Most Underrated General

[Civil War Scholar]

Figures for Early's march to Washington and battles in the Valley until Cedar Creek:
Monocacy: 700 Confederate, 1300 Union
Ft. Stevens: 300 Confederate, 500 Union
Cool Spring: 300 Confederate, 500 Union
Rutherford's Farm: 400 Confederate, 300 Union
2nd Kernstown: 500 Confederate, 1300 Union
McCausland's Raid: little or no Confederate, 100 Union
Skirmishes during August and start of September: 700 Confederate, 1600 Union
3rd Winchester: 3000 Confederate, 6000 Union
Fisher's Hill: 1200 Confederate, 600 Union
Tom's Brook: 300 Confederate, 50 Union
Cedar Creek: 2500 Confederate, 6000 Union
TOTAL: 9900 Confederate, 18250 Union
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/monocacy.html 900 Confederate and 1,300 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fort-stevens.html 500 Confederate and 374 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/cool-spring.html 397 Confederate and 422 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/third-winchester.html 3,610 Confederate and 5,020 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fisher-s-hill.html 1,235 Confederate and 528 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/toms-brook.html?tab=facts 350 Confederate and 57 Union
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/cedar-creek.html?tab=facts 3,060 Confederate and 5,764 Union

Not all the battles you referred to are listed there, so its imperfect.

Per the NPS (battles listed on both sites are in teal):

http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/md007.htm - Monocacy
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/dc001.htm - Fort Stevens
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va114.htm - Cool Springs
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va115.htm - Rutherford's Farm
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va116.htm - Second Kernstown
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/md008.htm - Folck's Mill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/wv013.htm - Moorefield
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va117.htm - Guard Hill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/wv014.htm - Summit Point
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/wv015.htm - Smithfield Crossing
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va118.htm - Berryville
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va119.htm- Third Winchester
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va120.htm - Fisher's Hill
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va121.htm - Tom's Brook
http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va122.htm - Cedar Creek

Regrettably several battles are listed by total causality figures, rather than broken down by side.

But it appears that the tendency of your sources to understate Confederate causalities and overstate Union causalities is present here as well, judging by both.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

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.

 

[Nytram01]

OK back to the meeting that was brought up earlier basically between Randolph, Lee, Davis and Johnston. At the end of the meeting, according to C. Dowdy, Davis flatly told Johnston that Yorktown must be defended. After the war Johnston wrote" The belief that the events on the Peninsula would soon compel the Confederate Government to the necessity of adopting my method of opposing the Federal army, reconciled me somewhat to obeying the Presidents order."

You've misquoted Johnston there. He said "The belief that events on the Peninsula would soon compel the Confederate Government to adopt my method of opposing the Federal army, reconciled me somewhat to the necessity of obeying the President's order." By moving the word "necessity" you change the tone of the whole thing.

Putting that word with the passage where Johnston said events would prove him righ you imply that he had no intention of following orders, but this is not the case as he wrote to Samuel Cooper that after recieving his orders following that conferance he was determined to "hold the position as long as it could be done without exposing our troops to the fire of the powerful artillery".

On May the 1st. Johnston sent a telegram to Davis informing him that Yorktown was being evacuated. Davis wired back asking if the safety of his army would permit them time to remove the public property from the Norfolk Navy yard. Johnston ignored the telegram and didn't respond. Johnston evacuated Yorktown on the night of May the 4th without saying anything to Richmond.

Craig L. Symonds reports that Johnston did respond to Davis's telegram on May 1st, and wrote this in defence of his decision to evacuate Yorktown:

"I determined to retire because we can do nothing here...The enemy will give us no chance to win. We must lose. By delay we may insure the loss of Richmond too. I have explained this to General Lee."​

Davis sent Mallory and Randolph to Norfolk to find out what was going on. They arrived about the same time that a staff officer from Johnston showed up at the Navy yard to order the immediate evacuation. Randolph and Mallory couldn't see any reason for it and countermanded the order. The AoP gave them about another week to move supplies out.

Johnston's orders we based upon the situation at Yorktown. He determined that he couldn't stay there any longer once the Federal seige guns began bombardment and had to withdraw. This, he believed, would expose Norfolk to an enemy advance from the North and thus Norfolk had to be evacuated to save the troops. He was not fully aware of the situation on the ground at Norfolk so if Randolph at the scene saw he had more time than Johnston believed there to be to move supplies and whatnot does not undermine the basic correctness of Johnston's view.

In fact, Randolph did not countermand the order to evacuate Norfolk at all, he merely delayed its execution. If he had seen "no reason" to evacuate Norfolk and countermanded Johnston order to do so then he would not have continued to relocate supplies and material from Norfolk back toward Richmond.

Johnston sent a message to Richmond on May 7th. stating that the army was now at Barhamsville in New Kent co. near the White House landing. On may 8th Johnston sent an angry letter to Lee complaining that Lee and Randolph were dispatching troops that were under his command.

