Best American Civil War General (greatest, years, attack, confederacy)

[njkate]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Bless his heart, that's what it takes.



General William Sherman in Georgia

Bless his heart he spared Savannah

He wasn't mean he did what he did to get it done

[RuralCoastalGuy]

Originally Posted by dynimagelv

Remembering of course that Generals on either side were American Generals....

Excellent point...bravo

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by b. frank

That's a good point. If they had freed the slaves first, they may have been able to win over European support. But then, they would have lost a lot of their domestic supporters as well.

The south freeing the slaves at the beggining of the war was about as likely as the south developing atomic weapons at the beggining of the war. In other words - it would not have happened in any scenario possible or on any possible level. It's was so counter to the political situation at the time it's not even worth discussing.

During the war, particularly when they started losing, the subject of manumission was discussed very quitely in some southern political circles in order to get European support, but it was never seriously considered.

But that's off topic anyways, the subject at hand is civil war generals.

[RuralCoastalGuy]

Originally Posted by njkate

Bless his heart he spared Savannah

He wasn't mean he did what he did to get it done

We live right in the path of General Sherman's famous march to the sea. There are many civil war re-enactments within 10 miles of us and we live smack in the center of The Battle of Mingo. Sherman was about as good a general as Saddam Hussein thought he was.

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by Dd714

correction to my post on the first place - I listed John Hancock, his name was actually General Winfred Hancock (embarassing mistake).

Thought it was Winfield Scott Hancock. Believe he was the commander of the 2nd Corps at Gettysburg....

Originally Posted by Dd714

Jeb Stuart was great, one of the best calvary general's in the war. But his record is not spotless - left Lee blind during the Gettysburg campaign by traveling off trying to get glory. So he did his share in helping the south lose that battle.

I've heard this claim refuted more than once. My understanding is that it is entirely possible that Stuart was simply walled off by the Union Army and was incapable of getting back to Lee any sooner than he did....... I know Michael Shaara and "Killer Angels" and the subsequent film "Gettysburg" paint the picture you ascribe to, but I've noticed in doing research on obvious viewpoints of Shaara's (like Longstreet being some tragic hero at Gettysburg when many feel he was as much to blame as any Confederate General for the defeat), are definately only his opinions on the matter...

[Rhett_Butler]

As to the question, my instant response is Jackson, though not a fully researched opinion.... I think his use of speed with infantry as a tactic was what set him apart...

Again, this is an obvious Shaara opinion, but it is widely speculated that had Jackson still been around at Gettysburg that things would have turned out FAR different...... Imagine the possibilities of the Union pushed back on the first day AND occupying Cemetery and Culp's Hill which are widely believed to have been within Ewell's grasp on Day 1....

[Reactionary]

Originally Posted by VAFury

Jackson... speed with infantry

Jackson's 'Foot Cavalry'

Young man! if truly you desire
To join our gallant band --
If "Jack's" the leader you admire,
Enlist in our command.
You'll meet the "Yanks" ere many a day.
If killed -- why, what's the loss?
In Heaven you'll be proud to say,
I was one of "Jack's Foot Horse."

Camp of the "Used-ups," September 26, 1862

Jackson's Foot-Cavalry

[Coffee Mate]

U.S. Grant, with W.T. Sherman a close second....

Sure....the Southern Generals were good...at winning battles....but they lacked the big picture TOTAL WAR mentality and capability and drive to win for the good of the country. Yes..The Southern Generals won battles and made stands and became legends and it fed their egos....but they never integrated all the structures of their fighting forces and the logistical support elements that made the whole thing run....often they spent time trying to out do and out win and out ego each other....to the detriment of their 'cause'....
The fighting Generals of the North on the other hand fought to WIN for the country.....no mater WHAT it took.
Sherman's march to the sea and the wicked destruction meted out to the lands he swept was the beginning of the practical application of total involvement. Blitzkrieg....Total War....Scorched Earth...
The South was fighting for disunity...and that attitude prevailed on multiple levels in the leadership of the Southern Confederacy. The South was trying to break away from the U.S.....start it's own loosely 'confederated' nation....all the while fighting amongst themselves....preserve a doomed backward immoral and archaic "institution" all while trying desperately to win a war to make all the aforementioned come true....
All the North had to do was isolate, cut off, slice up and crush the South....and once Lincoln got the Generals and Admirals who would drive their forces to do that kind of brutal nasty fighting...coupled with the North's overwhelming industrial might and sheer weight of numbers....it was only a matter of time....

