Most Underrated General

[Civil War Scholar]

And yet Lee was unable to drive Grant back or not allow himself to be cornered in the way he feared most...Lets not forget that Lee also failed in his objective in beating the AoP as they were travelling thru the Wilderness..Lee didn't devine Grants purposes, Grant got the jump on Lee several times and Lee had to rush to catch up to him...

If Lee failed to beat Grant in the Wilderness, why did Grant give up trying to dislodge him? If Grant got the jump on Lee, why did Lee always stop him and inflict horrendous losses to his army?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

What formidable heights of Gettysburg? Almost defeated = being the winner

Formidable heights of Gettysburg = Cemetery Ridge.
Meade was almost defeated because, on the first two days, Lee's army drove Meade's back and behaved better in the battlefield. Meade won a strategic victory mainly because of Longstreet's deliberateness.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

Question: Are you willing to acknowledge at any point that Union generalship and/or the fighting qualities of the Union soldiers had ANY role in how a battle turned out?

Yes or no. Absence of response will be taken as a "No.", CWS.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Just to compare what rpkennedy quoted from Rhea to it if there's any substantial difference between the two.

From Young's book:

Wilderness
1st Corps - 3,059
2nd Corps - 2,692
3rd Corps - 4,730
Cavalry - 56
Artillery not included in the above - 36
TOTAL - 11,033

Spotsylvania
1st Corps - 921
2nd Corps - 8,069
3rd Corps - 2,762
Cavalry - 474
Artillery not included in the above - 461
TOTAL - 12,687

 

[diane]

But, as Foote tells us, he considered McClellan the best general he ever faced.
Civil War Scholar.

He said he liked fighting him - McClellan was predictable! Seriously, though, you really think Meade wasn't Lee's match? How did he manage to hand him his backside at Gettysburg, then? Oh, never mind. Overwhelming numbers and starvation. General Goofy could have beat Lee then. Do you ever consider what you're really saying when you denigrate the Union commanders and soldiers? I expect I'd better say we should agree to disagree about now!

 

[NedBaldwin]

From Young's book:

Cold Harbor
1st Corps - 1,262
2nd Corps - 714
3rd Corps - 1,221
Unattached Infantry (Hoke, Breckenridge) - 1,602
Cavalry - 253
Artillery not included in the above - 235
TOTAL - 5,287

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Longstreet turned scalawag during reconstruction, it didn't hurt to build up his credentials with the Republicans by being critical of Lee.

Longstreet only said about Lee that which Lee had said of himself - much to the annoyance of the post-war absolutists - and I fail to see how working to heal the country makes one a scalawag.

For you, I will reproduce the casualties for the
Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. Here we are:

<snipped>

TOTAL FOR BOTH CAMPAIGNS: 42801 Confederate, 106419 Union

Source?
(Also, think that we haven't noticed your cute habit of frequently rounding Union casualties up and Confederate casualties down...)

 

[Elennsar]

Ned: Thanks for sharing Young's figures.

 

[firefly177]

And, frankly, there are so many potentially talented guys who died just when they seemed to be on the verge of becoming something special....or the ones under abysmal commanders who followed orders and we remember them in history as underperforming or performing badly. Let's face it....employees -- or soldiers -- at some point are only as good as the guy ahead of them in the chain of command. It's not the only factor, but it is sort of important.

How about Major General John F. Reynolds for someone who died before his time?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Ned: Thanks for sharing Young's figures.

You are welcome. For the entire Overland campaign [Wilderness to crossing the James, not including Petersburg] Young has calculated losses of around 33K. He gives a number a little under 33K but then points out that if your include Trevilian Station the number is a little over 33K.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Formidable heights of Gettysburg = Cemetery Ridge.
Meade was almost defeated because, on the first two days, Lee's army drove Meade's back and behaved better in the battlefield. Meade won a strategic victory mainly because of Longstreet's deliberateness.
Civil War Scholar.

So you don't know what a strategic victory is, either. Good to know.

Also, if we needed further proof that you've never actually seen any of the locations about which you argue, Cemetery Ridge is in no way a formidable height; It's a long, gentle slope, and was, incidentally, one of the lowest parts of the Union line.

 

[Elennsar]

He must be relying on Wright's description: http://www.civilwarhome.com/wrightgettysburgor.html

Nevermind that Wright's description of the terrain bears no resemblance to anything anyone else saw or can see now, it was written by a Confederate general.

