Your vote for Best General (Poll)

[LMUStats]

LittlePowell wrote:

What if they sent over a couple hundred ships to guard the coastlines for the Confederacy. They could then trade freely with Brittan as well as other foreign nations... That takes care of the financial and resource issues

But if the ports are occupied by Union troops, where do the ships unload? How does the cotton get loaded? The north had a number of options and the initiative and resources to carry out almost anything it wanted. I think the European card was more of a pipe dream than anything else. The south needed that dream to hang onto. After Lincoln proclaimed emancipation and Europe was no longer an option, the south then pinned their hopes on the possibility that Lincoln would lose reelection and that his successor would be more favorable towards the south. Another pipe dream. Sherman's 1860 letter was spot on.

Well you also can't discount the fact that foreign support would also mean more troops/manpower to guard those ports, just as the North had. Think about a Confederate British Brigade, or a Confederate French Brigade etc...

And don't forget, France (with help from Britain and Spain) was basically invading Mexico at this time to get the Mexicans to pay off some debts. They could have easily gotten troops and supplies into Texas. Maybe even invaded California.

[2nd Texas Infantry]

This poll could and should be broken up by Brigade Commander, Division Commander, Corps Commander, Army/Idependent Commander. Its really hard to compare a Brig. Gen. John B. Hood (excellent at brigade and divisional command and undermining and horrible/wretched Corps and Army Commander) to a Lee, Sherman, or Grant. Just my two cents!

Marching Through Georgia: I understand your respect and admiration of Sherman. I did above list him. But to speak of Lee as a bad General tacticaly, how dare you sir! Your Idol Sherman was worse.
Example: Shiloh, Chickasaw Bayou (especially), All the Atlanta battles vs. Old Joe, Bentonville, and worse of all, his 25,000 men at Chattanooga couldn't meet their objective against 4,500 Confederates.
But Sherman did know how to win a war, I would too If my population was 24-26 Million people verse a population of 9 Million and only 6 Million were whites. Like the late great storyteller Shelby Foote said "The North fought that war with one hand behind their back". The South definetly could never win that war in the field, but had a small chance to reach some agreement politicaly. States rights killed the war for the South, everybody from Missouri wanted to retake Missouri, everybody in virginia wanted to protect virginia etc, etc. I think there were only a handfull of influential Confederate Generals who thought otherwise; Joe Johnston and Longstreet definetly were a proponent of this theory. But alas, these two are tainted by a biased history. Im not saying Old Joe was great but he did know that "fabian" tactics and a war of attrition and stalemate were the only means to seek peace. victory was unobtainable before the first shot was fired, Longstreet knew that too. But like them and my forefathers, Id rather get my ass kicked than admit my wrong doings and be disrespected.

[Hancock the Superb]

I'm actually going to change my thinking.

I don't think any commander on this list is good. Or even rates great. None of them could win the war or did by themselves. I'm a believer that the times make the people.

Hood is considered a brilliant brigade commander because of his assault at Gaines Mill, where the opposing Federal troops had suffered assault after assault and almost run out of ammunition. Of course you would retreat if you don't having anything to fight with! In addition, the breakthrough achieved was simultaneous along the line, Hood managed to strike the weakest point due to his starting position. So was it Hood's skill that allowed him to strike the line at the weakest point, when the enemy had no reserves and was out of ammunition? I think that the timing of war made it that he was the right leader at that time, though it would be interesting to see how other commanders would have fared in the same situation. (Hood's stupid idea of not firing would have been mowed down if the Federals were fresh, just like at Fredericksburg for the II Corps).

Sherman is also considered a brilliant commander. How brilliant was he? Perhaps he understood modern warfare, but as a commander of troops? He had enough men to push his way through. None of his battles are even remotely respectable for how they were fought. He knew he had men and shoved them on in. This is not brilliance, this is about knowing what you have.

