Question of the Week: Which Civil War general or admiral is overrated?
In your opinion, which Civil War general or admiral is significantly overrated for their contributions?
In your opinion, which Civil War general or admiral is significantly overrated for their contributions?
This will be controversial, but I think R. E. Lee is highly overrated. He was a good general, but he made a lot of mistakes he couldn’t afford to make, made the same mistakes repeatedly (*cough* Pickett’s Charge), and gave far too much leeway to subordinates.
Well, he probably isn’t “over-rated”; but the horrific John Bell Hood is among the worst generals of the entire 19th century. He sneaks around and backstabs Joe Johnston and upon getting command(from idiot Jefferson Davis); promptly has his men slaughtered at Peachtree Creek, Atlanta, Ezra Church, Franklin and Nashville; killing(among others) the “Stonewall of the West”; Patrick Cleburne. He also apparently had the IQ of a tree stump.
I had a similar opinion of Hood until I read Stephen M. Hood’s “John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General” (Savas Beatie, 2016). While I think Stephen Hood sometimes goes to great length to exonerate his distant and collateral ancestor, on the whole I think he does a credible job arguing that Gen. Hood’s intentions while commanding the Army of Tennessee were reasonable and his orders intelligent–but poorly executed by his principle subordinates. But then, when if ever did “principle subordinates” of the Army of Tennessee obey orders?
Nathan Bedford Forrest. Certainly feared, with a wonderful fighter reputation, but where was he when Bragg was surprised and driven out of Central Tennessee in Rosecrans’s Tullahoma Campaign? Where was he while Sherman was moving towards Atlanta on a single vulnerable rail supply line? I suppose one could defend him by blaming superiors for misusing him, but the fact is he went MIA in critical campaigns.
To steal George Steinbrenner’s baseball player slight, Forrest might have been good sometimes but when it mattered most he was “Mr. May,” not “Mr. October.”
Great tactician, poor strategist?
Yes. One might say that he was the reverse of Stonewall.
Going to say this then duck… Thomas J. Jackson. Very good, but prickly personality, too secretive with orders, unable to see his own weaknesses and address them. (ducking now)
Incoming……..
I agree with your assessment of his oft-ignored weaknesses!
Albert S. Johnston on the Confederate side and John Reynolds and James McPherson on the Union side definitely benefited (in terms of reputation) from getting killed. I’m not saying they were bad generals, but their reputations were built in part by dying.
In the South – Conf. Major General George E. Pickett – although he didn’t lose as many fights as U.S. Gen. Braxton Bragg, and his career started strong, but his performance took a quick dive. His vicious war crimes, trying and hanging his prisoners, would have been his legacy. But he’s best known for actions that got half his command killed at Gettysburg.
After the war, he decides to respect the law and joins the U.S. Army, leading black soldiers in New Orleans and writing a book that enrages the Lost Cause crowd. So perhaps he became a better man, who learned from his mistakes.
Sheridan (although he would probably argue that he wasn’t rated highly enough….)
Custer, of course
Great question. This might get lengthy. Sorry about that in advance. On the Union side, I think you can name ALL of the generals who were in command of the Army Of the Potomac until Grant took over in early 1865. Well, maybe Gordon Meade gets a reprieve there, but the track record of that army just wasn’t very good when taken in its entirety before the Overland Campaign.
For the Confederates, I have to go with their 2 heavy hitters, RE Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Both had instances of sheer greatness, but they also had some serious inconsistencies. I don’t know if Lee could ever absolutely know ‘which Stonewall’ would show up. I don’t proclaim to be an expert on him or anyone else, but the Stonewall who emerged during the Seven Days was not someone from which legends are made. He was not known for informing his subordinates what he was thinking. His faith in “The Heavens” always assisting him didn’t generate confidence among those subordinates. In short, his ‘odd duck’ persona might have prevented him from reaching his full potential. He certainly had some great moments after the Seven Days. But by 1863 the chances of a European intervention on behalf of the Confederacy were pretty much dashed. Though the Seven Days saved Richmond, the opportunities to destroy McClellan were not fully exploited.
As for Lee, his penchant for offensive campaigns defied the realities of his army. Taking the fight to the enemy is certainly admirable, if the numbers and other things align. But Lee was 0 for 2 when he took his troops northward out of VA. The Army of Northern VA was on their home turf in VA, and through most of 1863, we’re ‘undefeated’ for the most part when they STAYED in VA. Had Lee stayed there, who knows how the 1864 presidential election might have turned out?
I am trying to keep my mind open to the possibility that I’m being unfair here to Gen. Lee. Monday Morning quarterbacking can be easy 160-plus years after the fact. But Lee HAD to know that a military victory was increasingly unlikely to bring European alliances after the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, but he had to also know how tenuous Lincoln’s hold on the office was because of the constant defeats. If he would have maintained his forces in VA and not decimated them at Gettysburg, and dealt with the inevitable Union invasions that had as their goal the taking of Richmond, it is possible the 1864 election would have been impacted. So Lee not doing that suggests to me an element of him and his judgement being ‘overrated’.
Might be out of left field but W.T. Sherman, if only comparison to George H. Thomas, to whom I am biased. Chickasaw Bayou is a near disaster (not entirely his fault) and Atlanta campaign is his massive force against Confederate “B” teamers – frustratingly attacks Johnston to little success at Kennesaw, and Hood does Sherman’s work for him on the outskirts of the city. After Atlanta though – could another commander have directed the March to the Sea and subsequent campaigns? Even Bentonville is a toss-up early on in that engagement. Sherman humiliates himself briefly for his agreeing to wild pro-CS terms at Bennett Place, much to the consternation of Stanton and Grant. Very willing to be proven wrong!