Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nathan Bedford Forrest the master of mass and mobility
Longstreet the master of seige warfare
Chamberlain a good man who did his duty and acted with honor. think chamberlain was brevet
and of course, "we still love you, General Lee" and I heard that phrase from my ggrandfather who was a confederate war veteran. So I guess it must have been a common belief in the man
The only sieges I'm aware of Longstreet conducting were at Suffolk and Knoxville; Suffolk was not a success and Knoxville was a minor disaster.
I don't think he withstood any sieges as an army commander though he commanded a section of the lines defending Richmond and Petersburg after his recovery from his Wilderness wound. And at Chattanooga his negligence allowed Grant to open the Cracker Line and break the rebel siege (such as it was) of the city.
I think Longstreet's best works were his attacks at Second Bull Run, the second day at Gettysburg and the second day of the Wilderness. Indeed, I think his work on the second day at Gettysburg was the finest single days fighting by any corps on either side in the entire war. I hold him in high regard and think he was the best rebel corps commander but I don't see him as a master of siege warfare.
Gen. George G Meade. His refusal to play politics and his unwillingness to satisfy wartime reporters left him overshadowed. Grant led the campaigns, but Meade applied his army. Grant knew men. He kept Meade in command of the Army of the Potomac to the war's end (Meade was the only commander of that army who was not relieved).
Gen. George G Meade. His refusal to play politics and his unwillingness to satisfy wartime reporters left him overshadowed. Grant led the campaigns, but Meade applied his army. Grant knew men. He kept Meade in command of the Army of the Potomac to the war's end (Meade was the only commander of that army who was not relieved).
Meade was a good man.
Also worthy of mention are the Army of the Potomac's capable and energetic late war corps commanders who helped Meade finally get that army moving: Humphreys of the 2nd Corps, Griffin of the 5th, Wright of the 6th and Parke of the 9th.
I'll also mention Ord who whipped the Army of the James into shape and Gibbon who commanded the 24th Corps. They were in at the kill in the East.
Sheridan was also vital in the late war revitalization of the eastern armies.
[quote=Escort Rider;20732890]...In Sherman's case, the OP is citing the amount of suffering caused, a lot of it to widows and children whose means of feeding themselves were destroyed. So Sherman is the OP's favorite because of his ruthlessness, which is exactly why he is not my favorite. (I do recognize that ruthlessness in war is often necessary and that it might even save lives in the long run, but that still doesn't make the most ruthless general my favorite).
Sherman was a softy. Hardly ruthless. His surrender terms were far more generous than Grant's. Sherman wasn't a baby killer nor one who killed civilians like our WWII heroes did in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Hamburg, etc. Sherman gave ciilians 24 hrs. to evacuate. What a softy! During the War of 1812 the US only gave 30 minutes for residents in Toronto to evacuate in the dead of winter. Sherman only wanted to break the will of the anti-American Confederates. The only way to win a war is to break the will of the enemy to kill the deserved victor.
I note the terms of the OP: "Favorite" rather than "best" general. O.K., fair enough, and the OP has given his reasons for Sherman. We can have all kinds of different criteria for this, of course; our favorite general might be a dashing fellow, or we might like the literary quality of his memoirs. In Sherman's case, the OP is citing the amount of suffering caused, a lot of it to widows and children whose means of feeding themselves were destroyed. So Sherman is the OP's favorite because of his ruthlessness, which is exactly why he is not my favorite. (I do recognize that ruthlessness in war is often necessary and that it might even save lives in the long run, but that still doesn't make the most ruthless general my favorite).
Sherman wasn't ruthless at all. He merely served the US to break the will of the anti-American enemy. If any US combatants were ruthless, then we would point out the WWII heroes who were baby killers and innocent civilians killers. Sherman offered surrender terms which were too generous for his superiors to accept. The US in the war of 1812 only gave 30 minutes, in the dead of winter, for the civilians in Toronto to evacuate before their city was burned. Sherman gave 24 hours. The loosers who pimped and tortured blacks were ruthless. That is why no anti-American looser Confederate could be my favourite.
Mine has to be Sherman. Hell imo his March to the Sea did more damage to the Confederacy and the results he got did more to end the war than Grant and all of his predecessors put together. Those rumors of his troops committing mass murder are either just that; rumors or vast exaggerations on the part of the South. It shows a lot to me that even though his kill count is nowhere near as high as Grant, his name is far more reviled in the old south. I guess that old saying about destroying a mans' property applies to him....
Sherman yes, or Custer. Had Custer not tied up the Confederate Cavalry at Hanover for days the Battle of Gettysburg might have turned out differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.