the younger of the two is so old its copyright just expired.


There is no such thing as Confederate soil. Unilateral secession was an act of insurrection, which the United States Constitution authorizes and requires the President to respond to. Besieging Federal property with artillery was the act of hostility, not the presence of Federal troops in an authorized Federal facility. Post hoc ergo propter hoc-fueled delusions with no basis in Constitutional reality are a sorry excuse for war.


Seriously, kid, if you're going to be patronizing and suggest that a group of Civil War aficionados don't have ready access to fairly common works, we're going to stop being nice to you and just treat you with the same lack of respect; get this through your head: Maury's papers are well over century old partisan works written with a specific political agenda in mind and have been contradicted by more accurate scholarship - yes, there's that word you still need to look up - almost since their authorship.


Oh, you're inside Lee's head now, are you? You suddenly have insight into his emotional state after losing a quarter of his strength in a single day and can suddenly answer questions that actual historians have been trying to answer for a century-and-a-half? That's fantastic! In that case, maybe you can tell us this: if he was so "eager" to renew the contest, why didn't he?!?

He lost the battle, suffered greater comparative losses, and retreated. Period. The only reason McClellan's tactical victory (another phrase you still haven't learned) wasn't a strategic victory (also that one) was because McClellan couldn't conduct a competent pursuit of an escaped chicken, much less an actual enemy army.


Then perhaps you should stop acting like your comparatively amateur word and admitted lack of broad knowledge about the topic should be enough to change history, because right now, you wouldn't pass a junior high social studies test on the subject.

McClellan had 88000 men on the field. It was his job to throw them into the battle. That's why generals are for.
As for your second point, what are your sources? I have cited mine, where are yours?
Confederate soil existed because of the existence of the Confederate States of America.
In the American Revolution, America seceded from England. I don't see you criticize them, as you criticize their descendants. Secession is the only solution when your voice in the nation you belong is constantly being overlooked and overheard.
As for Maury and my other sources, they have two common links: a) They are of Southern origin and b) you criticize them. Conclusion: you criticize Southern sources. Yet, I haven't seen you criticize Boonekemper, who rewrote history from his mind. Boonekemper, who is perhaps the worst historian of the Civil War is not criticized by you. He also happens to be from the North.
Moreover, I want to ask you a question: if a source is accurate and a good presentation of the topic, why should you mention how old it is?
As for Lee after Sharpsburg: he remained on the battlefield for one day after the end of the great battle and was eager to continue the contest. He didn't, because McClellan didn't attack and because a charge in front of the Union guns would be equivalent to massacring his own army.
Lee held the battlefield, repulsed McClellan's advances, handled his army better and inflicted much heavier losses to his opponent.
Finally, McClellan's skills in strategy and tactics is a subject much controversial. If Lee's army was demoralized, he most probably would have tried to pursue him. His one attempt to exploit Lee's retirement into Virginia was turned back at Shepherdstown.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[CSA Today]

No, Long said that McClellan had 88,000 on the field, not 88,000 engaged, and setting aside the fact that Long's work is a summary of variable accuracy, it's also forty-three years old, and every single reputable work written since then contradicts those numbers.


Neither of those is considered a reliable source for numbers, neither is accurately sourced, and the younger of the two is so old its copyright just expired.


There is no such thing as Confederate soil. Unilateral secession was an act of insurrection, which the United States Constitution authorizes and requires the President to respond to. Besieging Federal property with artillery was the act of hostility, not the presence of Federal troops in an authorized Federal facility. Post hoc ergo propter hoc-fueled delusions with no basis in Constitutional reality are a sorry excuse for war.


Seriously, kid, if you're going to be patronizing and suggest that a group of Civil War aficionados don't have ready access to fairly common works, we're going to stop being nice to you and just treat you with the same lack of respect; get this through your head: Maury's papers are well over century old partisan works written with a specific political agenda in mind and have been contradicted by more accurate scholarship - yes, there's that word you still need to look up - almost since their authorship.


