Who Was The Best Civil War General?

[JakeStarkey]

I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan...... Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.

Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.

Wow!!

 

[Big Black Dog]

You don't even have the most famous Civil War General listed in your poll. Have you forgotten about General Horace J. W. Whitcomb of the Confederate States of America? Although he was a great warrior, he is best known for secretly sneaking out all of the grits from Richmond, Virginia just before it fell thereby saving this southern delicacy for all the rest of the world to enjoy - even until this day in time. If it had not of been for him, you couldn't get grits in any eating establishment in America. Because the invaders of the North don't want this historical fact known to the general public, you won't be able to find any links to this post but it's history that has been passed down from generation to generation via story telling.

 

[Bill Angel]

General Winfield Scott Hancock. If it wasn't for Hancocks leadership during Gettysburg, General Lee may have well won the battle.

Note: it was the war between the states and not the civil war.

I also agree that Hancock was a great General. It's ironic to note that Hancock was the nominee for the Democrats for the Presidential race in 1880 but was beaten by James Garfield. James Garfield was assassinated shortly after taking office, so it just as easily could have been Hancock who got shot, had the Democrats prevailed in that Presidential election.

 

[Trajan]

We forget today just how shattering the effect of the Civil War on our country: greater than the Independence or even the Depression or World Wars or Vietnam. More than 600,000 soldiers dead, perhaps another 50,000 civilians dead, more than a million injured, the South's economy and culture devastated. The South was soaked in blood.

I have heard it suggested that McClellan (a general whom his troops worshipped) thought in terms of a limited war ~ how to bring back the South without disturbing it or the fact of slavery. He was too cautious, for a fact (the Penisular Campaign and Antietam witness that), but I wonder if he was unwilling to shed excessive amounts of soldiers' blood and wounds and lives for an enslaved race.

"He who cannot look over a battlefield with a dry eye, causes the death of many men uselessly."

Napoleon

 

[Trajan]

I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......

Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.

Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.

uh huh.

 

[editec]

I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......

Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.

Same here. McClellan was too unwilling to scuff his spit-polish army to get them into a real fight and had a general strategic cowardice.

McClellan is arguably the worst general (of significance, I mean) of the Civil War.

Perhaps not at all ironically, the troops love him.

In his defence he did much to get the Northern Army trained and organized, though. Winnie was just too old to undertake that work, I guess.

Unhappily for Lincoln, once trained and organized, McClellan dearly hated to get hist troops all dirty and disorganized by sending them out to seek and kill the enemy.

His constant over estimations (that the Southern forces vastly outnumbered his) is well documented in history as being wrong MOST of the time. He missed at least twice crushing the Southern VA armies early on in the war according to various studies that were conducted by the DoW after the conflict

FWIW my great great grandfather was one of the silversmiths who helped make a ceremonial sword given to him by the people of Philadelphia, or so the apocrophal family history would have me believe.

I have yet to confirm this tale or locate that sword.

 

[Publius1787]

I must say I am flabbergasted the OP would mention Burnside or McClellan......

Scott had a brilliant strategic mind despite is age and infirmities, his "Anaconda" plan was 2 years early in thought , and was subsequently seen for the genius it was.

Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.

uh huh.

Thats all the response I need.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius1787, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion about Anaconda, but not to your own reality.

 

[Trajan]

Anaconda was common since. There was nothing special about it.

uh huh.

Thats all the response I need.

and thats all you'll get.

 

[TossObama]

You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue. If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg. Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail. His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves. Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war. Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.

FYI, England was advising Lincoln and Lincoln passed it on to Grant. England had a vested interest in maintaining control of the northeast because it feared "the new country would collapse". England wanted the tax monies, and the makings for their whiskey and control of the country.

The north did not win the war, and you'd know this if you actually studied the matter. Lee was betrayed by one of his own advisors and unknowingly walked his men into a killing field. That is exactly when England ordered Lincoln to stop the war, Lincoln declared the war won by the north when in fact it was the South who won. Of course, the harpies in the north were furious when Grant simply sent the Southern soldiers back home, so furious in fact that the scum made a cemetery of dead norther solders in Lee's front yard. (Personally I would have dug them all up and dumped them somewhere on a New York street corner.)

Why did England order the halt to the Civil War? England stated and this is a quote "if you (Lincoln) don't stop the war the Americans will keep fighting until they are all dead". England was alarmed at the death rates.

Lee and Grant fought together prior to the Civil War.

 

[Sallow]

General Sherman.

Had the right attitude..but didn't go far enough.

 

[Publius1787]

General Sherman.