That letter was in response to the Richmond Authorties issuing orders to Huger without even informing him. Whether what Johnston was doing was right or wrong he deserved to kept informed about whatever Lee, Randolph or whoever was doing with troops who were officially his subordinates.

It was also the culmination of his frustration with Lee and Cooper for keeping him entirely ignorant of events in Northern Virginia. He had told Jackson, Ewell and Field to keep him informed of what was going on in Northern Virginia while he was on the Peninsula, he told them to send messages for him to Cooper and said Cooper would forward them on. For whatever reason Cooper didn't forward the letters to Johnston but to Lee, Lee then dealt with the situation himself while only giving Johnston the basic overview of what was happening and often doing so only days after Lee had recieved the message in the first place and dealt with it. Despite the fact that Johnston had requested specifically on April 22nd that Lee keep him informed of events elsewhere because he wasn't getting information from anyone else Lee didn't do so and denied ever having recieved that request when Johnston reached Barhamsville in May and confronted him about it.

If Johnston was irritable about troops under his command being deployed by people in Richmond without even his knowledge let alone consent I would argue that he a perfectly valid reason for it.

On May 11th the CSS Virginia was scuttled and the next day the Federal navy started up the James river. That same day Johnston wrote Lee asking what plans had been made for supplying his army in the event Richmond was evacuated. IMO it is pretty easy to see why Davis and Lee lost faith in Johnston.

Asking about contingecy plans is hardly indicative of any intention not to fight - especially when one considers that on May 10th Johnston had written to Lee saying that if the Army was driven beyond Richmond it lost the means to sustain itself.

 

[Elennsar]

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 don't really know much about the National Park Service if you think that it does not contain historians and experts among its members. The Civil War Trust's mission includes presenting history as well.

By contrast:
Foote was not a historian and he gives no sources for his numbers (and precious little to back up any of his descriptions).

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone based on anything.


But let's take wikipedia since you insist on using it as a source:
Monocacy: 1294 Union, 700-900 Confederate
Fort Stevens: 373 Union, 400-500 Confederate
Cool Springs: 422 Union , 397 Confederate
Rutherford's Farm: 220 Union, 450 Confederate
Third Winchester (with a Expired Image Removed
This article needs additional citations for verification. note): 5020 Union, 3610 Confederate
Fisher's Hill: 528 Union, 1234 Confederate
Tom's Brook: 57 Union, 350 Confederate
Cedar Creek: 5764 Union, 2910 Confederate

From these eight, the total Confederate losses would be (going for the middle between the two figures for Monocacy and Fort Stevens for the sake of discusssion) would be 10,201 men.

Union losses would be 13,678.

And this isn't counting Second Kernstown (1200 Union and 600 Confederate per wikipedia, with the same note as for Third Winchester), McCausland's Raid, or the August and September skirmishes.

If I have goofed in my math or transcription at any point I beg the forgiveness of my peers. But it sure doesn't look like "9900 Confederate to 18,250 Union" to me in the absence of that.


I'm not making this argument to take away from the credit Early deserves. But any argument on whether Early is underrated or overrated has to start with accurate information.

 

[rbasin]

You don't really know much about the National Park Service if you think that it does not contain historians and experts among its members. The Civil War Trust's mission includes presenting history as well.

By contrast:
Foote was not a historian and he gives no sources for his numbers (and precious little to back up any of his descriptions).

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone based on anything.


But let's take wikipedia since you insist on using it as a source:
Monocacy: 1294 Union, 700-900 Confederate
Fort Stevens: 373 Union, 400-500 Confederate
Cool Springs: 422 Union , 397 Confederate
Rutherford's Farm: 220 Union, 450 Confederate
Third Winchester (with a Expired Image Removed
This article needs additional citations for verification. note): 5020 Union, 3610 Confederate
Fisher's Hill: 528 Union, 1234 Confederate
Tom's Brook: 57 Union, 350 Confederate
Cedar Creek: 5764 Union, 2910 Confederate

From these eight, the total Confederate losses would be (going for the middle between the two figures for Monocacy and Fort Stevens for the sake of discusssion) would be 10,201 men.

Union losses would be 13,678.

And this isn't counting Second Kernstown (1200 Union and 600 Confederate per wikipedia, with the same note as for Third Winchester), McCausland's Raid, or the August and September skirmishes.

If I have goofed in my math or transcription at any point I beg the forgiveness of my peers. But it sure doesn't look like "9900 Confederate to 18,250 Union" to me in the absence of that.


I'm not making this argument to take away from the credit Early deserves. But any argument on whether Early is underrated or overrated has to start with accurate information.

You said it better than I could. The NPS does have experts, as does the Trust.

 

[GELongstreet]

You don't really know much about the National Park Service if you think that it does not contain historians and experts among its members...Wikipedia can be edited by anyone based on anything...

