Most Underrated General

[cash]

Answer: Yes, I can't tell you a lie. And now, my own question: can we stick at the thread's topic?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Wrong as usual. No actual scholar could be so ignorant of historiography.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mLsOOxVwoH4C&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&source=bl&ots=Xl2S6A9ssB&sig=BA7rN6j1rS5uuwO9D8wogfYV5h8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6DzyU5PIIY21yASsj4H4BA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WRC9QOdYDYcC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&source=bl&ots=WZgfOS1k-Y&sig=czROOJs4CJ9k4exz5Y-zleBb0xc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6DzyU5PIIY21yASsj4H4BA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=UAbj0dTkEHIC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&source=bl&ots=aHdI0DfdYJ&sig=SD7W0hye5OxLhRt5pqlrWUkK7Vo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XT7yU9yACYKZyASUvIHgCA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Plymouth Massacre black soldiers&f=false

With the last source saying, with footnotes, that Hoke's warriors pursued those who fled in the swamps and didn't massacre the USCT. The other two come from the very same books Keyser Soze told me.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

Another General who I believe is underrated, I think he was a very good general, George Greene of Rhode Island. He is also descended from the famous Revolutionary War General Nathaniel Greene.

He also has a cool beard, makes him look like Jolly Ole St. Nick

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Is his middle name Sears?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

Is his middle name Sears?
Civil War Scholar.

Yes

 

[Jamieva]

View attachment 44854

Another General who I believe is underrated, I think he was a very good general, George Greene of Rhode Island. He is also descended from the famous Revolutionary War General Nathaniel Greene.

He also has a cool beard, makes him look like Jolly Ole St. Nick

Guelzo's descrption of him like a German gnome was very appropriate.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

Guelzo's descrption of him like a German gnome was very appropriate.

I can see the resemblance!

 

[cash]

With the last source saying, with footnotes, that Hoke's warriors pursued those who fled in the swamps and didn't massacre the USCT. The other two come from the very same books Keyser Soze told me.

1. Your claim about what the book says is a falsehood. It says clearly that it was a massacre. The only question it has is whether or not Hoke personally was involved.
2. It shows that your claim the first source was the only time it was mentioned is another falsehood.

 

[M E Wolf]

Yes, surely, M.E. Wolf. But, in the middle of battle, individual surrender is often not noted. In the smoke of the battlefield many of the soldiers that throw their rifles down are mistaken for potential deserters and are fired upon. Even cries of "I surrender!" are often drowned in the sounds of gunfire.
Civil War Scholar.

Protocols addressing such 'what if' scenarios are covered and why military use of 'colors' and 'guideons'; the Provost Marshal and Provost Guards; Guard Mounts and Sergeants positions in the 'order of battle' all address such, as to distinguish behavior by individual soldiers as to deem them 'a potential deserter' or 'tossing a defective weapon in search of a working one from a dead comrade. A soldier wounded or stunned out of their senses retiring to the rear ' These 'what ifs' are addressed in various places; Regulations for the Army of the United States; Regulations for the Army of the Confederate States; Lieber Code; Articles of War; Customs and Services - two books - one for Officers, the other for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers, which spells out the duties of Sergeants and responsibilities of their squads, to include the many 'what ifs you've cited.'

Please refer to the CivilWarTalk's "Advance Search" feature for such topics and 'what ifs' as to refresh the memory.

Meanwhile, I like to see the thread return to the "Most Underrated General" please. It has gone astray too far, and must be brought back in alignment to the intent of the thread.

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
Aug. 18, 2014 2:45 p.m.

 

[KeyserSoze]

What I told in the post you quoted applies to y'all.
Civil War Scholar.

The plural of y'all is all y'all. Make a note of it.

 

[Deleted member 8452]

Here is a picture of George's Greene's Monument. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves, he was very instrumental in the defense of Culp's Hill.

I hope this can help return the thread to its original intention, this will be my last attempt, after that if it goes off course, there is not much I can do.

 

[M E Wolf]

Name GREENE, George Sears
Born May 6 1801, Apponaug RI
Died January 28 1899, Morristown NJ
Pre-War Profession Graduated West Point 1823, artillery duty, instructor at West Point, garrison duty, resigned 1836, civil engineer.
War Service January 1862 Col. of 60th New York, April 1862 appointed Brig. Gen. of Volunteers, commanded 3rd Bde/2nd Divn/II Corps at Cedar Mountain, commanded 2nd Divn/XII Corps at Antietam, commanded 3rd Bde/2nd Divn/XII Corps at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, Wauhatchie (w), returned to duty 1865.
Brevet Promotions Maj. Gen. U.S.V. March 13 1865.
Post War Career Civil engineer.
Notes The executive officer of the Monitor in its battle with the Virginia was his son.
Further reading
New York (State) Monuments commission for the battlefields of Gettysburg and Chattanooga In memoriam: George Sears Greene, brevet major-general, United States Volunteers, 1801-1899 Albany NY, State Pr., 1909

 

[cash]

Well, he does get a statue of his own, while I note that the Maine professor doesn't have a statue of his own at Gettysburg.