Finally, I will bash on Lee. Some may consider him to be a great commander. I think he had tactical skill myself. But what about the Seven Days? He arguably lost every single battle except Gaines Mill. His tactics were too complicated. He failed, except that McClellan thought he had lost as well. Lets put Lee in the shoes of McClellan in early 1862. Do you think Johnston is a stupid enough commander to let Lee and all his troops destroy him? Even with all the Yankke troops, Lee could not have caught Johnston, then he would have made a mistake, and Johnston would destroy an unsupported piece of the Union army. Lee is considered great because he was against opponents who were bigger, stronger, and arguably should have won. Is it not possible to foresee Sheridan or Howard or Johnston achieving victories as Lee did? Would you be able to make a similar strategy in the same situation. I think, although from hindsight, I could.

True military brilliant did not occur during the Civil War. All of those commanders were subject to their times, they were the right person at the right time. I can think of two military geniuses. The first, I forgot his name, is the German who came up with the Blitzkreig tactics. Although he never fought in WWII, he came up with a set of tactics that could break any line with any number of troops. That is brilliant. Can any of you think of a new way to fight a war. I don't think I could. That has nothing to do with time. That German just thought of a formula which would ensure success.

The second commander, although perhaps a product of his times, was Eisenhower. I don't think many people could think as globally as he could, in terms of massive numbers of men, supplies, and the world picture. His handling of attacking Normandy was brilliant as well: his ability to collect information and create an attack scheme that would succeed. He wasn't offered an advantage on a plate, he made one, by cutting supply lines, harrassing the enemy, coordinating the assault. I don't think any commander in the Civil War could think like that. While some may have dreamed of making those advantages for themselves, none did anything to create them. Lee never created himself an advantage, he merely took an advantage that the Federals handed him. His tactics during the Seven Days (intended to make an advantage) failed; he only seized oppurtunities from that point on, which is why Grant was able to defeat him: Grant left no major oppurtunities.

Commanders in the Civil War are a product of their times. They seized advantages given to them. I think it is arguable that not one made an advantage for themselves. We can only categorize these commanders by 1) how many mistakes did they make, and 2) how many of their mistakes did their enemies exploit. But none of them were outstanding in the art of military warfare.

[Flanyboy]

I would compare Eisenhower to Lee in that their true brilliance (in my opinion) was putting the right people in the right places to succeed and trusting them enough to allow them to use their initiative. Lee was obviously not in as complicated a position as Eisenhower was politically but from what limited info we have on his ability to lead I think he would have been just as successful. He was a commander who could bring people together and get them to perform their best as a result of their mutual respect for him.

But I didn't vote for Lee anyway...

[2nd Texas Infantry]

Hancock, I think a lot of what you said was spot on. However, Lee as a commander at seven days was a learning experience for him and the unweildy command he inherited and in a high stress situation with politcal influence and implications. You try and get a curmudgeon like Theophilus Holmes to move his troops. You try and get a dandy egotistical Magruder to move his troops. Try and get a Longstreet and Hill to get along. Throw in D.H. Hill's and W.H.C. Whiting's pesimistic attitudes and lets let you coordinate that army. Thats why the fat was trimmed by the Second Manasass Camapign. All of Lee's Victories were because of his audacity strategicaly and forethought on predicting his adversary every time. He did, in a sense, re-introduce the wheel that past commanders, Hannibal comes to mind, did. Military judgement goes against taking a small force and dividing it in the face of a superior enemy to achieve a victory like 2nd Manasass and Chancellorsville - his two best performances. He was a master of putting himself in his enemies shoes. Even Grant was marveled by Lee's quick judgement. I dont want to place a quote out of place but Grant did say that Lee knew what he was going to do before he did. Lee's main weakness was his arrogance, only shown at GB, and his narrow mindedness and selfishness for not supporting or reinforcing the west. Jeff Davis had a hard time grasping concentration (temporarily givng up land to deliver a major blow and regain more). Lee was not a tactitioner. He gave a broad sketch of what he wanted and let his subordinates have discretion. Thats fine if you have a Jackson or Longstreet but a Ewell, Early, Stuart, or A.P. Hill, you needed to micro-manage those commanders and history prooves it. The decline in those types of commanders like Jackson and Longstreet who at least knew what was expected and had initiative was the undoing of many of Lee's plans, but he should have known better like Grant. Grant micromanaged all the AOTP corps commanders for a good while until he "broke them in" on his expectations. I could go on. I didnt vote for Lee, I voted for a former British Army Corporal that enlisted as a private in an Arkansas Regiment that went on to become the best Division commander the war produced on both sides..period.