Had the right attitude..but didn't go far enough.

WOW! Never thought I would ever hear anyone describe Sherman that way.

 

[Publius1787]

Publius1787, you are entitled to your unsupported opinion about Anaconda, but not to your own reality.

Anaconda was not a work of genius. Sorry. Its a basic no brainer strategy. The question is who wouldent have thought of it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who says other than you that it was basic stuff? You will find no credible support for the claim.

 

[Neubarth]

You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue. If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg. Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail. His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves. Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war. Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.

Grant was a fuggup who fought. He got too many of his men killed, but used his numerical advantage to wear down the Confederates. So, he sacrificed the lives of Irish Immigrants and the poor to gradually wear down the enemy. That does not qualify him as a great general.

A great general is one who takes war to the enemy and breaks their spirit. Only one General qualified and that was Sherman. God Bless Him, he was ruthless and violent and nasty and he took the fighting spirit right out of the heart of the Confederacy.

 

[rightwinger]

For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman

For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest

 

[gunnyrogers55]

I think General Robert E. Lee should replace Washington on the dollar bill...

and why the hell do we do that

 

[JakeStarkey]

You underestimate Grant, just like so many CSA generals did to their rue. If Grant had commanded during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee would not have been able to concentrate before Gettysburg. Grant would have dominated the central ground and defeated each of the extended Confederate columns in detail. His campaigns in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Virginia speak for themselves. Lee's greatest strength was his also his greatest weakness, as Pete Longstreet had no hesitation to discuss after the war: an offensive spirit that ignored the reality of CSA's capacity to wage war. Lee fought battles while Grant waged war.

FYI, England was advising Lincoln and Lincoln passed it on to Grant. England had a vested interest in maintaining control of the northeast because it feared "the new country would collapse". England wanted the tax monies, and the makings for their whiskey and control of the country.

The north did not win the war, and you'd know this if you actually studied the matter. Lee was betrayed by one of his own advisors and unknowingly walked his men into a killing field. That is exactly when England ordered Lincoln to stop the war, Lincoln declared the war won by the north when in fact it was the South who won. Of course, the harpies in the north were furious when Grant simply sent the Southern soldiers back home, so furious in fact that the scum made a cemetery of dead norther solders in Lee's front yard. (Personally I would have dug them all up and dumped them somewhere on a New York street corner.)

Why did England order the halt to the Civil War? England stated and this is a quote "if you (Lincoln) don't stop the war the Americans will keep fighting until they are all dead". England was alarmed at the death rates.

Lee and Grant fought together prior to the Civil War.

Wow! That is good [stuff], man! Doesn't how much righties and lefties love to revise, still entertaining and laughable comes along. Thanks, Toss.

 

[zzzz]

For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman

For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest

Jackson's Valley campaign was a masterpiece in the conduct of fighting against a superior force.

Sometimes we rate Generals of their accomplishments against sub-par opponents. When you are fighting someone who has no clue to what is going on how can you rate their greatness. US Grant's arrival on the eastern theater of operations coincided with a noticable drop of the quality of Confederate Generals. There were still a few around but many had been taken from the fields of battle. The confederate troops were demoralized and the discrepancy between the industrial output of the north and agragarian society of the south were being felt. The anocanda strategy of Gen. Scott had already been implemented, the blockade, even though porous (2/3 fot the ships ran the blockade) kept larger cargo ships from even attempting to run it, and Grants western campaign had already divied the south. So when Grant came east the die had already been cast and Shermans "march to the sea" was against a ghost of what had been there before. It would not have been possible 2 or 3 years earlier.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For the North I liked: Gen Winfield Scott Hancock and Gen Sherman

For the South:Gen Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest

Jackson's Valley campaign was a masterpiece in the conduct of fighting against a superior force.

Sometimes we rate Generals of their accomplishments against sub-par opponents. When you are fighting someone who has no clue to what is going on how can you rate their greatness. US Grant's arrival on the eastern theater of operations coincided with a noticable drop of the quality of Confederate Generals. There were still a few around but many had been taken from the fields of battle. The confederate troops were demoralized and the discrepancy between the industrial output of the north and agragarian society of the south were being felt. The anocanda strategy of had already been implemented, the blockade, even though porous (2/3 fot the ships ran the blockade) kept larger cargo ships from even attempting to run it, and Grants western campaign had already didived the south. So when Grant came east the die had already been cast and Shermans "march to the sea" was against a ghost of what had been there before. It would not have been possible 2 or 3 years earlier.

Jackson did poorly after Shenadoah in the campaign in front of Richmond that year.