 

[wilber6150]

If Lee failed to beat Grant in the Wilderness, why did Grant give up trying to dislodge him? If Grant got the jump on Lee, why did Lee always stop him and inflict horrendous losses to his army?
Civil War Scholar.

Grant did a series of sidesteps to get Lee out of entrenchements.. And I suggest reading Rheas and others books on the campaign if you don't think that Grant had Lee fooled on several occasions including a major river crossing...

 

[CSA Today]

101Combatvet,
Battles like Mine Run, Wilderness, Spotsylvania are Confederate victories, at least tactically. General Lee always inflicted horrendous losses to the Yankees and suffered less than half. Cold Harbor was a triumph, where he inflicted 13000 casualties and suffered less than 1500.
Civil War Scholar.

Since one persistent poster has repeatedly criticize me for supposedly slamming Gordon Rhea, it is only fair to say in Rhea's defense that he agrees with historians like J.G. Randall and David Donaldson when he wrote: "Lee inflicted casualties that nearly equaled the number of men that he commanded when the [Overland] campaign began."

 

[JohnnnyReb]

Any particular accomplishment/s, or just not given sufficient credit for what he did overall?

What I know of his career on the whole is cursory at best, mostly the Wagon Train of Wounded post-Gettysburg.

Considering his lack of military training and his being underrated by the West Pointers and Lee to some point almost akin to Jackson and Ashby. He performed very well. I find Imboden to be very intrigueing, he goes from being a captain in an artillery unit to basically being the head honcho in the mountains where Lee failed to succeed. He convinces Lee to send him some infantry to help on the Imboden-Jones raid, though I think if not for Jones being involved Lee would not have sent the 25th and 31st va to him because of his own underrating of him as a General. But back to his mountain (Guerilla type affairs) he was dealing with what I would compare to a vietnam, iraq, type scenario, wasn't typical warfare, more like the family feud, bottom landers vs upper landers, coal miners vs salt peter miners...Granted it wasn't a huge scale of forces he was commanding but it definately took a different type of man to fight in those areas and he performed very well. When I first started looking into my ancestors, I knew about Gettysburg and all the other great battles and big name Generals but I didn't know some of the minor role players that played huge roles till after I got involved in geneology. The fact that Imboden with a small force of cavalry (more to mounted infantry) was able to use wagon drivers and his small force to save the Confederate Army and Lee during the retreat from Gettysburg gives great credit to his ability as a military leader and doesn't seem to get as much credit as say Chamberlain at round top, Greene at Culps hill...

Lee says of one of Imboden's regiment's, which I think was the 18th Va Cavalry, under Imboden's brother, (which my GGGrandfather, and 3 of my GGgrand Uncles fought with)..."They are unsteady, and, I fear, inneficient" Yet, these would be the men that save his army, and his 4,000 wagons.

2100 dismounted cav, 700 wagoneers, and 24 cannon, Imboden chose to stand and fight at Williamsport and repelled Buford's division of about 7,000 cavalry. He armed and put about 350 of these wagon drivers on his flanks put his main force in the center and drove back a veteran cavalry force. The same force mind you that gets such great laurels for their delaying actions at Gettysburg.

"As we could not retreat further, it was at once made known to the troops, that unless we should repel the threatened attack we should all become prisoners, and that the loss of his whole transportation would probably ruin General Lee" General John D. Imboden.

So, I would say that Imboden was underrated as a General, even at the point that Lee has to put his trust in him to guard his wagon train, he makes a comment about one of the regiments being lacking, therefore underrating them which underates their commanding officer. Imboden would rectify this by performing as good as any other applauded general of the war.

 

[Elennsar]

Lee inflicted, per Rhea, 55,000 causalities between the Rapidan and the James.

Per the returns for April 20 (which Rhea references):
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/c...0060:2;view=image;seq=1316;size=100;page=root

54,344+ Longstreet's two divisions (estimated as around 10,000 men).

But Lee lost 33,000 men in that period (the Rapidan to the James). That ratio of losses when with the advantages of a prepared defense is considered is not much more impressive than his record in any earlier fighting if any.

