Union Civil War Generals

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Was there any Civil War General who was smart enough to really challegene Lee? I myself am a huge Sherman fan.

[CBR]

Grant seems to have done a fair job. Several of Lee's opponents were very timid, with McClellan being the worst, and that allowed Lee to win battles when he shouldn't have. Not that Lee was bad but he sure had a lot of luck when it came to outright bad Union generalship.

[RabidGibbon]

Meade 'really challenged' Lee.

[Fisherking]

LOL

The only reason that war lasted so long was Union incompetence.

Lee couldn’t help but look good because everyone else was so bad.

Both sides made big mistakes and it is a war that never should have been fought in the first place.

I think Grant was a butcher. He was way too free with the lives of his men and just overwhelmed them with numbers.

Sherman would have been hung as a war criminal if he had lived today. He waged a war of terror against the civilian population. They hung Germans for doing less than what he did in the south.

Meade’s great victory was holding defensive positions while Lee bled himself dry…and then let what was left go back to VA and continue the war for another year and a half or so.

The south never had a chance. It lacked everything from the very start of the war.

All it had were some competent officers. It is impossible to say how they would have done had their opposition been well lead.

It is easy enough to admire some of the leaders for their exploits but if they could have accomplished that against a well lead foe is an open question.

[econ21]

The only reason that war lasted so long was Union incompetence.

I am not sure that's right. One factor is the scale of the conflict relative to the initial preparedness of the starting forces. American did not have much of a military before the conflict and trying to raise armies of the scale they did, to subdue the size of territory they did, was a non-trivial task. Think about how long it took the US to mobilise in arguably more favorable circumstances in WW1 and WW2. Yes, many of the starting generals on the Union side don't look great, but the task they faced was daunting.

Another factor is the changing technology, which tended to favour the defender. The development of the rifle and of artillery saw the transformation of tactics from Napoleonic at the start of the conflict to essentially WW1 style trench warfare at the end. In a way, this is linked to my first point about scale: the world was moving away from wars that could be won by single decisive battles, into ones which inherently would last longer. Yes, Grant can be called a butcher, but maybe he just understood that attrition is the reality of trench warfare? Similarly, Sherman's grasp of total war and the importance of civilian support for the war effort seems rather prescient of WW2 era thinking.

Calling the Union generals incompetent seems very similar to calling the WW1 British generals donkeys. It's one reading of the evidence, but I suspect it is blaming individual actors for circumstances largely beyond their control.

[CBR]

That Grant was a butcher is just a rather persistent myth. Whatever Sherman did was no worse than seen in wars before or even after so why single him out? What Germans hung for doing less than Sherman?

[CBR]

Calling the Union generals incompetent seems very similar to calling the WW1 British generals donkeys.
Not really. McClellan was simply not up to the job of leading an army into a campaign. Just look at his behavior in the Peninsula Campaign. If Grant had been in charge Richmond could have fallen in '62. The events leading up to Antietam was perhaps even more pathetic as McClellan had Lee's orders in his hands yet he failed to fully exploit it.

Hooker did somewhat better as he did manage to surprise Lee, yet he hesitated when he finally encountered enemy units which led to Chancellorsville. Of course it it did not help Hooker that he had a corps commander like Howard nor did it help getting knocked out by a shell at a critical time during the battle.

Some commanders have the guts needed to fight and some simply don't.

edit: oh and technology had nothing to do with the length of the war or battles not being decisive enough. It was a simple matter of size of the country coupled with low population density and therefore difficult logistics and occasionally broken up terrain. If technology meant wars could no longer be won by single battles then why where there so many long wars that involved several battles?

[econ21]

I will give you McClellan is a strange case - appearing paralysed by a curious over-estimation of Confederate strength. I probably over-stated my case. Poor generalship does seem to have been a factor in the first half of the war in the East. But what I was getting at was that there were competent Union generals in the west and for the second half of the war in the East, but still winning the war was a slow process. It's hard not to see it in terms of attrition - of the superior resources of the North slowly wearing down the South.


edit: oh and technology had nothing to do with the length of the war or battles not being decisive enough. It was a simple matter of size of the country coupled with low population density and therefore difficult logistics and occasionally broken up terrain.