Oh, you're inside Lee's head now, are you? You suddenly have insight into his emotional state after losing a quarter of his strength in a single day and can suddenly answer questions that actual historians have been trying to answer for a century-and-a-half? That's fantastic! In that case, maybe you can tell us this: if he was so "eager" to renew the contest, why didn't he?!?

He lost the battle, suffered greater comparative losses, and retreated. Period. The only reason McClellan's tactical victory (another phrase you still haven't learned) wasn't a strategic victory (also that one) was because McClellan couldn't conduct a competent pursuit of an escaped chicken, much less an actual enemy army.


Then perhaps you should stop acting like your comparatively amateur word and admitted lack of broad knowledge about the topic should be enough to change history, because right now, you wouldn't pass a junior high social studies test on the subject.

Why would the figures of unidentified recent work contradict the numbers of 43 years ago, the battle of Sharpsburg was 152 years ago?

 

[wilber6150]

In the American Revolution, America seceded from England. I don't see you criticize them, as you criticize their descendants. Secession is the only solution when your voice in the nation you belong is constantly being overlooked and overheard.

Civil War Scholar.

The Southern voice being overlooked and overheard? Really what were all those compremises for then? The North was constantly trying to appease the South, they lost a fair election due to the intentional self destruction of the democratic party then used the results of theat election as a reason to seceed...

 

[Elennsar]

Foote gives McClellan a total strength of 87,164 (page 683, volume 1).

Per page 685:

"(Lee) had in fact, along and behind the Sharpsburg ridge, barely 18,000 soldiers under D. H. Hill and Longstreet - fewer than were in Sumner's corps alone - until Jackson arrived at noon with three thin divisions, his own and Ewell's, under Brigadier General J. R. Jones and Lawton and Walker's, which had crossed the Shenandoah from Harper's Ferry the night before. This brought the total to 26,000 and lowered the odds to three to one. McLaws and Anderson, still on the march, would not arrive before nightfall, and A. P. Hill was still at the Ferry; he might well not arrive at all. Even if he did, so heavy had the straggling, together with the losses at South Mountain, Lee would not be able to count on putting more than 40,000 men into his line of battle, including the cavalry and artillery, and would still face odds worse than two to one."

So in order to get "three to one per Foote" we have to ignore that that his reference to three to one odds is not counting three divisions - two of which were present in time to be counted as available at the start of the battle and the last (A. P. Hill's) which arrived in time to participate there at the end.

So not only is Foote very probably wrong, what Foote actually says is misrepresented!

For love of God, CWS, if you're going to reference Foote at least don't misrepresent what he says to suit your goal of downplaying Confederate numbers and losses. That's not just "not using the best available information", that's deliberately spreading misinformation.


For the curious:
McLaws's division per his report (which does have a figure for officers for Cobb's brigade, though the fact eleven were killed and wounded means there were obviously at least that many) was at least 2904 men (including officers) in action.

There are a lack of reports from Anderson's division for Antietam, but on September 22 it is reported as having 389 officers and 4935 men present for duty.


As McLaws's division is reported as 269 officers and 3,659 men on the same day we may wish to reduce this - but even if we reduce it in the same fraction as McLaws's reported in action on September 17 compared to September 22, it would be nearly four thousand men (about 3,973).

26,000+2904+3973=32,877.

32,877 is not a third of McClellan's 87,164 men. And that figure is almost certainly far too low for Lee.

 

[diane]

Why would the figures of unidentified recent work contradict the numbers of 43 years ago, the battle of Sharpsburg was 152 years ago?

Sears, McPherson, Gallagher - there's a couple, three identified.

 

[Elennsar]

Why would the figures of unidentified recent work contradict the numbers of 43 years ago, the battle of Sharpsburg was 152 years ago?

