Good American Commanders (1 Viewer)

[Scott]

The only thing is that Robert E. Lee might have been put in Winfield Scott's position rather than a field command. Jefferson Davis had been Secretary of War and was known for his one bold action at Buena Vista which shouldn't had worked but did.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

I don't know if this was mentioned yet but for class, I think McAuliffe earns this for the line, "NUTS!!"

Vick

 

[VanguardFC007]

I don't know if this was mentioned yet but for class, I think McAuliffe earns this for the line, "NUTS!!"

Vick

You have to wonder if thats what was actually said. I had a teacher who served with the 101st and he said the original reply had much more... color to it.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

You have to wonder if thats what was actually said. I had a teacher who served with the 101st and he said the original reply had much more... color to it.

"When legend becomes fact, print the legend!"-John Ford

Yes, would not be suprised if it was much more colorful!

Vick

 

[UKReb]

The only thing is that Robert E. Lee might have been put in Winfield Scott's position rather than a field command. Jefferson Davis had been Secretary of War and was known for his one bold action at Buena Vista which shouldn't had worked but did.

No don't agree. Winfield Scott was almost an American institution by 1861-Lincoln would not have replaced him at the outbreak. It was only that young upstart McClellan's continual badgering that forced Lincoln to retire Scott.

Consequently, It's a fair bet Lee would have held a field position had he taken up Blair's offer.

Reb

 

[Scott]

Winfield Scott staying in his position because of prestige, Yes, that is a good point. The South used Lee more for his engineering background in the beginning building coastal defenses after losing a battle in Western Virginia.

Perhaps Lincoln would have used Lee to build an army instead of McDowell and Manassas/Bull Run would have been different.

 

[jazzeum]

No don't agree. Winfield Scott was almost an American institution by 1861-Lincoln would not have replaced him at the outbreak. It was only that young upstart McClellan's continual badgering that forced Lincoln to retire Scott.

Consequently, It's a fair bet Lee would have held a field position had he taken up Blair's offer.

Reb

Do you really think so Bob? He was past his prime then and his hefty weight, 300 pounds, really slowed him down; he was always falling asleep. From what I've read he wanted to retire as he just wasn't up to the demands of this conflict. Of course, McClellan probably accelerated that.

 

[Scott]

We can thank Scott for the grade strategy.

 

[jazzeum]

I actually don't think the "Anaconda" plan was that bad but it was a strangulation strategy that would have taken time to work and Lincoln didn't think he had the time; he wanted the rebellion to end quickly.

 

[UKReb]

I actually don't think the "Anaconda" plan was that bad but it was a strangulation strategy that would have taken time to work and Lincoln didn't think he had the time; he wanted the rebellion to end quickly.

But all though derided in the press it was the plan that eventually won the war for the Union especially in the West-which we know now was the key to overall victory.

The whole Lee question and whether Lincoln would have replaced Scott with him is of course pure supposition but even if he had as he eventually did with McClellan one must remember that the young "go slows" was still the chief field commander as well as commander in chief after Scott had retired. I'm sure Lincoln would have kept Scott on for awhile although he was unfit and full of gout to have taken to the field.

Bob

 

[VanguardFC007]

But all though derided in the press it was the plan that eventually won the war for the Union especially in the West-which we know now was the key to overall victory.

Bob

Well said, Chattanooga was the key to it all.

 

[Scott]

Yeah..... I posted the period cartoon as we know in retrospect that it worked.

 

[redsoldiercollector]

I agree on the airborne with one addition. I think Curtis Lemay has to be mentioned. His development of bomber techniques was invaluable to American bomber commands in ww2.

 

[redsoldiercollector]

Let us not forget the reload tactics at Cold Harbor that Grant had to use against Lee. Remember, The two lowest points in Northern Morale were in the Autumn of 1862 and the Summer of 1864. The elections of 1864 may have certainly been different if my Great x4 grandfather and the army of Tennessee could have held out in Atlanta in september of 1864. But constant leadership changes between gutsy but shortsighted commanders like Bragg and Hood along with the Great General Sherman prevented the South from winning. While this was happening, a large portion of the casualties you mentioned under Grant were being inflicted by Lee during these battles in No. Virginia. I agree, Grant was a magnificant General and deserves rightly to be in the same discussion with Lee, maybe he could be arguably better, But remember, that Gray fox gave Grant all he could handle after effectively beating the North for 2 1/2 years. Remember, the south did not have to win, just not lose.