I mentioned the scale issue as my the first reason (aside from any Union incompetence) for the ACW being long, but still would make a case for technology being a second. The crucial Eastern front, where a quick Union victory was more of a possiblility, was a relatively small war zone. The distance from Washington DC to Richmond is only 88 miles. One factor that stopped even competent generals like Grant from quickly defeating the Confederacy was the difficulty in decisively winning an offensive battle in the face of entrenchments and firepower of near-WW1 lethality. You only need to look at the final fighting around Richmond to see evidence of that. ("Grant maneouvred his entrenchments around Richmond" is one memorable description from the later stages of the war.)


If technology meant wars could no longer be won by single battles then why where there so many long wars that involved several battles?

I confess I don't follow the logic here.

[Kagemusha]

Two rather good Union Corps commanders who spring to mind were Major Generals John F. Reynolds and Winfried Scott Hancock.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

LOL

The only reason that war lasted so long was Union incompetence.

Lee couldn’t help but look good because everyone else was so bad.

Both sides made big mistakes and it is a war that never should have been fought in the first place.

I think Grant was a butcher. He was way too free with the lives of his men and just overwhelmed them with numbers.

Sherman would have been hung as a war criminal if he had lived today. He waged a war of terror against the civilian population. They hung Germans for doing less than what he did in the south.

Meade’s great victory was holding defensive positions while Lee bled himself dry…and then let what was left go back to VA and continue the war for another year and a half or so.

The south never had a chance. It lacked everything from the very start of the war.

All it had were some competent officers. It is impossible to say how they would have done had their opposition been well lead.

It is easy enough to admire some of the leaders for their exploits but if they could have accomplished that against a well lead foe is an open question.

I myself never liked Grant ether. He was OK, wasn't bad. He reminds me of Eisenhower (Someone else I don't think was all that perfect ether).... OK but not the best.


Hey, don't hate Sherman to much, he could not help it he had to bring Total War onto the citizens :yes:.

[Fisherking]

That Grant was a butcher is just a rather persistent myth. Whatever Sherman did was no worse than seen in wars before or even after so why single him out? What Germans hung for doing less than Sherman?

Sherman’s war crimes included: the execution of prisoners of war, the execution of civilians in reprisal for resistance, the execution of blacks (supposedly so they didn’t fall into the hands of the CSA, but actually because he could not be bothered bringing them along), condoning rape, murder, & looting, the wholesale burning of whole towns and cities without regard to military value, ordering the looting and burning of civilian homes. It is not disputed that he did these things and even admitted to most of them.



Sherman once wrote to his wife that his purpose was the "extermination, not of soldiers alone...but of the people" of the South.

Troops were even ordered to shoot civilians “at random”.

When other armies have committed such acts we label them as atrocities and do our utmost to bring to justice and execute the perpetrators. In Sherman’s case we call it Total War and give him a pass as a hero.

Finding a war criminal with a longer rap sheet would be difficult.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Sherman’s war crimes included: the execution of prisoners of war, the execution of civilians in reprisal for resistance, the execution of blacks (supposedly so they didn’t fall into the hands of the CSA, but actually because he could not be bothered bringing them along), condoning rape, murder, & looting, the wholesale burning of whole towns and cities without regard to military value, ordering the looting and burning of civilian homes. It is not disputed that he did these things and even admitted to most of them.



Sherman once wrote to his wife that his purpose was the "extermination, not of soldiers alone...but of the people" of the South.

Troops were even ordered to shoot civilians “at random”.

When other armies have committed such acts we label them as atrocities and do our utmost to bring to justice and execute the perpetrators. In Sherman’s case we call it Total War and give him a pass as a hero.

Finding a war criminal with a longer rap sheet would be difficult.


And you expected him to be chivalrous? :dizzy2:

[CBR]

But what I was getting at was that there were competent Union generals in the west and for the second half of the war in the East, but still winning the war was a slow process. It's hard not to see it in terms of attrition - of the superior resources of the North slowly wearing down the South.
Yes it was a slow grind because there was no single objective that could decide the war (maybe Richmond). In the west logistically it had to be done step by step because of the big distances. The British had a similar problem 80+ years earlier and lost the AWI. The French had superior numbers in Spain yet Spain was not known for being a great campaigning country, so the fighting lasted years and they only tried once to get to Wellington's base which was uhm fortified.