Because better research since the older work came out? Age in and of itself is meaningless, but new data has been uncovered or old data more thoroughly studied (thus my reference to Allen's thesis as relates to Second Bull Run/Manassas).

 

[CSA Today]

Because better research since the older work came out? Age in and of itself is meaningless, but new data has been uncovered or old data more thoroughly studied (thus my reference to Allen's thesis as relates to Second Bull Run/Manassas).

If this Allen's thesis trumps all prior scholarship we need to know more about this extraordinary thesis.

 

[rbasin]

Foote gives McClellan a total strength of 87,164 (page 683, volume 1).

Per page 685:

"(Lee) had in fact, along and behind the Sharpsburg ridge, barely 18,000 soldiers under D. H. Hill and Longstreet - fewer than were in Sumner's corps alone - until Jackson arrived at noon with three thin divisions, his own and Ewell's, under Brigadier General J. R. Jones and Lawton and Walker's, which had crossed the Shenandoah from Harper's Ferry the night before. This brought the total to 26,000 and lowered the odds to three to one. McLaws and Anderson, still on the march, would not arrive before nightfall, and A. P. Hill was still at the Ferry; he might well not arrive at all. Even if he did, so heavy had the straggling, together with the losses at South Mountain, Lee would not be able to count on putting more than 40,000 men into his line of battle, including the cavalry and artillery, and would still face odds worse than two to one."

So in order to get "three to one per Foote" we have to ignore that that his reference to three to one odds is not counting three divisions - two of which were present in time to be counted as available at the start of the battle and the last (A. P. Hill's) which arrived in time to participate there at the end.

So not only is Foote very probably wrong, what Foote actually says is misrepresented!

For love of God, CWS, if you're going to reference Foote at least don't misrepresent what he says to suit your goal of downplaying Confederate numbers and losses. That's not just "not using the best available information", that's deliberately spreading misinformation.


For the curious:
McLaws's division per his report (which does have a figure for officers for Cobb's brigade, though the fact eleven were killed and wounded means there were obviously at least that many) was at least 2904 men (including officers) in action.

There are a lack of reports from Anderson's division for Antietam, but on September 22 it is reported as having 389 officers and 4935 men present for duty.


As McLaws's division is reported as 269 officers and 3,659 men on the same day we may wish to reduce this - but even if we reduce it in the same fraction as McLaws's reported in action on September 17 compared to September 22, it would be nearly four thousand men (about 3,973).

26,000+2904+3973=32,877.

32,877 is not a third of McClellan's 87,164 men. And that figure is almost certainly far too low for Lee.

For McClellan, we know Porter's Corps did no fighting, and that there were some brigades from various commands that never got into the battle. Battles and Leaders states that (book 3 page 603) that total strength for the AoP was 87.164, but that the battle was fought by no more than 60,000. For the South, Lee reports that the battle was fought by less than 40,000. So, a three to two advantage for McClellan, who did the attacking. Mac didn't do too bad going by the numbers. Too bad he wouldn't throw Porter in.

Losses from both sides seem to have been included in the campaigns overall losses, so that may explain somewhat the disparity in numbers.

 

[Elennsar]

If this Allen's thesis trumps all prior scholarship we need to know more about this extraordinary thesis.

http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/...-confederate-pfd-strengths-in-september-1862/

The alternatives largely involve the dubiously reliable official reports by various generals, and there's no field return near August 29-30 for the Army of Northern Virginia on the whole - and the closest to Antietam is five days later, which would obviously have to be adjusted for returning stragglers and wounded (or even rounded up deserters) before adding any "plus causalities".

In lieu of precise data on those two, I'm very hesitant at using it except to compare to Carman or the like.

 

[Elennsar]

Losses from both sides seem to have been included in the campaigns overall losses, so that may explain somewhat the disparity in numbers.

Somewhat, but not enough to change the fact that Lee's numbers have tended to be grossly underreported - sometimes more honestly than other times.