I can only repeat your first sentence in regards to Wikipedia - it may not be perfect but its own historians and experts and their quality control are not to be dismissed easily with a "can be edited by anyone based on anything".

 

[KeyserSoze]

Keyser Soze,
Early's victory was a victory. When a Union general has 3 to 1 superiority, it's a victory. When the same applies to a Confederate one, not talk for victory.
I didn't say Early captured Ft. Stephens. Yet, his reaching of the DC was enough to earn him admiration and glory.
Figures come from Long, Foote and Wikipedia.
Civil War Scholar.

So much honor and glory that Lee would later fire him.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

The reason General Lee relieved Early of his command was the fact that his command had been abolished, because the vast majority of it had been sent back at Petersburg during the winter and because, after the Battle of Waynesboro, his force was too diminished to accomplish anything significant. The days of Early's gallant band ended shortly before those of the heroic Army of Northern Virginia.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

Figures for Early's march to Washington and battles in the Valley until Cedar Creek:
Monocacy: 700 Confederate, 1300 Union
Ft. Stevens: 300 Confederate, 500 Union
Cool Spring: 300 Confederate, 500 Union
Rutherford's Farm: 400 Confederate, 300 Union
2nd Kernstown: 500 Confederate, 1300 Union
McCausland's Raid: little or no Confederate, 100 Union
Skirmishes during August and start of September: 700 Confederate, 1600 Union
3rd Winchester: 3000 Confederate, 6000 Union
Fisher's Hill: 1200 Confederate, 600 Union
Tom's Brook: 300 Confederate, 50 Union
Cedar Creek: 2500 Confederate, 6000 Union
TOTAL: 9900 Confederate, 18250 Union
Civil War Scholar.

Source please

 

[Civil War Scholar]

For most engagements, E.B. Long's almanac. Foote was also used.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

For most engagements, E.B. Long's almanac. Foote was also used.
Civil War Scholar.

Thanks do you know the name of Long's almanac?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

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

 

[Old Bay]

I like Shelby Foote a lot. Just wish he documented something...anything.

 

[BillO]

You've misquoted Johnston there. He said "The belief that events on the Peninsula would soon compel the Confederate Government to adopt my method of opposing the Federal army, reconciled me somewhat to the necessity of obeying the President's order." By moving the word "necessity" you change the tone of the whole thing.
I pulled my quote without change directly from Clifford Dowdy. So if Symonds says something different I guess they'll have to duke it out.
Putting that word with the passage where Johnston said events would prove him righ you imply that he had no intention of following orders, but this is not the case as he wrote to Samuel Cooper that after receiving his orders following that conference he was determined to "hold the position as long as it could be done without exposing our troops to the fire of the powerful artillery".
And yet he pulled out before the gunfire even started after being told by his boss to defend Yorktown. As far as the evacuation of Norfolk his orders were to leave "immediately". I guess this just depends on your definition of the word immediately.
As for the rest, I agree that Johnston probably did have cause to complain about Lee moving his troops around but somebody needed to do it and Johnston simply wasn't responding to requests from his subordinates. As for his request for plans to sustain his army if Richmond fell , well, everyone in Richmond was freaking out. Contingency plans are always a good thing but you have to admit the timing sucked. Davis had already sent his family away. Dowdy seemed to think it was simply a way to prepare Davis for what Johnston thought was coming. I think I agree with his assessment.

 

[Elennsar]

I can only repeat your first sentence in regards to Wikipedia - it may not be perfect but its own historians and experts and their quality control are not to be dismissed easily with a "can be edited by anyone based on anything".

Except that it prides itself on being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.". (my bold)

No expertise is required to write a wikipedia article. No expertise is required to edit a wikipedia article.

Are some of the people who do that there experts (either professionally trained historians or people like Eric Wittenberg who approach history with the same dedication)? I wouldn't doubt it.

But "quality control"? When wikipedia has standards for who can and can't edit it other than "jump right in" and "the consensus of the community", I'll believe it has reliable quality control.

Until then, I don't trust it as a source on its own, especially when presented on debatable topics.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Elennsar,
What you say about the accuracy of Wikipedia depends on your view of the subject discussed and what the encyclopedia says. When I state Wikipedia is my source, you attack me, but when it supports your agenda, it is a good source.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[KeyserSoze]

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.

And as we all know the government never, ever gets anything wrong, does it?

 

[Civil War Scholar]

I said it is NOT a group of experts. Of course, the government, as every man-made structure, has its wrongdoings and evils. Nobody and nothing can always be right or always wrong.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[CSA Today]

Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee deserves more credit for his leadership at Averasborough. With only about 5,400 men, composed of mostly reserves , garrison troops and artillerymen fighting as infantry, he held off the overwhelming numbers of Maj. Gen. Henry Slocum two corps for nearly two day buying precious time for Joseph E. Johnston's army not far away to the north east.