One factor that stopped even competent generals like Grant from quickly defeating the Confederacy was the difficulty in decisively winning an offensive battle in the face of entrenchments and firepower of near-WW1 lethality.
Entrenchments made things rather difficult, just like entrenchments always had. Claiming near WW1 lethality is rather dubious though because weapons technology and tactics were closer to Napoleonic warfare than WW1.

Don't be tricked into thinking that 88 miles would be easy. Logistics were difficult in that area and broken up terrain made fighting difficult and confused at times. Lee could not even support his own army there, which led to his northern adventures. Yet the two times he did that it quickly escalated into a battle that made Lee retreat home (one could even say a rather decisive battle each time). Why such a difference compared to the grinding fight further south? Why did Sherman have to take a slow and methodical approach to reach Atlanta, yet when he went off for his march to the sea he marched faster and no rebel army seemed to have slowed him down one bit?

That Sherman lived off the land and Lee went north for his army to feed it should already provide a strong hint. The areas they entered were open, well populated and with lots of roads and supplies. It gave an army more options for maneuver and therefore armies had to fight or retreat quickly. That resembles a lot of European campaigns, even when European armies used similar or better weapons technology.


You only need to look at the final fighting around Richmond to see evidence of that. ("Grant maneouvred his entrenchments around Richmond" is one memorable description from the later stages of the war.) Fortifications did not prevent Grant from pushing beyond Lee's line because Lee did not cover everything. So what stopped Grant from making a grand sweep into Lee's rear then? His need to protect his supply base and the difficulties of supplying any large force far away from his base. His only option was to take a gradual approach, building up supplies and use fortifications to free up units and extend the line step by step until Lee was overextended.

The supply situation, terrain and condition of roads played a bigger part in the last phase of the ACW than weapons.


I confess I don't follow the logic here Sorry I should have quoted what I was responding to:

the world was moving away from wars that could be won by single decisive battles, into ones which inherently would last longer
There are very few wars that were decided by just one battle. Funnily enough in '66 and '70 armies with same or better weapons than in ACW decided the issue within a few weeks.

[CBR]

When did Sherman condone rape and executing blacks? Executing civilians because of resistance was a common thing for that era so can't fault any general for that. Burning down stuff as economic warfare is hardly a new thing either. A few "harsh" quotes from Sherman still does not make him equal to German war criminals from another era who had different international laws.

[Fisherking]

When did Sherman condone rape and executing blacks? Executing civilians because of resistance was a common thing for that era so can't fault any general for that. Burning down stuff as economic warfare is hardly a new thing either. A few "harsh" quotes from Sherman still does not make him equal to German war criminals from another era who had different international laws.

No!

It is quite well established, if not well publicized.

It is like asking me to prove Einstein was Jewish or the Pope Catholic


I will give you one essay and you can research the truth of the argument for your self.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

No!

It is quite well established, if not well publicized.

It is like asking me to prove Einstein was Jewish or the Pope Catholic


I will give you one essay and you can research the truth of the argument for your self.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

So I take it you hate Sherman then?

[Fisherking]

So I take it you hate Sherman then?

I don’t hate Sherman but it is safe to say I don’t admire him either.

you can't change the past but some things need a little more light shined on them to get a clearer view.

[econ21]

Entrenchments made things rather difficult, just like entrenchments always had. Claiming near WW1 lethality is rather dubious though because weapons technology and tactics were closer to Napoleonic warfare than WW1.

Well, things were in transition. At the start, the weapons and tactics were essentially Napoleonic. But by the end, with repeater rifles making an appearance, ever more lethal artillery and battlefield entrenchments being routine, the era of close formations deploying in the open, shock combat and cavalry charges was coming to an end.


Yet the two times he did that it quickly escalated into a battle that made Lee retreat home (one could even say a rather decisive battle each time).

Antietam and Gettysburg? They did play a key strategic role but my point about the difficulty of decisive offensive battles was about the challenge of attacking in the face of the firepower available, which both battles amply demonstrate.