[General P R Cleburne]

Ringold Gap springs to mind 2nd Texas

Its not just about having a "fortunate" incident when you happen to find yourself in the "right place" at the "right time".
In order to take advantage of such a "lucky roll of the dice" as its been described above surely you also need the "Right man for the job" in place.
Just being there ISNT enough.There is a great divide between Knowing what you could do , and Actually Doing what you know you should/could do.This is where the Great military leaders come to the front.
One only has to look at incidents like Falling Waters during the retreat from Gettysburg or Ringold Gap during the retreat from Missionary ridge and you can get a clearer idea of what makes a Great commander so Great.
Lee stopped with his back to the Potomac river and offered up battle to Meade while the AoNV was in poor shape to say the least.If at any time the AOP decides to fall upon him at that point he might well lose it all.Everything.Why does Lee stop to offer battle in such horrible circumstances for it?
The answer is quite clear, its because he CAN.He is so respected my Meade that even in such poor shape he can buy himself time(to prepare to bridge the swollen Potomac and get his ambulances and trains heading back south) simply by offering up battle.
Meade has just had a very near miss at Gettysburg and he does not want to gamble on a direct hit by attacking Lee even when he is so weakened.
Meade didnt attack as we know and Lee crossed the river and lived to fight another day(or 21 months).
The reason was nothing more than an example of a Great commander using his reputation when it counted most.There are many examples of this in many wars throughout history but i have to disagree with the idea that Great commanders didnt exist in the ACW as i think incidents like this tell us the complete opposite.
No need to go into details about other incidents as i think this one is a good example but there are many many more and they dont always come about in the major battles either.
I didnt vote for my avatars namesake either even tho i firmly believe him to be one of the Great commanders of that war.My vote went to R E Lee because of such instances like outlined above.
A Great Commander knows when the time is present and identifies it and uses it.He sometimes might well stumble unknowigly into it but certainly he understands the opportunities it might present and tries to sieze them.R E Lee had these qualities.
Cleburne

[jebstuart]

Stonewall,forrest.lee,grant,sherman

[Marching Thru Georgia]

2nd Texas Infantry wrote:

Marching Through Georgia: I understand your respect and admiration of Sherman. I did above list him. But to speak of Lee as a bad General tacticaly, how dare you sir! Your Idol Sherman was worse.

I never said Sherman was adept at tactics. I said he was the only general of either side who truly understood the war and knew how to win it. Lee was likewise a very good strategist, at least in his own sphere, the eastern theater. But as a tactician, he was at best average. His West Virginia campaign, Seven Days campaign and Gettysburg all showed his lack of understanding in coordinating men in battle. His best showing was at Antietam where apparently he was everywhere at once. That was good, since another general of large reputation and of mean ability, Jackson, took the day off. Perhaps Lee would have been better had he a competent and larger staff. I remember reading somewhere that the size of an average french division's staff was larger that of the entire ANV's.

[Hancock the Superb]

Jackson took the day off? I was under the impression that he was not at Willard's Hotel eating with the rest of the Union War Department!

He conducted the battle averagely in my opinion. His pushing forward of McLaws was brilliant, he smashed Sedgwick. McLaws wanted to stop and deploy, but Jackson wanted him to engage as quickly as possible.

[Little Powell]

Jackson took the day off? I was under the impression that he was not at Willard's Hotel eating with the rest of the Union War Department!

He conducted the battle averagely in my opinion. His pushing forward of McLaws was brilliant, he smashed Sedgwick. McLaws wanted to stop and deploy, but Jackson wanted him to engage as quickly as possible.

Yes, McLaws counter attack just as Sedgwick was attacking was probably the most brilliant move of the battle, and probably saved the day for the Confederates. Even a Division of hardened veterans such as Sedgwick's will not stick around long when they're being attacked in all directions, in dense woods.