Most Underrated General

[tmh10]

Honestly, I think the best bet in May was Lee's strategy, which was half heartedly implemented - Davis gave Lee more than "nothing more than what Lee had at Chancellorsville", but not enough to pose the threat needed to make a difference.

Vicksburg in May simply would require a logistically unrealistic amount of effort to secure, which is not worth taking Lee away from a more vital area.

I find my self in the position of agreeing with you on this point. Who would have thunk it? If they pulled Lee out to Vicksburg, then Virginia would have been ripe for the picken. The AOP respected Lee, but if he was gone they would have been more than bold enough to make a move on Richmond. Also at this point Lee already had Davis on board for his plan to invade the north.

An invasion of Pennsylvania was only one Confederate strategic option in the summer of 1863. Some argued on behalf of shifting resources from Virginia to Mississippi in order to relive Vicksburg. Others advocated reinforcing Bragg in central Tennessee, enabling him to maneuver the Union Army of the Cumberland under William Rosecrans out of its position by reprising his 1862 invasion of Kentucky. But after Chancellorsville, it was probably too late to affect the outcome at Vicksburg, because the siege was already underway. In addition, it didn't make sense to detach forces from the Confederacy's only successful field army under its only successful general and send them to other generals whose competence was questionable. In the end, Lee effectively argued that the best use of limited Confederate resources was to invade Pennsylvania.

http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-07-gettysburg/

 

[NedBaldwin]

Should Lee have been sent out west in that May-ish timeframe?

In my opinion making a command change like that in May would be too late to save Vicksburg.

In his memoirs, Richard Taylor wrote "The value of the 'initiative' in war cannot be overstated". Along the Mississippi during the first half of 1863, the US side had the initiative. Johnston once said "Our disadvantage in this warfare is that the enemy can transfer an army from Mississippi to Nashville before we learn that it is in motion. While an equal body of our troops could not make the same movement (the corresponding one rather) in less than six weeks." The Confederates could not afford to play catchup by waiting and reacting after the fact.

 

[Elennsar]

And especially not with the men available in the West (even if you have Lee sent, you still have Pemberton and his largely underwhelming team).

Bragg might be a step up from that, but not enough to change the principle entirely - Chickamauga, even if better conducted, would still have at best nullified part and only part of Rosecrans's summer campaign.

 

[rpkennedy]

Elennsar,
Early's writings were not "unreliable accounts". You seem to discount any southern commentator of the war, from Jubal Early to Shelby Foote. Whatever sources and commentators that come from the South are characterized as "unreliable". This was their own side of the coin, their own part of the story. Why do you accept Northern sources but discount Southern ones?
Moreover, Early is often underrated. People and some historians focus on his final defeat and marvel at Sheridan for disposing Early's band from the Valley. Yet, what is overlooked is not only Early's past accomplishments, which are many, but also the odds he faced and the fact that he came close to beating Sheridan.
Thank you,
Civil War Scholar.

Early had a blatant agenda in the post-war years and that colored everything he wrote. There's a reason he waited until after Lee died before going all-out on his crusade.

R

 

[101combatvet]

George S. Greene?

Expired Image Removed

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Early had a blatant agenda in the post-war years and that colored everything he wrote. There's a reason he waited until after Lee died before going all-out on his crusade.

R

Longstreet started it. After Lee died, he started criticizing him unfairly, finding "mistakes" the great Virginian made in every one of his campaigns and battles. General Lee could not respond to those charges, because he was in his grave. Early, Fitzhugh Lee and others defended their old commander and did a very creditable job.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Longstreet started it. After Lee died, he started criticizing him unfairly, finding "mistakes" the great Virginian made in every one of his campaigns and battles. General Lee could not respond to those charges, because he was in his grave. Early, Fitzhugh Lee and others defended their old commander and did a very creditable job.
Civil War Scholar.

There is nothing credible about the Longstreet was ordered to attack at dawn on July 2 1863, or that his numbers at Gettysburg were as low as these men claimed (59,90o or later 50,752 per Early - vs., for the record 67,000 bayonets per Longstreet*), to name merely two examples of them going out of their way to misrepresent the truth, but I guess the truth is less important than defending Lee from any criticism in some circles.