 

[redsoldiercollector]

There was a huge debate over this on the Armchair General forum awhile ago, that is where the stats came from.

Ok, yep, outnumbered 4 to 1, got it.

Captured forts, cities, armies; zero.

Being outnumbered had nothing to do with it.

He outclassed every Union commander in the field until Grant came along (well, almost every commander, Meade won that little scuffle called Gettysburg)................

We Yankees respect Robert E. Lee. We like Grant.

I just read Grant and Sherman by Jay Wink. Great book. As much as I love my southern Generals and the defense of each, I must admit that I think U.S. Grant and Sherman were two fo the GREATEst Generals to ever put on a uniform. Thought that before I read the book, but the book reinforced it. I guess all of my fellow Georgians want to hang me because I like Sherman!lol! The North had very good commanders. I know I am rehashing, but came to the thread late. Chamberlain, CUster, Sheridan, Thomas, and I think Meade was a good General, a little too cautious, but good. Probably the most overlooked Southern General was Cleburne and I am a Longstreet apologist, so I tend to not think his performance at Gettysburg was the lynchpin of failiure like a lot of my Fellow "Leeites" I tend to blame Stuart more than Longstreet, and Stuart was facing Custer that day, so He really was not exactly facing a cupcake!!

 

[UKReb]

Let us not forget the reload tactics at Cold Harbor that Grant had to use against Lee. Remember, The two lowest points in Northern Morale were in the Autumn of 1862 and the Summer of 1864. The elections of 1864 may have certainly been different if my Great x4 grandfather and the army of Tennessee could have held out in Atlanta in september of 1864. But constant leadership changes between gutsy but shortsighted commanders like Bragg and Hood along with the Great General Sherman prevented the South from winning. While this was happening, a large portion of the casualties you mentioned under Grant were being inflicted by Lee during these battles in No. Virginia. I agree, Grant was a magnificant General and deserves rightly to be in the same discussion with Lee, maybe he could be arguably better, But remember, that Gray fox gave Grant all he could handle after effectively beating the North for 2 1/2 years. Remember, the south did not have to win, just not lose.

Some good basic facts here and valid points to the discussion-one very interesting fact- little known- is that that the Union troops never cheered Grant again after the slaughter at Cold Harbor. Although he had never asked for or encouraged their cheers they had cheered him anyway. Even after the terrible combat in the Wilderness ended and the dangerous trench warfare of Spotsylvania that stacked up the dead and wounded whenever Grant rode amongst them they cheered. They cheered him at North Anna, when he led them them away from formidable Confederate earthworks without attacking. But the cheers ended at Cold Harbor.

Grant had insisted that on the morning of June 3 1864, some 60,000 blue coated soldiers charged into a killing ground. Perhaps 7,000 Yankees were shot down in the first thirty minutes or so at Cold Harbor and the survivors began to freely express their scorn of Grant's alleged generalship and so began the descriptive "Butcher" associated with the name Grant that has persisted to this day in some quarters.

Reb

 

[VanguardFC007]

Red,

I tend to agree also that Gettysburg was more on Stuart's shoulders than on Longstreet's, but that still doesnt take him off the hook completely for the 2nd day. On the other hand his plan to swing around the Union Army to cut them off from Washington was probably the better plan.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Red,

I tend to agree also that Gettysburg was more on Stuart's shoulders than on Longstreet's, but that still doesnt take him off the hook completely for the 2nd day. On the other hand his plan to swing around the Union Army to cut them off from Washington was probably the better plan.

I happen to be a big fan of Robert E. Lee, and consider him perhaps the greatest "Napoleonic" style General who ever lived. That being said, the one truly big mistake he ever made absolutely cost the Confederacy the war. His mistake was believing his men were better than the men they faced, and so significantly better that they could accomplish an impossible task - Pickett's Charge. That irrationale faith in forces composed of mere human beings like the men across the field was combined with the equally irrationale belief that abandoning the field of battle and maneuvering to a position where the Union forces would have to attack him, would somehow destroy this invincibility. As a result he killed the flower of his army, and gave Lincoln the victory he needed to bolster his re-election. Blaming Longstreet (who espoused the correct strategy) for this is in my eyes being a Lee appologist. Blaming Stuart (who did screw up by circumnavigating the Union forces and failing to act as Lee's eyes) is equally incorrect, as had Lee made the correct decision and disengaged Stuart's failings would have been irrelevant. The Confederate defeat at Gettysburg must fall on Lee's shoulders. Once he gave the (frankly incredibly stupid) order that launched Pickett's Charge, he cost the Confederacy its one chance at winning the war. That one order undid all of the victories he had accomplished throughout the entire war in one fateful day.

