The Greatest General of The Civil War....

[AfricanHandgunner]

Who do you regard as the greatest General of the Civil War?  My vote would be for either Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest.   U.S. Grant would be the North's best, but he hardly holds a candle to either of the two I mentioned. Thoughts??

[billy_56081]

I would say as a warrior, Sherman was far and away number one. He fought a war the way I would fight a war.

[mcwoodduck]

I would say as a warrior, Sherman was far and away number one. He faught a war the way I would fight a war.

+1
Col Chamberlain was a Col at the time and was promoted because of his Regimental actions.
General Sherman and Grant understood a drive to the sea that disrupted supply lines, caused havoc and used up Southern resources.  Sheman was the man to lead the march.  It was more Sun TZU than Nepolean.

As for the South, I think all has strengths and weakness.
Stonewall Jackson was a never knew as he was shot only a couple years into the war.  I think the South Could have won if they had made him the Commanding General.
But all of the Southern Generals were fighting a defensive war not to loose land rather than taking the fight to the enemy territory and putting the Northern Generals on the defensive making then guess what was going to happen and spend men and resources to try to stop drives to gain victories.
Gen Patton learned from a Southern General and saw that being on the defensive was never going to win a war.  The Southern defeat is what made Patton a great General and the idea of disrupting the enemy at every turn is what wins wars.
I think Robert E. Lee was a great General and fought great winning a lot of battles with out a clear picture of how to end the war that Grant had in creating a three front war for the Lee to fight.   had Lee attacked the North early in the war, there may still be a CSA.
One of the problems the South had was all of it's generals were not generals before the war.

[AfricanHandgunner]

I think that by the time Lee and Grant were against each other, the Confederacy had lost far too much men and materials to have much of a chance.  Grant outnumbered Lee almost 2 -1 at every engagement, and still Lee made a grand effort.  I  agree that had Lee attacked Washington DC early in the war, when he had the army to do it, the outcome of the war might have been different.   By late 1864, early 1865, the Confederacy was a defeated army.  Hell, there were entire divisions in the Union Army who had never even seen conbat at the end of the war.
 

I would say as a warrior, Sherman was far and away number one. He fought a war the way I would fight a war.

Yes, BUT Sherman was virtually unopposed after the fall of Atlanta.   His march to Savannah and S. Carolina was more of a punishment to the South for, in his opinion, starting the war. 

[1marty]

I'd say Sherman. He changed warfare by bringing a total brutal concept to war which armies today practice.

[bkraft]

Grant understood the "economics" of warfare and was not afraid to "pay the butcher's bill." Sherman brought the war "home" to the south, which changed the psychology of the war. Lee's greatest ability was to be able to manage the "prima donnas and divas" that made up the Southern officer corps. The fight that I would have liked to see would have been Sherman v. Jackson. Yep, "Uncle Billy an Ole Bluelight" now fellas that would have been a real "dust up."
All that being said it is hard to argue with sucess, got to go with Grant. Had the army knew how to use it. Had the man in Sherman and was smart enough to let him go and what he did best.

[williamlayton]

Stonewall had his critics. The souths Calvary was outstanding but when the North saw the light it became a push.
Lee was good---offered command of he North. Had that happened and he had accepted the war sure would have been over in months.
This may rile some hardliners but it is the truth. Defensive war is the easiest to command and fight.
Now what made it tough for the south was the was numbers and supply.
Sherman was a disaster in his first command and was rescued by Grant. I agree, he became the outstanding commander of the war for his mastery of total war.
As far a Stonewall being Commanding General,--This is humor-- --There were not enough Presbyterian officers for him to appoint them to generals.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Everyone here will have his or her favorite General both North and South. I feel both sides had a few good and one or two great generals.

U.S.Grant was a bull dog who would not let go and his losses show it. Yet today he would never be allowed to lead because of those same losses.

Sherman never won a stand up fight yet having said that by today's standards he would be a 5 star after he changed his tactics to hit and run total war. He lost far fewer men while gaining far more ground than Grant ever could.

Phil Sheridan was a worthy adversary, also.

R.E. Lee however was the best of the best and why? Because he could, and did, get the impossible from his troops and his Generals.

"Stonwall" Jackson was by far the greatest tactician, and why? Because even his own troops didn't know what he was going to do, surprise was his greatest asset.

Longstreet, rock solid and Lee's best defensive General.

Forrest and others who led the Southern Calvary were far better in the begining of the war  as well as the average solder because they came from a country background. They had been riding and shooting since they were old enough to do so, in most cases by age 10 or so. They were also fighting on their own turf.

There are other Southern Generals who can be listed in the plus column, Hood, Johnston, and others. Lee's Sons also fought quite well.

