Most Underrated General

[Civil War Scholar]

Truly a general who has never (except in accounts of the ANV's generals and battles) gotten the credit he deserves.

Elennsar, since you consider all of the generals I picked as underrated are not, why don't you pick some ones and post their bios?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar, since you consider all of the generals I picked as underrated are not, why don't you pick some ones and post their bios?
Civil War Scholar.

I've named the ones I that I'm familiar with enough to make an argument for them being underrated - I don't know enough about Alfred Duffie's career to suggest that he's not given the credit he deserves when his career is discussed, for example.

And I'm even less able to describe someone like Henry Moses Judah - 95%+ of what I know being from Generals in Blue - with any pretense towards understanding what they did, let alone whether they did it well. Hard to tell if he's not given the credit he deserves or if he's obscure for a reason from a biography that lasts around a page, counting the stuff pre-ACW and the photograph of the man.

But at least five of the generals you've named are well recognized and given credit for their accomplishments, and Robert Johnston simply isn't talked about much - but nothing in the bio you posted suggests he deserves greater fame than if we drew a "brave, reasonably able, late war promotion" general out of a hat like James Rice.

If this was a "brave generals" thread, I wouldn't mind - but listing men who are described in terms of praise in most sources and by their superiors is just drawing attention away from someone like David Rumph Jones, who might well deserve a little more love.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I've named the ones I that I'm familiar with enough to make an argument for them being underrated - I don't know enough about Alfred Duffie's career to suggest that he's not given the credit he deserves when his career is discussed, for example.

And I'm even less able to describe someone like Henry Moses Judah - 95%+ of what I know being from Generals in Blue - with any pretense towards understanding what they did, let alone whether they did it well. Hard to tell if he's not given the credit he deserves or if he's obscure for a reason from a biography that lasts around a page, counting the stuff pre-ACW and the photograph of the man.

But at least five of the generals you've named are well recognized and given credit for their accomplishments, and Robert Johnston simply isn't talked about much - but nothing in the bio you posted suggests he deserves greater fame than if we drew a "brave, reasonably able, late war promotion" general out of a hat like James Rice.

If this was a "brave generals" thread, I wouldn't mind - but listing men who are described in terms of praise in most sources and by their superiors is just drawing attention away from someone like David Rumph Jones, who might well deserve a little more love.

Elennsar,
Many of the generals I posted their bios are overlooked. Hoke is hardly referred to in many Civil War studies that embrace the whole course of the war. Robert Johnston is hardly mentioned even here, in THE place for enthusiasts of the war. Yet, his resistance in Spotsylvania allowed Lee to regroup and reorganize his army after the initial shock. Jubal Early is often underestimated because of his being an unreconstructed rebel, which I don't find a reason for him being constantly berated and because he finally lost the Shenandoah, which is due to his force being nothing but the smallest tub thrown to harass an all-devouring whale, like Sheridan's force, which make the upper and middle Valley a desert. William Barksdale's accomplishments are very often overlooked, except for his stand at Fredericksburg. Just food for your thought.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar,
Many of the generals I posted their bios are overlooked. Hoke is hardly referred to in many Civil War studies that embrace the whole course of the war.

Expecting a guy who never did anything as prominent as - for example - Stuart to be mentioned in something embracing the whole course of the war is a rather unrealistic basis to determine whether or not Hoke is "overlooked" by those books that are not trying to describe four years of fighting across half a continent and the nonmilitary sides of the war in a mangable number of pages. There isn't room to detail every general who ever did something credible in something like that without going into more than one volume, and even then there's going to be people left out.

Why should Hoke be included more than Porter Alexander or "Grumble" Jones (to name my favorite Confederate officer and "the best outpost officer in the army" according to Stuart)?

Robert Johnston is hardly mentioned even here, in THE place for enthusiasts of the war. Yet, his resistance in Spotsylvania allowed Lee to regroup and reorganize his army after the initial shock.

Johnston did not stand there alone. Why should he be singled out as allowing Lee to regroup more than the other generals that put up a bloody and determined fight? Why should we talk about him more than Junius Daniel or George Doles?

I'm not saying he should be forgotten - most certainly not - but "he was a brave fighter" describes a substantial number of generals.

Jubal Early is often underestimated because of his being an unreconstructed rebel, which I don't find a reason for him being constantly berated and because he finally lost the Shenandoah, which is due to his force being nothing but the smallest tub thrown to harass an all-devouring whale, like Sheridan's force, which make the upper and middle Valley a desert. William Barksdale's accomplishments are very often overlooked, except for his stand at Fredericksburg. Just food for your thought.
Civil War Scholar.