Other writers are less incredible (Walter Taylor estimated 67,000, Colonel William Allan estimated 60,000, General Heth 62,000 - interestingly John Eston Cooke estimated 80,000 for the entire force) - and the actual figure seems to be somewhere between 70 and 75,000 men per the best research I am aware of (I haven't read the latest yet, so its via Trudeau quoting Busby and Martin's figures in 2003), but while talking Early, Early is anything but "very creditable" when talking anything about Gettysburg.

Figures and the individuals claiming them per Edwin B. Coddington in Gettysburg: A Study in Command.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Elennsar,
Longstreet was ordered to attack at dawn, but he sulked. If he had attacked when Lee ordered him, Sickles wouldn't occupy the Peach Orchard. Sickles saved the day for Meade, just because of his redeployment. If Sickles had remained in place, his Corps would give way under the fierce assault of Hood and McLaws and a gap would open in the Union line, which Longstreet would be quick to exploit, judging from what he did in Chickamauga. If he was quicker and obedient, Gettysburg would be listed a Confederate victory.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Sickles's deployment is comparable to the man who discovers that there is water in his boat - and drills a hole in the side so the water can get out.

Anything good his corps could do it could do better on a shorter line with one flanking resting on the nearest friendly troops and the other on Little Round Top, and closer to any needed assistance by 5th Corps by as much as the difference between his assigned position and the one he took.

Meanwhile, I don't even know who to start with in listing authors who have shown that the "attack at dawn" claim has no credibility.

Glenn Tucker? Freeman? Coddington? Or do you prefer later authors?

There's room to criticize Longstreet's less than enthusiastic execution of his orders, but claiming he disobeyed orders rests on libel alone.

 

[rpkennedy]

Longstreet started it. After Lee died, he started criticizing him unfairly, finding "mistakes" the great Virginian made in every one of his campaigns and battles. General Lee could not respond to those charges, because he was in his grave. Early, Fitzhugh Lee and others defended their old commander and did a very creditable job.
Civil War Scholar.

Criticism of Longstreet began before Lee's death and before Longstreet started writing. As early as 1868, D.H. Hill was calling him a scalawag for his embracing the Republican party and equal rights for the freedmen in the South.

The first volley in the pro-Lee/anti-Longstreet war was fired by Early in a speech at Washington College in 1872 and William Pendleton continued the criticism in 1873. Longstreet did not fire back until 1875 when he began writing in defense of himself.

Elennsar,
Longstreet was ordered to attack at dawn, but he sulked. If he had attacked when Lee ordered him, Sickles wouldn't occupy the Peach Orchard. Sickles saved the day for Meade, just because of his redeployment. If Sickles had remained in place, his Corps would give way under the fierce assault of Hood and McLaws and a gap would open in the Union line, which Longstreet would be quick to exploit, judging from what he did in Chickamauga. If he was quicker and obedient, Gettysburg would be listed a Confederate victory.
Civil War Scholar.

There was no order to attack at dawn. This originates with Early's attack in 1872 and was reinforced by Pendleton in 1873. Exactly how could Longstreet attack at dawn when Hood and McLaws didn't arrive on the field until after 4 am? Not to mention that Longstreet asked for and received permission in mid-morning to wait until Law's Brigade came up before making his move.

Longstreet can be criticized for his stubbornness but not for his disobedience.

As for Sickles, you have to assume the attack would have proceeded as it did when it's possible that Hood and McLaws may have attacked along the Emmittsburg Road rather than straight west to east. If Sickles had stayed where he was, there's no way to know how the attack would have unfolded.

R

 

[diane]

You know, though, the big elephant in the room of finger-pointing among the Confederates was their overwhelming pride. They would rather one or more of their own had lost the war than admit what really happened. Pickett was an honest man: I think the Yankees had something to do with it.