 

[Elennsar]

(snip.)
2100 dismounted cav, 700 wagoneers, and 24 cannon, Imboden chose to stand and fight at Williamsport and repelled Buford's division of about 7,000 cavalry. He armed and put about 350 of these wagon drivers on his flanks put his main force in the center and drove back a veteran cavalry force. The same force mind you that gets such great laurels for their delaying actions at Gettysburg.

"As we could not retreat further, it was at once made known to the troops, that unless we should repel the threatened attack we should all become prisoners, and that the loss of his whole transportation would probably ruin General Lee" General John D. Imboden.

So, I would say that Imboden was underrated as a General, even at the point that Lee has to put his trust in him to guard his wagon train, he makes a comment about one of the regiments being lacking, therefore underrating them which underates their commanding officer. Imboden would rectify this by performing as good as any other applauded general of the war.

Buford's division at this point is less than 4,000 - maybe Buford and Kilpatrick together are 7,000 (maybe), but I think Imboden also received reinforcements.

Not to take away from his performance - he did well with what he had - but Imboden did present it in an even shinier light than it was.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Question: Are you willing to acknowledge at any point that Union generalship and/or the fighting qualities of the Union soldiers had ANY role in how a battle turned out?

Yes or no. Absence of response will be taken as a "No.", CWS.

Yes.

He said he liked fighting him - McClellan was predictable! Seriously, though, you really think Meade wasn't Lee's match? How did he manage to hand him his backside at Gettysburg, then? Oh, never mind. Overwhelming numbers and starvation. General Goofy could have beat Lee then. Do you ever consider what you're really saying when you denigrate the Union commanders and soldiers? I expect I'd better say we should agree to disagree about now!

If he meant which of his opponents was the easiest to fight, he ought to say Burnside. He said that McClellan was the best general opposing him.
If Meade was Lee's match, why did he admit Lee bullied him at Bristoe? Why did he withdraw from Mine Run? Why did he fail to reach Spotsylvania? Why he left all chances unexploited at Second Ream's Station?
I never said something degrading about Union soldiers. I admire the fighting qualities, the courage and determination of both the average Billy Yank and the average Johnny Reb.

So you don't know what a strategic victory is, either. Good to know.

Also, if we needed further proof that you've never actually seen any of the locations about which you argue, Cemetery Ridge is in no way a formidable height; It's a long, gentle slope, and was, incidentally, one of the lowest parts of the Union line.

Sorry. Wanted to type "Cemetery Hill". Include the Round Tops for good measure, though.

Grant did a series of sidesteps to get Lee out of entrenchments.. And I suggest reading Rheas and others books on the campaign if you don't think that Grant had Lee fooled on several occasions including a major river crossing...

You probably mean the James River crossing. Grant fooled him temporarily, but Lee reached Petersburg and saved it, inflicting more than 12000 casualties to Grant and suffering 4000. Thus, Grant was again halted by Lee, as in every maneuver in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns.

He must be relying on Wright's description: http://www.civilwarhome.com/wrightgettysburgor.html
Nevermind that Wright's description of the terrain bears no resemblance to anything anyone else saw or can see now, it was written by a Confederate general.

You gave me a good piece to read, Elennsar. Really, was not aware of it. Yet, if a Union general wrote an OR that had no relation to the actual event, what would be your reaction?
Civil War Scholar.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

I actually have to somewhat about Imboden; indeed, in an army with a somewhat notorious bias against non-professionals - particularly on the part of Davis - few civilians achieved the sort of success that Forrest and Gordon did.

 

[JohnnnyReb]

Buford's division at this point is less than 4,000 - maybe Buford and Kilpatrick together are 7,000 (maybe), but I think Imboden also received reinforcements.

Not to take away from his performance - he did well with what he had - but Imboden did present it in an even shinier light than it was.

It is easy to say now what we know happened and where the troops were at the time. But put yourself in this man's shoes, you are wore out, tired, wet, your main army just got tore all to peices; you have a huge cavalry force on your butt, you have 4k wagons to protect you don't exactly know where your cavalry is at the time, it's just you with your back up against the wall( or river in this case) and you decide to fight it out and hope for the best. Many a man would have just surrendered their little command which quite a few did during the war. Not Imboden, he chose to stand and fight and he did it well. I mean, I would be a little worried putting a few hundred teamsters on my flanks with a cavalry force opposing me. Pretty ballsy.

So he put it in a shineir light than it was? Explain.

I think according to the orginal post, he is one of the most underrated generals of the war. JMO