"Often"? What historians treat him as a bad general for those things?

Generals in Gray? (Ezra J. Warner) No. Lee's Lieutenants? (Freeman) No.

And what accounts of the ANV and its battles and generals disputes that (in the words of his bio in Generals in Gray) Barkdale "distinguished himself on all the early fields of the Army of Northern Virginia, with the exception of Second Manassas where his brigade was not present." - either by claiming he didn't distinguish himself or by, despite professing to cover the battles of the ANV, ignoring him?

 

[Jamieva]

I believe CWS' standard that these generals are not mentioned in one volume studies of the war is not a good one to guide us by. Most of these men were brigade commanders at the most, so in a 1 volume text unless they did something truly outstanding at 1 battle tha turned it significantly one way or the other, they're not going to be mentioned and for good reason.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I believe CWS' standard that these generals are not mentioned in one volume studies of the war is not a good one to guide us by. Most of these men were brigade commanders at the most, so in a 1 volume text unless they did something truly outstanding at 1 battle tha turned it significantly one way or the other, they're not going to be mentioned and for good reason.

Perhaps, it is time for somebody to speak and remind us of those brigadiers? This is my standard, my criterion. If they played a pivotal role in one or more battles and are scarcely receiving any attention, it's enough for me to pick them. Read first my post and then criticize me, if you have something to criticize.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[cash]

Back to Sykes.

 

[Nytram01]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that John S. Bowen was underrated and unappreciated in his own lifetime and only recieved any real credit in the final months of his life. That might count for something in this thread I suppose. But nowadays I believe he has something of a cult following and even had a book written about him once proclaiming that he, and not Cleburne, was the true Stonewall of the West. Just thought I'm mention it really.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

One of the most underrated Confederate generals in James Jay Archer of Maryland. Today, many people know that he was the first general from Lee's army to be captured, which by no means epitomizes or embraces his career.
In early 1861, Archer resigned his commission in the old army and went south. He was soon made colonel of the 5th Texas Infantry, one of the regiments of the Texas Brigade, the shock troops of the Army of Northern Virginia. He led his men gallantly in the battle of Eltham's Landing during the Peninsula Campaign.
After the Battle of Seven Pines, where he also served with distinction, Archer was given a brigade of Tennesseans, the one previously commanded by General Hatton, who had been killed in the battle. Archer's brigade was assigned in the Light Division of General A.P. Hill. He led his brigade at the Seven Days with valor and distinction.
He also took part in the Battle of Cedar Mountain, in the charge that sealed Stonewall Jackson's victory over Banks and forced the latter to flee from the battlefield. At Second Manassas, Archer's troops fought bravely at Stony Ridge. His foerce attitude in combat and personal bravery were more than enough to earn him the nickname "The Little Gamecock".
Archer also took part in the Battle of Harpers Ferry and, after the Confederate triumph, he stayed there, with the rest of A.P. Hill's division, to parole the Yankee prisoners. At the Battle of Sharpsburg, Archer's brigade launched a devastating attack which drove Burnside's Yankees back and recaptured a Confederate battery which had been taken by them. At Shepherdstown, he and fellow brigadier William Dorsey Pender attacked the Federals and forced them to flee to the other bank of the Potomac. He continued to lead his men bravely in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.
At the first day of Gettysburg, Archer's men were engaged in combat with Buford's cavalry, before the latter was reinforced by the Union First Corps, led by John Reynolds. Archer's men, vastly outnumbered and exhausted, were finally forced to give ground. Archer was captured and sent in Johnson's Island, a harsh Yankee prison in Ohio. The inclement weather resulted in Archer's health declining rapidly. In the summer of 1864, he was exchanged at last. His last hurrah was the Battle of Peebles' Farm, where Hill and Hampton achieving in holding the Federals back from their objective.
Some days later, Archer died.

General Archer, CSA, I salute you!
Civil War Scholar.

 

[KeyserSoze]

So while talking underrated generals . . .

How do we rate generals whose records are solid but unremarkable, and unremarked on?

How about solid, but unremarkable?

 

[KeyserSoze]

In 1861, when Maryland was asking herself if she should secede or not, Trimble, a secessionist to the bone, participated in efforts to stop movements of Yankee troops through Maryland by burning bridges. After the Baltimore Riot and the proclamation of martial law by Benjamin F. "Beast" Butler, Trimble went to Virginia, where he could still exercise his rights as a free man.