 

[rbasin]

Somewhat, but not enough to change the fact that Lee's numbers have tended to be grossly underreported - sometimes more honestly than other times.

I don't disagree. In Battles and Leaders, the losses are 12,140 for the Union and 11,172 for Lee. But they only estimate for Lee.

 

[Elennsar]

I don't disagree. In Battles and Leaders, the losses are 12,140 for the Union and 11,172 for Lee. But they only estimate for Lee.

Yeah. I think the fact Confederate records were lost or just plain not kept - and the cavalry is especially bad at keeping records - cloud a perfect calculation. But its pretty obvious that CWS's figures are the lowball numbers without even an attempt at finding the median, let alone the mean.

 

[rbasin]

Yeah. I think the fact Confederate records were lost or just plain not kept - and the cavalry is especially bad at keeping records - cloud a perfect calculation. But its pretty obvious that CWS's figures are the lowball numbers without even an attempt at finding the median, let alone the mean.

I don't really have a huge issue with the error in numbers, but when someone, and there are many here, who don't get the hint that maybe their source is mistaken, or incomplete, that's an issue. And I won't pick on any one person (you two seem to have an interesting chemistry thing going), as we've all been on that side. Just take the criticism and move on.

 

[rpkennedy]

Why would the figures of unidentified recent work contradict the numbers of 43 years ago, the battle of Sharpsburg was 152 years ago?

I'll identify a source from 100 years ago which contradicts Scholar's numbers and yet, are very close to more recent scholarship than Long. That is Ezra Carman's work, edited by Tom Clemens. It's probably the best study of the campaign to date with Scott Hartwig's close behind (potentially, as only Volume 1 is out at the moment).

R

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

As for Maury and my other sources, they have two common links: a) They are of Southern origin and b) you criticize them. Conclusion: you criticize Southern sources.

I shall respond to the rest of your drivel later when I'm at a proper keyboard, but this one was too absurd to leave alone; that is not a conclusion any logical human being could ever possibly draw from whopping two elements. Again, you would fail fairly basic classes with that technique. I criticize poorly sourced non-academic sources; that you personally only mention (not "cite"; that's another word you need to look up) southern sources is unrelated to that. Since I'm criticizing their lack-of-accuracy and not their origin, your accusation both inane and indicative of your simplistic absolutism. It's hardly reflective on anyone but yourself that you actively ignore any source that can't be used to confirm that which you already believe.

This is, of course, to say nothing of the fact that the part of my family that isn't Hispanic is comprised entirely of southerners (including prominent slave owners whose land hosted at least one of the batteries that fired on Sumter) and I have a grand total of two ancestors who fought for the Union and half-a-dozen or are who fought for the Confederacy. Accusing me of being inherently anti-Southern is, in a word, moronic. Then again, you one criticized an Alabama native of the same thing because she wrote a book that took place in the 1930s and didn't spend the whole thing talking about the Confederacy... also known as the greatest act of treason in American history.

Quite frankly, it's obvious that you know exactly nothing about southerners, nothing about scholarship, less than nothing about northerners, nothing about the United States Constitution, and nothing about the Civil War. More importantly, you have actually chosen to be this ignorant.

Sooo... why are you here again?

 

[rpkennedy]