 

[tdubel]

Totally agree with Forrest . . . get there firstest with the mostest.

Patton and MacArthur, however, were too flawed for me to consider them great commanders. Despite their legendary status, both should have been court martialed and cashiered or worse. I can think of no greater crime by an American commander than MacArthur's diregard of Truman's direct order not to bomb across that river into China, and its effect was disastrous, for the rest of the Korean War, and right up to today. There is no "North Korea" for us to have to deal with today if that megalomaniac follows orders. And Patton's dispatch of an entire armored task force to attempt to rescue his son-in-law waskj as disgraceful as it was tactically unsound. All but 12 men from that task force were killed, wounded or captured, and Patton's son-in-law remained in a POW camp until his release at the end of the war in Europe.

And that's not even taking into account that they commanded the forces that massacred WWI veterans and their families in that shanty town outside Washington, D.C., for which they should both have been lined up against a wall and shot. I know I am more than a little cold hearted and unforgiving, but to me these men are a disgrace to our nation's pround military tradition.

Louis,
My comments were purely World War 2 related on Macarthur. I also would argue had Patton and MacArthur been allowed to go after who they believe the true enemy was, the world may be a different place.

As for the World War 1 veterans, I thought that was only MacArthur, I don't recall Patton's involvement, but i could be wrong.

Those times were different warfare and it is hard to judge WW2 tactics today. I still say Patton knew full well what he was doing and believed the tactics to be the only effective means, his battlefield strategy was pretty good no matter what your personal beliefs are.

Back to MacArthur in the Korean war, I am not so sure his move necessarily matters much, the Chinese had their own agenda regardless of our moves.


Tom

 

[redsoldiercollector]

I happen to be a big fan of Robert E. Lee, and consider him perhaps the greatest "Napoleonic" style General who ever lived. That being said, the one truly big mistake he ever made absolutely cost the Confederacy the war. His mistake was believing his men were better than the men they faced, and so significantly better that they could accomplish an impossible task - Pickett's Charge. That irrationale faith in forces composed of mere human beings like the men across the field was combined with the equally irrationale belief that abandoning the field of battle and maneuvering to a position where the Union forces would have to attack him, would somehow destroy this invincibility. As a result he killed the flower of his army, and gave Lincoln the victory he needed to bolster his re-election. Blaming Longstreet (who espoused the correct strategy) for this is in my eyes being a Lee appologist. Blaming Stuart (who did screw up by circumnavigating the Union forces and failing to act as Lee's eyes) is equally incorrect, as had Lee made the correct decision and disengaged Stuart's failings would have been irrelevant. The Confederate defeat at Gettysburg must fall on Lee's shoulders. Once he gave the (frankly incredibly stupid) order that launched Pickett's Charge, he cost the Confederacy its one chance at winning the war. That one order undid all of the victories he had accomplished throughout the entire war in one fateful day.

Gary Gallager who teaches The Civil War at the University of Virginia says that Gettysburg was not the end all for the south. At least, not seen as at the time. The south still had a great chance to win. Specifically at Atlanta in September of 1864. A bloody stalemate there would have at least given Mcclellan and the Democrats a great shot at winning the November Elections. While I believe there is some validity to the fact that had General Johnston been left in charge and not relieved by Jefferson Davis so many times during this period, things could have worked out for the south, the truth is this, The south faced probably the most succesful and battle hardended army the north had going all the way back to the begining in the army of the Ohio. They were led by the magnificant WT Sherman, yes I said that fellow Georgians. As a southerner, I try to honor the bravery and genius of southern commanders, while at the same time, doing thesame thing for the great Northern Leaders as well.
Another tid bit at Gettysburg was the cannonball fuses. The ones taken in to Pennsylvania were had bad fuses. But, that does not take away from the bravery and grit of Winfield Hancock and Joshua Chamberlain.