So free men in Virginia had the right to burn bridges? Who knew?

 

[Elennsar]

And the trend of listing Confederate generals whose accomplishments are covered and acknowledged in books on the ANV but who are not significant enough to take significant space up in a general history of the war continues, without any information on how the past set are treated as inferior generals being supplied.

How about solid, but unremarkable?

Well, the reason I ask is that steady competence but without any great triumphs is a better thing than was displayed by many generals, but it tends not to be much discussed. Is it good enough to mention here?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

So free men in Virginia had the right to burn bridges? Who knew?

Keyser Soze,
Since civil rights, including the writ of habeas corpus, were suspended when "Beast" Butler gripped Baltimore with the iron hand and arrested members of the state legislature, in Virginia Trimble could speak publicly for his sentiments. The Confederate government or state governments within the Confederacy never censored a single line in any paper, while Lincoln in the North censored many newspapers and arrested 38000 Americans.

And the trend of listing Confederate generals whose accomplishments are covered and acknowledged in books on the ANV but who are not significant enough to take significant space up in a general history of the war continues, without any information on how the past set are treated as inferior generals being supplied.


Well, the reason I ask is that steady competence but without any great triumphs is a better thing than was displayed by many generals, but it tends not to be much discussed. Is it good enough to mention here?

Elennsar,
I bet that, in popular culture, Archer is known only as the first general in Lee's army to be captured. Or, he is regarded as a homosexual, because he was never seen with women. Yet, his military record is quite an impressive one. First read the posts and then criticize. I have told you, pick the generals you consider underrated and let others pick theirs.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Elennsar,
I bet that, in popular culture, Archer is known only as the first general in Lee's army to be captured. Or, he is regarded as a homosexual, because he was never seen with women. Yet, his military record is quite an impressive one. First read the posts and then criticize. I have told you, pick the generals you consider underrated and let others pick theirs.
Civil War Scholar.

His military record is also one that those who know of Archer know of, and it is not the subject of controversy. "In popular culture" the vast majority of generals on both sides are unknown figures because most people aren't interested in history or informed on history, but this is not a community of people whose knowledge is typical among the population at large.

This is part of the description of Archer in Generals in Gray:

"As a regimental and brigade commander he took part with great distinction in every battle of the Army of Northern Virginia from the Seven Days until Gettysburg."

Archer being captured is mentioned in Warner's biographical sketch. Speculation on Archer's sexuality is rather notably absent, however.

If you want to make a thread for Above Average Generals (in Gray), please do - there's undoubtedly a lot to be said about Pender or Archer or Trimble or Barksdale or Early or Hoke or all six. But they don't belong in a thread trying to give credit to those generals who have not been given their due as opposed to generals whose names and deeds are acknowledged and honored by those familiar with the ANV.

Its obviously not going to be easy to tell if someone like Richard Anderson is underrated or not. But its not going to be any easier when discussion of him in this thread has to compete with generals who are described as serving with "great distinction" by historians.

 

[tonijustine]

I bet that, in popular culture, Archer is known only as the first general in Lee's army to be captured. Or, he is regarded as a homosexual, because he was never seen with women. Yet, his military record is quite an impressive one. First read the posts and then criticize. I have told you, pick the generals you consider underrated and let others pick theirs.
Civil War Scholar.

Not to butt in where there are perfectly competent others to make this argument, but if we are using "pop culture" as the basis for making this determination, every general not known by the public who reached a modicum of success would be considered underrated. That would pretty much mean every general except: Lee, Grant, Jackson and Sherman (in some parts of the country). The general public neither knows nor cares about any other general ( I am aware this is an broad generalization, and there are exceptions to the rule, but I feel safe making this statement by and large). That this is a sad state of affairs is a different topic.

So, in that case Thomas, Hancock, Longstreet, Stuart, both Johnstons....people who have been credited by their contemporaries and the historical community at large would all be underrated.

I have someone in mind for this distinction, but I admit to not being as well read as many of those posting here and will keep my opinions to myself for the time being.

 

[wilber6150]

Keyser Soze,
Since civil rights, including the writ of habeas corpus, were suspended when "Beast" Butler gripped Baltimore with the iron hand and arrested members of the state legislature, in Virginia Trimble could speak publicly for his sentiments. The Confederate government or state governments within the Confederacy never censored a single line in any paper, while Lincoln in the North censored many newspapers and arrested 38000 Americans.