Funnily enough in '66 and '70 armies with same or better weapons than in ACW decided the issue within a few weeks.

That's a good point. I guess WW1 could also have been decided quite quickly, had the French and British been a bit weaker in 1914 and the Germans a bit stronger. Indeed, you make a lot of good points about the terrain and logistics in the ACW. But I think the technology probably played a role - perhaps in combination with the scale. In WW1, it was when you had such mass mobilisation, you could have entrenchments stretched across the battlefield that an attritional stalemate was produced (at least until tactics and technology were developed to break it). I think you saw something similar in the ACW in the east.

[CBR]

I don’t hate Sherman but it is safe to say I don’t admire him either.

you can't change the past but some things need a little more light shined on them to get a clearer view.
And I think it is is important to see things in the proper light instead of judging people by modern standards. Sherman did not release Einsatzgruppen on peaceful southerners. Nor did Sherman create horrors like seen in Spain in the Napoleonic era. Nor were they treated like the Boors. In that sense Sherman does not appear like a monster and he certainly did not exist in some vacuum with the atrocities seen in some of the border states.

[CBR]

Antietam and Gettysburg? They did play a key strategic role but my point about the difficulty of decisive offensive battles was about the challenge of attacking in the face of the firepower available, which both battles amply demonstrate.
McClellan is entirely to blame for not getting a better result at Antietam. He had Lee cornered yet did not use his whole army. Gettysburg was a meeting engagement where Lee (who was outnumbered) sent his units in without knowing how strong the enemy really was. If one does not have numbers, surprise or good position (room for flanking) then it would be difficult to win any battle when attacking. It is easy enough to find similar battles in earlier eras, just ask Marlborough, Frederick the Great or Napoleon and they rarely had to deal with such terrain and roads.


In WW1, it was when you had such mass mobilisation, you could have entrenchments stretched across the battlefield that an attritional stalemate was produced (at least until tactics and technology were developed to break it). I think you saw something similar in the ACW in the east.
Yeah I would just say that while tech and numbers was the key reason in WW1 then in the ACW the reasons were IMO mainly terrain and logistics. The slow grinding approaches we do see simply had to happen under very specific circumstances. If the approach to Atlanta or the Wilderness had been like the southern fields of Pennsylvania or perhaps Shenandoah I would think things would have been different.

[Fisherking]

And I think it is is important to see things in the proper light instead of judging people by modern standards. Sherman did not release Einsatzgruppen on peaceful southerners. Nor did Sherman create horrors like seen in Spain in the Napoleonic era. Nor were they treated like the Boors. In that sense Sherman does not appear like a monster and he certainly did not exist in some vacuum with the atrocities seen in some of the border states.

I would say that those were his intent.

Remember that he also became commander of the US Army and supervised the policy Genocide against American Indians.

He practiced a war of terror through the south, avoiding concentrations of actual troops and carrying the war to the civilian population.

I agree that we should avoid holding historical figures to the standards of today. But with Sherman his policies shocked and disgusted most people of his day as well.

You are confusing the lack of Government outrage, by his superiors, with acceptability.

There is more than enough historical documentation. His own letters, orders to subordinates, and his memoirs are quite clear.

Add to that the countless diary entries, by both civilians and Union Soldiers, and newspaper article from the north and south. It also sent shockwaves through Europe.

The atrocities and marauding of his troops was much worse than those committed by Quantrell and on a much larger scale. It is hypocritical to condemn the one and give the greater one a pass.

But unlike the Germans, Sherman was on the winning side and his actions were sanctioned by his government.

It is very difficult to not be disgusted and shocked if you have a good grip on the actual facts.

[CBR]

I can read his order no 120 for the March to the Sea. Seems pretty clear that he was nowhere near what we see in other wars.