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by Coffee Mate

U.S. Grant, with W.T. Sherman a close second....

Sure....the Southern Generals were good...at winning battles....but they lacked the big picture TOTAL WAR mentality and capability and drive to win for the good of the country. Yes..The Southern Generals won battles and made stands and became legends and it fed their egos....but they never integrated all the structures of their fighting forces and the logistical support elements that made the whole thing run....often they spent time trying to out do and out win and out ego each other....to the detriment of their 'cause'....
The fighting Generals of the North on the other hand fought to WIN for the country.....no mater WHAT it took.
Sherman's march to the sea and the wicked destruction meted out to the lands he swept was the beginning of the practical application of total involvement. Blitzkrieg....Total War....Scorched Earth...
The South was fighting for disunity...and that attitude prevailed on multiple levels in the leadership of the Southern Confederacy. The South was trying to break away from the U.S.....start it's own loosely 'confederated' nation....all the while fighting amongst themselves....preserve a doomed backward immoral and archaic "institution" all while trying desperately to win a war to make all the aforementioned come true....
All the North had to do was isolate, cut off, slice up and crush the South....and once Lincoln got the Generals and Admirals who would drive their forces to do that kind of brutal nasty fighting...coupled with the North's overwhelming industrial might and sheer weight of numbers....it was only a matter of time....

While the very concept the South was fighting for in some ways doomed it to it's ultimate demise (eg. Preaching State's Rights while the Confederate National Government is demanding military supplies from each state was a heck of a paradox), it had very little to do with Southern Generals or Northern Generals....

I personally don't believe Grant was some great General. He took a VERY rudimentary understanding of the situation and used it unlike any of his predecessors which simply was, "We have more men and more supplies than you and we're going to keep after you until you cave." Grant was a master at running a "war of attrition" which naturally he knew the South could not withstand.....

I personally don't believe that makes him a great general. I don't believe it takes a great general to say, "I have 90,000 troops and you have 40,000. I'm going to come right at you until you crack.", which is, in effect, what he did in the east...

JMO.... great conversation.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by VAFury

Thought it was Winfield Scott Hancock. Believe he was the commander of the 2nd Corps at Gettysburg....

You are absolutely correct. Who can get used to those 19th century names?

Originally Posted by VAFury

I've heard this claim refuted more than once. My understanding is that it is entirely possible that Stuart was simply walled off by the Union Army and was incapable of getting back to Lee any sooner than he did....... I know Michael Shaara and "Killer Angels" and the subsequent film "Gettysburg" paint the picture you ascribe to, but I've noticed in doing research on obvious viewpoints of Shaara's (like Longstreet being some tragic hero at Gettysburg when many feel he was as much to blame as any Confederate General for the defeat), are definately only his opinions on the matter...

Yes Shaara's proposed that viewpoint (excellent book by the way), but also Shelby Foote also proposed this, and in more detail. Foote hints that Stuart was suprised at a calvary engagement at Brandy Station (although he won the field) and to save face he attempted to do one of his rides around the Union Army. At the same time Lee's instructions were firm - once the Union crossed back over the Potomic, Stuart was to take his place screening Lee's army. Stuart did not do this, was too far away, and just waited to long to move back, if Stuart was stuck in a box it was a box he caused himself to be caught in.

Shaara also closly followed what Foote documents as Longstreet's role in Gettysburg - reluctant, wanting to stay at the defensive or flank to the union left. If Longstreeet was at fault in anything it was perhaps starting the second day's attack on Little Round top too late in the day.