JM2C

[billy_56081]

Sheriden and Grant were good enough generals that they cut the ememies supplys off and won the war. 2nd place in a war is not being the best.

[williamlayton]

Second place is first looser.
Blessings

[Swampman]

The north really never had any good generals.

Patrick Cleburne gets my vote....

[tscott]

So is there any significance, that both Grant and Lee graducated from USMA, which recently has again been rated, hardest to get into, and academically #1 in US. I can only imagine how hard it was, and smart these men must have been to get in, back in the day.
Also, what about Lee agonizing over his decision to join the South.... Last minute?  My point = There was brilliance on both sides!

[Junior1942]

Historian Shelby Foote supposedly told Nathan Bedford Forrest's granddaughter this: "The Civil War produced only two geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest."

She supposedly replied: "We don't speak the former's name in our family."

[subdjoe]

So is there any significance, that both Grant and Lee graducated from USMA, which recently has again been rated, hardest to get into, and academically #1 in US. I can only imagine how hard it was, and smart these men must have been to get in, back in the day.
Also, what about Lee agonizing over his decision to join the South.... Last minute?  My point = There was brilliance on both sides!

Most of the general officers on both sides were USMA graduates.  See Civil War Generals from West Point which gives them broken down by side and by class year.  Heck, Jeff Davis was USMA, Class of 1828.

It is interesting to note how many Southerners who graduated USMA stayed with the Union. Here is what looks to be a paper presented at a Civil War roundtable.  West Point Classmates – Civil War Enemies.


But, as for the "best" general...it kind of depends on how you what to define "best." You could say Lee, for his ability to (usually) grasp the situation and come up with the strategy to meet it.  Or Jackson, the single minded tactician (also a bit of a nut case what with his eating habits and often keeping one hand in the air to restore his balance) who saw his mission and drove towards it. 

Sherman, with his "If it moves, kill it. If it is of use to the enemy, destroy it" attitude certainly deserves mention for seeking the shortest route to ending a conflict. Shame that his actions killed so many non-combatants.

Grant seemed to combine many of the qualities of both Lee and Jackson, able to discern the overall stiuation, and forge ahead with a bull dog determination.  His finest hour may have been the Vicksburg campaign.

Forrest, self taught in the art of war, confused and confounded the professionals.  His brute aggression, combined with a woodsmans cunning.  He kind of invented the blitzkreig as we know it.
 

[sidewinder319]

Was the white population in the south 4 million whites in 1861?  Was the white population in the north 28 million in 1861.  What great southern general thought this would be a winning fight??

[Swampman]

Most southerners thought that they could best 10 yankees in a fight.

[mcwoodduck]

Most southerners thought that they could best 10 yankees in a fight.

Battle field casualties show 2.2 to 1 ratio of Union soldiers wounded or killed on the battle field for every one rebel.
But seeing as the Rebels fought a defensive war and you need 4 to 1 to take a defensive postiton at the time, I guess that can account for the ratio.  many said it was the superior shooting skills of the southerners, but looking at the types of battles the attacking forces often take a larger number of casulaties then the defenders.

[williamlayton]

After Lincoln stopped appointing has beens, never were's, politico's and clerks--and found some folks who would fight, the campaign was lost to the south.
I admire most of the Generals of the South, but, a few were real duds, also.
It was a good fight amongst the boys of both sides---very few slackers.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Was the white population in the south 4 million whites in 1861?  Was the white population in the north 28 million in 1861.  What great southern general thought this would be a winning fight??

First, it wasn't the generals who decided to fight.  After Lincoln had set his mind to forcing the seven Confederate states back into the Union at the point of a bayonet, war was going to happen.  It wasn't SC that was sending troops and supplies to NY, was it?

Second, both sides underestimated the political will of the other.   The South thought that one or two battles lost would cause the federals to throw in the towel.   The North, after First Manassas, wasn't about to admit that it couldn't take a handful of unwashed, ignorant Southern crackers. 

Third, the southerners saw an invading army coming from Washington City to tell them how to live their lives.  That is what caused VA, NC, TN, and AR to leave the Union - Lincolns call for troops to invade their neighbors who just wanted to withdraw from the Union.  SC, FL, GA, and the other 4 states of the original seven Confederate states didn't send troops to invade OH or PA or IL, in April, 1861 did they?   Nope, they said that they were not part of the club anymore, thank you very much.

[mcwoodduck]

Third, the southerners saw an invading army coming from Washington City to tell them how to live their lives.  That is what caused VA, NC, TN, and AR to leave the Union - Lincolns call for troops to invade their neighbors who just wanted to withdraw from the Union.  SC, FL, GA, and the other 4 states of the original seven Confederate states didn't send troops to invade OH or PA or IL, in April, 1861 did they?   Nope, they said that they were not part of the club anymore, thank you very much.
[/quote]
I see this as the short come of the Southern leadership.  Had they gone on the offensive and taken Maryland, marched on PA and threatened Philly, or Trenton NJ the North would have thrown up it's arms and allowed the South to leave, probably taking MD with it.  But as long as the war was somewhere else the North was not under political pressure to end the war and stop the South from assaulting the people of (pick a boarder state)  maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York.
As long as the war was not fought on Union territory, the only steak the North had in the fight was the young men.  With millions of men in Uniform, Needing leather goods, uniforms, arms, munitions, food the northern industries were booming feeding the war machine.  Money was to be made, glory was to be earned by comanders in saving the Union.

[subdjoe]

Third, the southerners saw an invading army coming from Washington City to tell them how to live their lives.  That is what caused VA, NC, TN, and AR to leave the Union - Lincolns call for troops to invade their neighbors who just wanted to withdraw from the Union.  SC, FL, GA, and the other 4 states of the original seven Confederate states didn't send troops to invade OH or PA or IL, in April, 1861 did they?   Nope, they said that they were not part of the club anymore, thank you very much.

I see this as the short come of the Southern leadership.  Had they gone on the offensive and taken Maryland, marched on PA and threatened Philly, or Trenton NJ the North would have thrown up it's arms and allowed the South to leave, probably taking MD with it.  But as long as the war was somewhere else the North was not under political pressure to end the war and stop the South from assaulting the people of (pick a boarder state)  maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York.
As long as the war was not fought on Union territory, the only steak the North had in the fight was the young men.  With millions of men in Uniform, Needing leather goods, uniforms, arms, munitions, food the northern industries were booming feeding the war machine.  Money was to be made, glory was to be earned by comanders in saving the Union.
[/quote]

That's it...the South didn't want to be invaders or conquerors, those 7 states just wanted to go their own way. 

[mcwoodduck]

Joe,
I am not arguing the cause of the war, just the stratigy.
I think if Southern States wanted to leave and used force to break away, a defensive war was never going to bring about their goal of leaving.   I understand you look at the South as the marter in this, all they wanted to do was leave the union and the big bad bully of the Union attacked the poor South.
Even a failed invasion of the North or the threat of marching to NYC or Boston could have ended the war early espacally after the North lost the first few battles.
Looking at history there are very few wars that are won fighting on the defensive.  Especially fighting on a multi front defensive.  The only defensive wars I can think of that won were ones that the supply lines were extremely long for the attacker and supplies and reinforcements .
Alexander the Great in Afganistan and India.  The Persian Empire attacking Greece, and the Battle for England in the second world war.

[subdjoe]

We are seeing this differently. You seem to be seeing the seven states that left as punching the feds in the face and saying "We are out of here."  I'm seeing it as them saying "Bye."  And the feds smacking them and forcing them to stay.  The deep south thought they had to right to leave in peace.  They did not want a war, just to exercise what they saw as their rights. 

Joe,
I am not arguing the cause of the war, just the stratigy.
I think if Southern States wanted to leave and used force to break away, a defensive war was never going to bring about their goal of leaving.   I understand you look at the South as the marter in this, all they wanted to do was leave the union and the big bad bully of the Union attacked the poor South.
Even a failed invasion of the North or the threat of marching to NYC or Boston could have ended the war early espacally after the North lost the first few battles.
Looking at history there are very few wars that are won fighting on the defensive.  Especially fighting on a multi front defensive.  The only defensive wars I can think of that won were ones that the supply lines were extremely long for the attacker and supplies and reinforcements .
Alexander the Great in Afganistan and India.  The Persian Empire attacking Greece, and the Battle for England in the second world war.

[mcwoodduck]

We are seeing this differently. You seem to be seeing the seven states that left as punching the feds in the face and saying "We are out of here."  I'm seeing it as them saying "Bye."  And the feds smacking them and forcing them to stay.  The deep south thought they had to right to leave in peace.  They did not want a war, just to exercise what they saw as their rights. 

Joe,
I am not arguing the cause of the war, just the stratigy.
I think if Southern States wanted to leave and used force to break away, a defensive war was never going to bring about their goal of leaving.   I understand you look at the South as the marter in this, all they wanted to do was leave the union and the big bad bully of the Union attacked the poor South.
Even a failed invasion of the North or the threat of marching to NYC or Boston could have ended the war early espacally after the North lost the first few battles.
Looking at history there are very few wars that are won fighting on the defensive.  Especially fighting on a multi front defensive.  The only defensive wars I can think of that won were ones that the supply lines were extremely long for the attacker and supplies and reinforcements .
Alexander the Great in Afganistan and India.  The Persian Empire attacking Greece, and the Battle for England in the second world war.

