Your vote for Best General (Poll)

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Without a doubt, it was Sherman. He was the only general who thoroughly understood the nature of that war and what was necessary to end it.

[Little Powell]

Without a doubt, it was Sherman. He was the only general who thoroughly understood the nature of that war and what was necessary to end it.

I think Lee understood that as well. Both Lee and Sherman remarked at the start of the war that it would be a long, bloody conflict.. The difference is; Sherman had practically unlimited resources. Lee, had very little...

Although Sherman's march to the sea cost many civilian lives, left the South in ruins, it was one of the most brilliant strategies of the war.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

LittlePowell wrote:

I think Lee understood that as well. Both Lee and Sherman remarked at the start of the war that it would be a long, bloody conflict.. The difference is; Sherman had practically unlimited resources. Lee, had very little...

Indeed, I think Lee was a better strategist. As you say, he did so much with so little. But I don't think he truly understood that this was a cultural not a territorial war. As such, defeating the enemy's army would not necessarily end the war. The culture itself, (military and civilian population), had to be defeated.

Sherman knew the war would be long and bloody. I came across a letter written by Sherman in 1860 while he was teaching in Louisiana. It is in Shelby Foote's book, p.58. Talk about being prescient.

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

Letter to Prof. David F. Boyd at the Louisiana State Seminary Dec. 24, 1860

[Tacloban]

As such, defeating the enemy's army would not necessarily end the war. The culture itself, (military and civilian population), had to be defeated.

I'm not sure how you can say that. If Lee had gotten between Meade and Washington during the Gettysburg campaign, the Copperheads would surely have been stronger, and Lincoln was already nervous.

OK, so Sherman had a realistic appreciation of war. That is admirable; I wish a certain more recent President had that same opinion. But from a purely military stand point, nobody had a track record of doing more with less than Lee, both in strategy and in tactics.

[Damned Black Hat]

The only fault I can really put towards Lee was that he engaged in too many stand-up battles. With inferior troops and supplies, you really can't afford to keep taking casualties at the rate he did. While he was a brilliant tactician and soldier, he simply did not have the resources and manpower he needed to keep fighting the way he was earlier in the war. Generals like McClellan and Pope may have given Lee the time he needed to lick his wounds and ready up again, but when Grant kept the pressure on Lee, he was eventually worn too thin to keep up his ways and was eventually defeated. If McClellan had kept on pressuring Lee like Grant did early in the war, there's a chance it could have ended far earlier than it did.

[Hancock the Superb]

I think Reynolds would be the one to meet Lee on the field of battle and defeat him. But that does not make him the best...

The war changed a lot from beginning to end. The battles that Sherman fought were less tactically complicated, which was his strength. But the early war was entirely made up of tactics, where I think a general like Reynolds takes the cake.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

The only fault I can really put towards Lee was that he engaged in too many stand-up battles.

True, but given the hand he was dealt, I don't think he had much choice. I do disagree as to his abilities as a tactician. I think he was mediocre at best. He even admitted as much to a Prussian observer right after Gettysburg. He is speaking of his battle management.
"You have to realize how things stand with us. Recognize that my orders then would do more harm than good. I rely on my division and brigade commanders. How terrible if I could not. I plan and work as hard as I can to bring the troops to the right place at the right time. I have done my duty then."

Justus Scheibert, A Prussian Observes The American Civil War, Univ of Missouri Press 2001, p.42.

Such an admission speaks well of his character. How many other generals will admit to their shortcomings. Sherman is the only other I can think of.

[Chris G.]

I think you're on the right path there MTG. I think General Lee did rely heavily on his battlefield commanders. I am also of the opinion that the deaths of so many of the good ones, also hastened the end of the war. I have no doubts about the eventual outcome (it ended the only way it was ever going to end)I do think that without the deaths of generals like A.S. Johnston, T.J. Jackson (there are several more), that the war may have been extended.
I say this because I think A.S. Johnston, for instance, while never going to "win the west" probably makes Grant work harder to win out there, delaying his arrival in the Eastern Theatre (which was the begining of the end for the AoNV). I also think that Jackson at Gettysburg makes a difference. Enough to win the battle? That'll never be known. However, we do know that he was way more aggressive and decisive than any of the corps commanders that were there, and with a bit more aggresivness on days 1 and 2, maybe Meade does fall back or disengage...it's all speculative of course, but, possible(these are just a couple of scenerio's or "what if's").

Thoughts?

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Chris G. wrote:

I say this because I think A.S. Johnston, for instance, while never going to "win the west" probably makes Grant work harder to win out there, delaying his arrival in the Eastern Theatre (which was the begining of the end for the AoNV).

I agree. I don't think the people at that time or even this time appreciate that the war was going to be lost or won in the west. The loss of Johnston probably had a grater impact then that of Jackson. Lee's biggest blind spot strategically speaking, was in not sending troops west when they could have had a significant impact. Going to Gettysburg rather than Vicksburg was an enormous blunder. That sealed the fate of the south.

[Little Powell]

Indeed MTG. The war was most definitely lost for the South in the West. Once the Union had control of the Mississippi, it was over.

But with or without the Mississippi, the South's only true hope for independence the entire war was foreign recognition of the Confederacy. Lincoln knew this, and it was on Lee's and Davis's mind going into every campaign. I think Lee knew very well that it wasn't a territorial war. Win a major battle, crush the Union morale, and gain foreign recognition.