It is easy to check about Albert Einstein. Where is the stuff about Sherman? I have found a lot of what seem to be pro-southern emotional drivel so far. Your link provides no facts except for some quotes. There is a book title though: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. That must be it then? I buy that book and it will tell all the juicy stuff about the monster Sherman? Any other books I should get ?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

He did what it took to win the war though. :balloon2:

[CBR]

He did what it took to win the war though. :balloon2:
His experiences with guerrillas in the border states meant his attitude towards civilians hardened during the war, that is a fact and can be seen in his Mississippi Campaign

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

His experiences with guerrillas in the border states meant his attitude towards civilians hardened during the war, that is a fact and can be seen in his Mississippi Campaign

Of course CBR. I read his memoirs, not fully, but from what I seen I would presume that is the case.

[CBR]

One interesting quote from his memoirs about the March to the Sea:

No doubt, many acts of pillage, robbery, and violence, were committed by these parties of foragers, usually called "bummers;" for I have since heard of jewelry taken from women, and the plunder of articles that never reached the commissary; but these acts were exceptional and incidental. I never heard of any cases of murder or rape; and no army could have carried along sufficient food and forage for a march of three hundred miles; so that foraging in some shape was necessary. The country was sparsely settled, with no magistrates or civil authorities who could respond to requisitions, as is done in all the wars of Europe; so that this system of foraging was simply indispensable to our success.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

One interesting quote from his memoirs about the March to the Sea:

Just got his boo from library today, happen to see that phrase when I was flipping though.

[Noncommunist]

He did what it took to win the war though. :balloon2:

By 1864/5, how much did that campaign even matter for winning the war? Yeah, it did split the Confederacy in two yet again but the Confederates were already on their last legs anyways.

[CBR]

I think it sped things up as it practically isolated lee and lowered the overall will to keep on fighting.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

By 1864/5, how much did that campaign even matter for winning the war? Yeah, it did split the Confederacy in two yet again but the Confederates were already on their last legs anyways.

I think if he would have done it eariler the war still proably would have lasted a time though but maybe not as long.

[Fisherking]

I can read his order no 120 for the March to the Sea. Seems pretty clear that he was nowhere near what we see in other wars.

It is easy to check about Albert Einstein. Where is the stuff about Sherman? I have found a lot of what seem to be pro-southern emotional drivel so far. Your link provides no facts except for some quotes. There is a book title though: War Crimes Against Southern Civilians. That must be it then? I buy that book and it will tell all the juicy stuff about the monster Sherman? Any other books I should get ?


Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?

It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.

His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.

Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.

Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?

These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.

Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?

[PanzerJaeger]

Excellent discussion guys. :bow:

[CBR]

Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?

It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
Maybe its time to move on instead of reveling in the myths of the Lost Cause. Imagine if we all were supposed to be so emotional about events going back that far.


His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.
No, his own words are not enough. Especially not when a war is also fought with words. Sherman is well known for his strong rhetoric during the war but when did he carry them out? Somehow I have not found any historians mentioning all his supposed horrors. Are they just all Yankee writers denying the inconvenient truth? Or am I just too picky with the books, in that case where is stuff I should read?


Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.

Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?

These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.

Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?
That is an attempt to connect the dots: he was bad later so he must always have been bad! If the atrocities versus Southerners were so big there must be a lot of details about them somewhere.

[Strike For The South]

considering the people of Atlanta voulantarily destroyed there own city before the yanks could get their hands own it, I dont feel to bad.

The south should count itself lucky, most of the time invading armies destroy more than just property. Ask any Polish or East German woman around the spring of 45.

It's really all about perspective

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

considering the people of Atlanta voulantarily destroyed there own city before the yanks could get their hands own it, I dont feel to bad.

The south should count itself lucky, most of the time invading armies destroy more than just property. Ask any Polish or East German woman around the spring of 45.

It's really all about perspective

Indeed. :2thumbsup:


Is it really surprising that there are emotional rants against the man?

It has been 145 years but there is still great bitterness on the part of many people in Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.

His own words and attitudes are not enough? You do not wish to take the man at his word during the war but in his recollections he has in an understated way admitted that his men wrecked violence and murder, though he shies from the rape charges by that time and in a more civil environment.

Of course, postwar he was head of the army and we see his policies at work against the Indian Nations of the plains and west coast.

Does anyone doubt that there were atrocities committed against the Indian Nations?

These were often against tribes and bands who were at peace the US.

Was this something new, or was it a continuation of policies first employed against the south?


And no one complains about Grant being a alleged butcher of his men. :dizzy2: