Greatest Generals of the American Civil War

[Benderino]

In your opinion, who was the greatest gerneral of the American Civil War? I am excluding the big ones (Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson) for the sake of argument.

 

[napoleon526]

From the CSA I picked Cleburne, Stuart and Forrest. Forrest was a freakin' genius. A lunatic, but still a genius.

You forgot several important Union men. I picked George Thomas (The Rock of Chickamauga) and Phil Sheridan, and would have picked Winfield S. Hancock if you would have included him.

 

[Xen]

Patriots and loyalist do not apply to the civil war, only the revolutionary war.

 

[Benderino]

Ah yes, Hancock, I forgot him. I also forgot John C. Pemberton (defender of Vicksburg). Oh well.

Forrest was definetly great. In the closing of the Battle of Shiloh, he charged his cavalry straight into the Union lines, shook up the Yankees a bit, and, as he turned to reform south, he grabbed a Union soldier and used him as a human shield to protect him from the other Union soldiers. Very brave and resourceful, I must say. You'd only find that from an American officer, eh?

@Xen, actually, that isn't necessarily true. In this case, the Patriots are those who remained loyal to their states, even though they succeeded from the Union (The Confederates) and wished to uphold the idea of liberty and the choice of slavery. Meanwhile, the Loyalists were the ones who remained loyal to the Union itself, right or wrong.

It can be used at any time where a civil war takes place. The Revolution was still a civil war, because one part of the nation (the colonies) was breaking off from another (the British Empire). It was then called a revolution because it drastically changed the government of the (former) colonies and became the first modern democracy (republic, if you will).

However, I will concede that I could have just as easily named this thread "Greatest Generals of the Civil War", but it matters not, since both titles will attract historians within CFC

 

[Xen]

No, patriots historicclt refers (even to this day) as people who are dedicate to the Federal Union that make up the government of the UNITED STATES, not the Confederated States; further more the civil war was not about slavery, the fact that MULTIPLE slave holding states stayed in the Union should be more then enough proof for that, it was about how much power the federale government could have Vs. the the individual power of a state, and as history showed, the thing in which the Slave holding states feared; the federale government out lawing slavery out right happend only because of the civil war.

 

[Benderino]

Ahem, "not about slavery"? What does that have to do with the great generals?

Secondly, have you read South Carolina's successionist statements and documents. Its littered with phrases damning the Union taking away the South's right to have slaves. Slavery this, slavery that. It clearly states that because the North wouldn't let the South have slaves (which isn't even true, the ignorant Southerners were just paranoid in protecting a stupid institution), that is the reason South Carolina succeeds. And we both know that South Carolina left first, thus starting the whole process of succession.

I agree that the Southerners feared a powerful Federal government, but they did so only because they feared that a strong Federal government would regulate their slaves and eventually abolish the evil tool of slavery.

There would have been no war, if slavery hadn't existed. The question of the territories, and whether they should be free or slave land wouldn't have come up. Bleeding Kansas wouldn't have occured.

Why didn't Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and other Northwest (Midwest) states succeed if it was about states rights? They surely wouldn't want big government, Illinoisians were nearly all farmers. There was agriculture in the midwest, just as there was agriculture in the South. The difference is that the South had slaves, while the Midwest righteously abolished slavery. Thus, the Midwest, since it was a war over slavery, stayed with the Union, even though it was against big government and was pro-states rights--because it was very agriculturally based. The South, however, succeeded because it feared that Lincoln would dissolve the hated institution (which, as I mentioned earlier, he wasn't going to do).

 

[Xen]

sorry- got distracted from the point

any way, the answer is simple- they (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and other midwest states) were all republican at the time, and there was reason to secced from the republican run union, since they didnt agree on democratic plat forms-primarilly the slavery issue

now then like I said, South carolina secceded from the union not because slavery was going to be abolished, but because it might be, and had for years lobbying for strong states rights, which would have prevented that in the first place.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Guys, pls stop squibbling about the title and talk about the Civil War generals only.

Benderino, I'll add those 2 names to the poll.

Edit : Misleading title edited to be more clearer...

 

[NewDestroyer]

longstreet, he was only 2nd to lee in brains. as for McClellen being up thier, that is a joke, the guy was scared of his own shadow, getting relived was the best thing lincoln could do for him.

 

[pawpaw]

mcclellen was actually a great general in the sense he was a great organizer, trainer and supply- was throu a lousy combat general!!! longstreet was a good general IF someone else was in command, he was brave and followed orders but lacked jackson's ability to be on his own.

 

[Xen]

Well Hooker gets bonus points considering the impact of his name...

 

[Benderino]

Yeah, McClellen is a joke, but, like PawPaw said, he was incredible good at organizing the army, he just loved his boys too much to see them fight. Thanks a ton, XIII, for adding the two generals, and, I concede, for changing the thread title.

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by pawpaw
mcclellen was actually a great general in the sense he was a great organizer, trainer and supply- was throu a lousy combat general!!! .

Yeah, if there had been a boot camp system at the
time, and McClellan had been put in charge of it, he likely
would be remembered as one of the unsung heroes of the
War (like Montgomery Meigs for his job as Quartermaster
General). Unfortunately for McC, he was actually expected
to be a combat commander...

 

[Speedo]

I'd say Lee, hands down. But after him, Longstreet. WAY ahead of his time in tactics. On the Union side I'm not really familiar with anybody but Chamberlain(sp?), Hancock, Buford and Grant, can't really say much about them.

 

[Benderino]

Ah yes, Chamberlain was excellent. Surely you know about Sherman? And Grant revolutionized modern warfare by moving away from his supply lines and living off the land. One of the ill-fated assualts on Vicksburg was the first battle ever to be coordinated by commanders all using synchronized watches, to time the charges just right. He used the Union's strength in numbers and equipment to his advantage, even if that led him to the name "the butcher". However, he gained the nickname "unconditional surrender Grant" after his superlative job at Fort Donelson and Henry. He won a decisive victory at Shiloh. I do agree, however, that Lee is very high up there. However, Lee's crucial mistake at Gettysburg cannot be overlooked. He did a fine job at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, however, Grant really didn't have any major blunders. Thus, they are equal in generalship.

 

[pawpaw]

i don't think chamberlain was ever a general--- i know he was a colonel in a maine regiment but didn't he get shot?( i stand corrected, i saw were he was promoted to general)

 

[Richard III]

At the risk of getting edited by mods, I will continue my crusade to point out that while the Union fought to preserve the Union, the South very clearly seceded to preserve slavery; that this was the only real issue of dispute between the south and the federal system, and the fact that slavery was the issue was made clear both by southern leaders and in the confederate constitution at the time.

R.III

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Richard III
At the risk of getting edited by mods, I will continue my crusade to point out that while the Union fought to preserve the Union, the South very clearly seceded to preserve slavery; that this was the only real issue of dispute between the south and the federal system, and the fact that slavery was the issue was made clear both by southern leaders and in the confederate constitution at the time.

R.III

Grazie, I agree.

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by Xen
Well Hooker gets bonus points considering the impact of his name...

Actually, the word "hooker" in that context existed well before Fighting Joe - it came from an area of New York City frequented by them...

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by Benderino
Grant really didn't have any major blunders

Getting large numbers of his men slaughtered pointlessly at Cold Harbor was hardly a stroke of genius. Even Grant himself later acknowledged that as a blunder.