McClellan had 88000 men on the field. It was his job to throw them into the battle. That's why generals are for.
As for your second point, what are your sources? I have cited mine, where are yours?
Confederate soil existed because of the existence of the Confederate States of America.
In the American Revolution, America seceded from England. I don't see you criticize them, as you criticize their descendants. Secession is the only solution when your voice in the nation you belong is constantly being overlooked and overheard.
As for Maury and my other sources, they have two common links: a) They are of Southern origin and b) you criticize them. Conclusion: you criticize Southern sources. Yet, I haven't seen you criticize Boonekemper, who rewrote history from his mind. Boonekemper, who is perhaps the worst historian of the Civil War is not criticized by you. He also happens to be from the North.
Moreover, I want to ask you a question: if a source is accurate and a good presentation of the topic, why should you mention how old it is?
As for Lee after Sharpsburg: he remained on the battlefield for one day after the end of the great battle and was eager to continue the contest. He didn't, because McClellan didn't attack and because a charge in front of the Union guns would be equivalent to massacring his own army.
Lee held the battlefield, repulsed McClellan's advances, handled his army better and inflicted much heavier losses to his opponent.
Finally, McClellan's skills in strategy and tactics is a subject much controversial. If Lee's army was demoralized, he most probably would have tried to pursue him. His one attempt to exploit Lee's retirement into Virginia was turned back at Shepherdstown.
Civil War Scholar.

The American colonies rebelled against Britain, they didn't secede. And you are aware that Southern politicians dominated the federal government until the late 1840s, yes?

The source you're citing is using numbers outside the mainstream scholarship. That puts that source's credibility into question. One would need a very good reason to believe that source over many other sources that say something different (apart from personally agreeing with that source). Heck, as Elennsar pointed out, you were even misrepresenting what Foote said in his work. I have no problem with authors coming from a Southern point-of-view as long as they are accurate and can back up their arguments (Joseph Harsh and Joseph Glatthaar, for example). For the record, I've never defended Bonekemper.

And I wouldn't say that Lee inflicted much higher casualties at Antietam. 12,000 to 10,000 isn't much of a difference and when one loses 25% of their force to inflict a little more than 20% casualties, that's not much of a trade-off.

R

 

[cash]

The Civil War Day By Day: An Almanac, 1861-1865. I think it's published by Da Capo Paperback.
Civil War Scholar.

I'm holding that book in my hand right now.

Monocacy: Confederate "around 700 casualties" Union "nearly 2000, over 1200 of whom were missing." [p. 536]
Fort Stevens: No casualty figures given [pp. 537-538]
Cool Spring: Not covered [pp. 541-542 -- July 18, 1864]
Rutherford's Farm: The only casualties mentioned are "over 250 Confederates were captured." [p. 543]
2nd Kernstown: "The total Federal loss numbered about twelve hundred and the Confederate casualties were light." [p. 545]
McCausland's Raid: No casualty figures given [pp. 548-549]
And of course you leave out the Battle of Moorefield where Averell captured over 400 confederates
http://shenandoah1864.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-battle-of-moorefield/
Skirmishes during August and start of September: No casualty figures given [pp. 549-570]
3rd Winchester: "Federal, 697 killed, 2983 wounded, and 338 missing for 4018; Confederate estimated at 276 killed, 1827 wounded, and 1818 missing or captured for 3921." [p. 571] Note the vast difference between what is actually in the book and what you claimed was in the book.
Fisher's Hill: Union 528. "Early put his losses at 1235, including almost 1000 men missing." [p. 573] Notice again the difference between what you claimed was in the book and what was actually in the book.
Tom's Brook: "Federals captured over 300 prisoners and lost 9 killed and 48 wounded." [p. 581]
Cedar Creek: "Out of more than 30,000 engaged, the North lost 644 killed, 3430 wounded, and 1591 missing for 5665 casualties. Confederate figures are disputed, with estimates of numbers engaged ranging from 8800 infantry to 18,000. Losses were possibly 320 killed, 1540 wounded, and 1050 missing for 2910." [p. 585] Once again, what you claimed is in the book is not what was in the book.

Care to make up another source for your numbers?

 

[cash]

Elennsar,
The National Park Service is exactly that... a National Park Service. It is not a group of experts and historians. And, they estimate the total casualties. The Civil War Trust has as main aim to protect the battlefields, not to write the history.
Civil War Scholar.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The National Park Service has some of the most respected historians around. Ed Bearss is Chief Historian Emeritus of the NPS. Anyone who claims the NPS has no experts or historians is a liar.