Why were so many Civil War generals bad?

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Yes I am very familiar with the wiki and events in Fort Pillow. It was clearly a massacre. That passage was also repeated in Grant's biography by the way where he looked at the event in disgust, since we are on the topic.

With that I recommend also a historical novel also on Fort Pillow by the usual "what-if" novelist Harry Turtledove. Turtledove is often disparaged here in this forum but I thought he did a good job on the book and a fair accounting of events and timelines.

The old fort, really just a dirt redoubt, is reconstructed in TN an hour or so north of Memphis in the middle of nowhere. You can drive to a small museum that accounts for the events, but actually have to hike to the site. Interestingly, it's no longer adjacent to the Mississippi River. The 'Sip moves! The river is now a half mile away or so.

Typically, I don't prefer the 'what ifs' genre, more prefer the 'what it is' however will attempt to look at Mr. Turtledove's novel on the massacre at Fort Pillow.

I like Memphis & visited mainly when living in Nashville although never went to the old fort. There's lots of things that occupied me in Memphis. I even went to Graceland! Unfortunately we arrived too late to tour but did go inside his private plane. Graceland is much further away than I thought. When I find my way back to those parts, I'll try to stay somewhere outside the city & visit the old fort.

Thanks for the book recommendation & info.

[Bureaucat]

When the war started, the United States Army was led by a general too fat to mount a horse (Winfield Scott) and so old that another Union general was named for him (Winfield Scott Hancock).

Also, a disproportionate number of the top senior officers were Southerners. The edge in leadership helped keep the Confederacy going for longer than it otherwise would have.

There were political generals on both sides. Some did ok, others were disasters.

One reason that casualties were so high was that the tactics had not caught up with technology, which happened again in WWI.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Bureaucat

Also, a disproportionate number of the top senior officers were Southerners. The edge in leadership helped keep the Confederacy going for longer than it otherwise would have.

One reason that casualties were so high was that the tactics had not caught up with technology, which happened again in WWI.

I think that in the Western Theater the United States had the edge in leadership from the beginning.

I think losses in the war were caused as much by poor training and a hesitation to come to grips as anything else. And the fact that war is a bloody business. I think the effect of the rifle musket has been exaggerated and that a battalion of Wellington’s Brown Bess armed Peninsulars was as dangerous to approach as any American Civil War unit with the exception of those armed with repeaters such as the 7th and 66th Illinois regiments and Wilder’s Brigade of Illinoisans and Hoosiers.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by Novadhd5150

Many of the Union generals performed poorly compared to Confederate.
Just wondering didn't many of them go to West Point? I guess there is a big difference between leading armies and theoretical stuff taught at college.
My guess is that Union underestimated the Southern forces.

Long wars make good business, until they don't and ending the war makes better business until the next one.

Been that way since Year One.