 

[M E Wolf]

Here is a picture of George's Greene's Monument. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves, he was very instrumental in the defense of Culp's Hill.

View attachment 44856


I hope this can help return the thread to its original intention, this will be my last attempt, after that if it goes of course, there is not much I can do.

Thank you Seth VA/NC for pulling the rope of the drifting thread back on course sir!

M. E. Wolf
POSTED IN THE CAPACITY OF MODERATOR
Aug. 18, 2014 2:44 p.m.

 

[M E Wolf]

I am of the opinion that there are so many underrated generals due to the ones 'history' and 'news coverage' placed in the spotlight from both armies. Its hard to pick who was the 'most' underrated General.

M. E. Wolf

 

[M E Wolf]

Oh my....that is a beard, IcarusPhoenix!

Psh, you call that a beard? Allow me to introduce to you Lieutenant Colonel of the 2nd Arkansas Cavalry and Brevet Brigadier General Hugh Cameron, better known as the Kansas Hermit:

For those who are following this thread, I'll mention that "Brevet" is an honorary in front of the rank. The Confederates did not use Brevet rank. They used "Acting" in lieu of awarding Brevets. Many of these brevet ranks were issued March 1865 as a 'atta boy' as their award and recognition of their leadership. I'll also mention these mass issued Brevets were back dated to March, 1865.

Cameron, Hugh - Lt. Col., 2nd Regt. Arkansas Volunteer Cavalry
Brevet Brig. Gen. U.S.V. March 13 1865


M. E. Wolf

 

[ole]

I am of the opinion that there are so many underrated generals due to the ones 'history' and 'news coverage' placed in the spotlight from both armies. Its hard to pick who was the 'most' underrated General.

M. E. Wolf

I'd say impossible, M.E.. There are many underrated generals and they're easy enough to find, but "most" is subjective and therefore cannot be defined.

 

[M E Wolf]

In honor of

I'd say impossible, M.E.. There are many underrated generals and they're easy enough to find, but "most" is subjective and therefore cannot be defined.

It might be 'fun' to try finding the 'most' underrated general Perhaps, by looking up the many names of Generals (excluding Brevets and Acting), these near unknown Generals--be for good or bad or, in the middle--to look into them a bit more.

Just my thoughts.

M. E. Wolf

 

[Elennsar]

In fact, Elennsar, scarcely is even Hoke's name mentioned in several histories of the Civil War. Let alone his only independent command, Plymouth, one of the forgotten battles. So, if Hoke's name is not mentioned and his independent command largely forgotten, he is underrated.
Civil War Scholar.

I know this moved on a bit, but I still want to make this comment:

I don't know what histories you're referring to (I keep telling people that I failed my mind reading classes), but for example Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson doesn't mention Porter Alexander or "Grumble" Jones either - or Lysander Cutler or Alpheus S. Williams. But it rarely mentions anyone at their level, especially when they weren't major figures beyond the scope of their rank (it does mention Josiah Gorgas, for example) because it's not meant to be a primarily coverage of even something as broad as "the war's military aspect" alone, so there are hundreds of generals not mentioned there.

That doesn't mean that accounts that are about military events in the eastern theater underrate Hoke or Alexander - in fact, if someone suggested Porter Alexander was underrated I would wonder if we were talking about the same artillerist - he's invariably presented as deservedly high in Longstreet's esteem.

It might be questionable how we determine who is "most" underrated. But I think if we expect every history book to go over the majority of brigade commanders or the majority of division commanders whether or not they're of great importance or especially prominent in their time we're asking too much of general histories of the war.

 

[rbasin]

I know this moved on a bit, but I still want to make this comment:

I don't know what histories you're referring to (I keep telling people that I failed my mind reading classes), but for example Battle Cry of Freedom by McPherson doesn't mention Porter Alexander or "Grumble" Jones either - or Lysander Cutler or Alpheus S. Williams. But it rarely mentions anyone at their level, especially when they weren't major figures beyond the scope of their rank (it does mention Josiah Gorgas, for example) because it's not meant to be a primarily coverage of even something as broad as "the war's military aspect" alone, so there are hundreds of generals not mentioned there.

That doesn't mean that accounts that are about military events in the eastern theater underrate Hoke or Alexander - in fact, if someone suggested Porter Alexander was underrated I would wonder if we were talking about the same artillerist - he's invariably presented as deservedly high in Longstreet's esteem.

It might be questionable how we determine who is "most" underrated. But I think if we expect every history book to go over the majority of brigade commanders or the majority of division commanders whether or not they're of great importance or especially prominent in their time we're asking too much of general histories of the war.

I think perhaps the term "underrated" is in need of a definition. I would use it in this thread as someone who has failed to get the credit he/she deserves, not that he/she hasn't been written about. For example, the most important people in any war are the guys and gals who find supplies for the soldiers. Without weapons, food, clothing, etc., there just isn't an army. In the ACW, they are woefully underrated, but to commit a book to one of them would be like watching paint dry.