 

[rpkennedy]

You know, though, the big elephant in the room of finger-pointing among the Confederates was their overwhelming pride. They would rather one or more of their own had lost the war than admit what really happened. Pickett was an honest man: I think the Yankees had something to do with it.

It's also interesting that many (not all but many) of those who mythologized Lee were Virginians. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, though.

R

 

[diane]

It's also interesting that many (not all but many) of those who mythologized Lee were Virginians. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, though.

R

No surprise, for sure. Virginia considered herself the birthplace of the American nation, and her sons the fathers. Davis, in his astoundingly dull tome, made it clear the Confederate cause was the same as the original revolution. If Early made the bricks for Confederate shrines, Davis supplied the mortar!

 

[Elennsar]

A hearty thank you for rpkennedy pointing out the dates, which were not fresh in my head.

I'm going to suggest, since we're talking Gettysburg's victims of fingerpointing, that Meade is a bit underrated. Meade tends to be portrayed at best as if Gettysburg ruined his ability to dare offensive moves or that Gettysburg was won despite his presence, as if someone else was responsible for Warern being down at the round tops, someone else sent Hancock to Gettysburg on the first day, and someone else determined that the army would stay for a third - to only name three things.

 

[Jamieva]

Elennsar,
Longstreet was ordered to attack at dawn, but he sulked. If he had attacked when Lee ordered him, Sickles wouldn't occupy the Peach Orchard. Sickles saved the day for Meade, just because of his redeployment. If Sickles had remained in place, his Corps would give way under the fierce assault of Hood and McLaws and a gap would open in the Union line, which Longstreet would be quick to exploit, judging from what he did in Chickamauga. If he was quicker and obedient, Gettysburg would be listed a Confederate victory.
Civil War Scholar.

Completely false about a dawn or morning attack.

 

[rbasin]

A hearty thank you for rpkennedy pointing out the dates, which were not fresh in my head.

I'm going to suggest, since we're talking Gettysburg's victims of fingerpointing, that Meade is a bit underrated. Meade tends to be portrayed at best as if Gettysburg ruined his ability to dare offensive moves or that Gettysburg was won despite his presence, as if someone else was responsible for Warern being down at the round tops, someone else sent Hancock to Gettysburg on the first day, and someone else determined that the army would stay for a third - to only name three things.

And that he had only been in command for a few days before the battle.

 

[Elennsar]

And that he had only been in command for a few days before the battle.

His decision making, other than in consulting his so-recently-peers to a greater extent than he might have otherwise, really doesn't show any sign of it. Meade smoothly moves to deal with a tough situation and seems to have been very keen eyed on who to rely on (Hancock, Reynolds to name the obvious).

Maybe this isn't brilliance, but its a comfortably above average sort of professionalism - the man who knows his trade thoroughly, even if he's never going to do anything to set new standards for excellence.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Maybe this isn't brilliance, but its a comfortably above average sort of professionalism - the man who knows his trade thoroughly, even if he's never going to do anything to set new standards for excellence.

So how is he underrated?

 

[Elennsar]

So how is he underrated?

"

Meade tends to be portrayed at best as if Gettysburg ruined his ability to dare offensive moves or that Gettysburg was won despite his presence, as if someone else was responsible for Warern being down at the round tops, someone else sent Hancock to Gettysburg on the first day, and someone else determined that the army would stay for a third - to only name three things.

The underlined part. Its not as consistent as some examples in this thread, but I think "Meade won Gettysburg with his superior generalship" is a considerably less common argument than "Lee lost Gettysburg because of (insert reason *here*, which is never "the Army of the Potomac")."

 

[rbasin]

His decision making, other than in consulting his so-recently-peers to a greater extent than he might have otherwise, really doesn't show any sign of it. Meade smoothly moves to deal with a tough situation and seems to have been very keen eyed on who to rely on (Hancock, Reynolds to name the obvious).

Maybe this isn't brilliance, but its a comfortably above average sort of professionalism - the man who knows his trade thoroughly, even if he's never going to do anything to set new standards for excellence.

A very welcomed change I'm sure to the AoP.