Elennsar,
I bet that, in popular culture, Archer is known only as the first general in Lee's army to be captured. Or, he is regarded as a homosexual, because he was never seen with women. Yet, his military record is quite an impressive one. First read the posts and then criticize. I have told you, pick the generals you consider underrated and let others pick theirs.
Civil War Scholar.

OMG, what the heck are you talking about...The Confederacy never censored a single line in the paper, censored a newspaper or never arrested anyone....Why don't you actually study history before you post....The slave states were doing that long before the war even started..And the burning of the bridges occured even before a secessionist vote was taken in Maryland and for your information it failed to pass without inteferrence from the Union government..Butler arrested certain members of the state government when they tried to do a second vote after the war had started...


I guess this newspaper didn't know what they were talking about...

To muzzle the press is to suppress the facts and opinions which may be necessary to the correct judgment of the people. Whatever mitigates against freedom of the press wars upon the people's means of obtaining light for the control of their government. Its practical effect is to put the people, their government, and their measures in the hands of people who, having gained their confidence, would keep them in the dark, and direct affairs without responsibility. -Editorial in an 1863 Charleston (S.C.) Mercury, criticizing Confederate government press censorship.

and what about free speech...

 

[KeyserSoze]

Well, the reason I ask is that steady competence but without any great triumphs is a better thing than was displayed by many generals, but it tends not to be much discussed. Is it good enough to mention here?

If you're looking for a general who meets the very definition of 'steady competence' then I submit you need look no further than George Thomas. He wasn't flashy. He wasn't brilliant. But all he did, day after day, was handle his command in a solid manner.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Keyser Soze,
Since civil rights, including the writ of habeas corpus, were suspended when "Beast" Butler gripped Baltimore with the iron hand and arrested members of the state legislature, in Virginia Trimble could speak publicly for his sentiments.

Which is allowed under certain circumstances per Article I, Section 9 of our Constituion.

The Confederate government or state governments within the Confederacy never censored a single line in any paper, while Lincoln in the North censored many newspapers and arrested 38000 Americans.

I do so admire your creativity. Just when I think you've reached the very limits of outrageous and incredibly inaccurate statements you go and raise the bar once again.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

OMG, what the heck are you talking about...The Confederacy never censored a single line in the paper, censored a newspaper or never arrested anyone....Why don't you actually study history before you post....The slave states were doing that long before the war even started..And the burning of the bridges occured even before a secessionist vote was taken in Maryland and for your information it failed to pass without inteferrence from the Union government..Butler arrested certain members of the state government when they tried to do a second vote after the war had started...


I guess this newspaper didn't know what they were talking about...



and what about free speech...
View attachment 45032

Wilber,
Charleston Mercury was the newspaper organ of the opposition to the Confederacy, alongside Pollard's. Yet, the newspaper went uncensored. Strange the fact that the protesters of censorship went uncensored. Something fishy here.
At second, from what book or article comes the excerpt? Pray tell me, because I really want to learn.

Which is allowed under certain circumstances per Article I, Section 9 of our Constituion.

But the writ can be suspended only when Congress decides it. Lincoln did it alone, Congress had not voted on the subject

I do so admire your creativity. Just when I think you've reached the very limits of outrageous and incredibly inaccurate statements you go and raise the bar once again.

If you have evidence and sources to offer for your statements, just refer to them.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[KeyserSoze]

But the writ can be suspended only when Congress decides it. Lincoln did it alone, Congress had not voted on the subject.

The Constitution does not say that only Congress can suspend the writ when circumstances require it, and the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the president can or cannot.

If you have evidence and sources to offer for your statements, just refer to them.
Civil War Scholar.

Certainly. In his book Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism Mark Neely details that day after the Confederacy initiated the war by firing on Sumter Braxton Bragg, who was then commanding in the Pensacola area, ordered a newspaper reporter jailed because he didn't like what that reporter had written. Thus the first political prisoner of the conflict was a censored Southern journalist, and that the Confederacy had people locked up without charges and for political reasons from the first day of the war to the last. Neely goes into detail on the numbers and types of prisoners, and demonstrates that based on population you had a greater chance of being tossed into jail in a Jeff Davis Confederacy than in Lincoln's United States.

And before you start claiming bias or poor qualification on the part of someone you had never heard of before today, Neely did a similar study of the Union and won the Pulitzer and Wiley prizes for his The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties.

As for newspaper censorship, you're read McPherson and he talks about it. I would also direct you to Blue & Grey in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War by Brayton Harris.