But the South fired first.  If they thought they had the right to leave then they should have said Bye, stopped sending $ north to DC and sent it to Richmond with out firing a shot.  I can see your point of view and you can claim the South was a victom, but is the guy that starts the fight the victom, especally if he gets his tail whooped?

[subdjoe]

But the South fired first. If they thought they had the right to leave then they should have said Bye, stopped sending $ north to DC  and sent it to Richmond with out firing a shot.  I can see your point of view and you can claim the South was a victom, but is the guy that starts the fight the victom, especally if he gets his tail whooped?

Um....the did.  The seven states of the deep south left.  And stopped sending money to Washington City.  That is why Lincoln ordered Anderson to stand fast, and why he was sending troops and supplies to Ft. Sumter, he needed the revenue from the south.  That fort in SC controlled the harbor.  It was also a good stepping off point for an invasion. 

If you have someone standing on your front porch loading up a shotgun and you are pretty sure he plans to use it on you,  what would you do?  Do you have to wait to be shot before you shoot?

[sidewinder319]

Subdjoe, not being a Civil War buff and not being into all this political debate. I thought the issue of owning slaves was the major cause of the War.  You indicate it had to do with the flow of money?  Does this mean the slavery issue was not the cause of the war?? I notice that the debate here is about the southern states wanted their freedom from the Federal Government.  What freedom to do what??  The schools in the western states did not teach much on the Civil War.  There is little interest in it.  So my question may seem dumb.

[subdjoe]

Subdjoe, not being a Civil War buff and not being into all this political debate. I thought the issue of owning slaves was the major cause of the War.  You indicate it had to do with the flow of money?  Does this mean the slavery issue was not the cause of the war?? I notice that the debate here is about the southern states wanted their freedom from the Federal Government.  What freedom to do what??  The schools in the western states did not teach much on the Civil War.  There is little interest in it.  So my question may seem dumb.

Before anything else, we need to draw a distinction between secession and the War.  Slavery may have been top among the issues that caused the seven states of the deep south to leave the Union (although look up the Corwin Amendment that guaranteed perpetual slavery and the ability of slave owners to take their slaves to a free state and retain ownership.  With the passage of that, if it was only about slavery, then the South would have stayed, right?).  But it was, as the editorials I quoted (might have been on another thread) show, the issue of revenue+, both for the federal treasury and northern businessmen, that pressured Lincoln to maneuver and push for war.  Supposedly Lincoln himself said "What will I do for revenue?" if the deep south was allowed to leave.  That was related by someone else, somewhat after the fact, so it may be a bit suspect as an actual quote, but I don't doubt the sentiment.  The war cry of the federals was "Preserve the Union!" not "Free the slaves!"

One historian, I misremember who, and it was two hard drive melt downs ago that I found it,  made a comment that I think sums it up rather well.  The causes were like a wagon wheel.  A hub of states rights, the spokes of taxes, tariffs, and revenue, and the rim of slavery holding it all together.  Remove any one of those, and the wheel falls apart.

Note also that I mention only the seven original states of the Confederacy.  The other four joined in only after Lincoln called for 75,000 new troops to invade the seven that had left the Union and force them back.  They saw that as exceeding the powers of the federal government and a violation of the rights of the states.

It was far more complex than the shouts of "it was only about slavery!" that we are treated to all too often.

Added:  Freedom to do what?  For one thing, to buy goods from european manufactuers at a fair rather than inflated price.  Without the protective tariffs a plough made in England might cost 12 dollars, but with the tariffs on it, the price was maybe 18 dollars.  The foundries in NY & PA could produce and sell them for 16 dollars.  (prices just pulled out of the air as examples, but the relative amounts are close to correct).  And there were no similar protections on goods from the south.

Oh, and your questions do not seem dumb.  You have run up against ideas that you haven't been exposed to before and you are asking about them.  How is that dumb?  Better than just yelling "Slavery!" as you were taught in 5th grade and thinking that is the only answer.   

[Hooker]

Was the white population in the south 4 million whites in 1861?  Was the white population in the north 28 million in 1861.  What great southern general thought this would be a winning fight??

It was not a war of their choosing.
They fought to protect what was theirs against an oppressive  rogue government and capitalist northern thieves.
When your backed against the wall you fight no matter the odds it was not about can we win it was about liberty.
How can any northern general be even listed among the best when they fought on the side of tyranny?

Pat
   

[billy_56081]

Pat the thread is about the best general not who was right. As has been forgotten in todays world, the job of a general is to destroy the enemies ability to wage war. The best general is one who not won on the battlefield, but behind the battlefield. Sherman did this well.

[williamlayton]

Again the thread has been hijacked.
What is a good conversation has been turned into the only arguement the loosing side has.
Let's return to the Generals.
Blessings