overated confederate

does anyone agree the most overated csa general was john hunt morgan,his last raid was just so sad,he could have performed better service to the cause by joining up with grumble jones.who were the most overated generals of the war?

Good gosh, man, you ask some penetrating questions. And I thank you; I had gotten away from a field I love dearly, the Civil War. I'm new here; reading your questions excites me and I have to hit my books again, and again.
I don't know enough about John Morgan to really give an educated reply. I will say that he faced better cavalry at the end of the war than Jeb Stuart ever did. By the last two years the Union Cavalry had gone from night to day in terms of performance and manpower and equipment.

Most overrated generals? hmmmmmm....
Gen. Robt E. Lee to be sure. A great general, but his gaffs are deliberately downplayed. Why Gettysburg and that folly when he did the same thing to the Union at Fredericksburg? Why Sharpsburg for that matter? Pure luck and Federal ineptness allowed him to escape(and let 12000 Union troops and incredible amounts of arms fall to his lieutenant`)? Even Chancerlorville; who could afford the attrition; not the Confederates; which leads us back to why Gettysburg so soon after Chancerlorville. He was overrated. Best General to come from Virginia? The Rock of Chicamauga: George Thomas!!!
Who else? Gosh, I have to review. But let's not leave out genuine leaders outside of Generals; I am speaking about Admirals, particularly in the Gulf and on the Mississippi, and their good sense to work with outstanding generals like...Gen. Grant. He was far from overrated. He was a little man who rose to great heights to accomplish great things in the Civil War. People tend to reflect on his failings. His greatest advice: "Stop worrying about what Gen. Lee is going to do to us; and start thinking about what you're going to do to Gen.Lee."
That's Leadership!!!

stuart faced pretty good cavalry by the end.lee and his"marble image"does tend to distract,but overated?at least he tried.sharpsburg he was lucky he should have been driven into the potomac and i dont think thats just hindsight.geo thomas might just be the best from va.thanks for the dialoge.

I do want to be careful. I may have written hastily about Gen. Lee. What I try to avoid is fighting the war over; in other words, though I prefer the Union because I am born north of the Mason Dixon Line, I don't want to disparage the Confederates. Both fought valiantly.
You are right, Gen.Lee did try, and he faced pretty unsurmountable obstacles.
The real truth: it's time I hit the books and read this war from the Confederate side. There is a wealth of material out there. Yet it is also true that the victors write history.
In summation, once I learned that both sides suffered about the same battle deaths, a hundred thousand each, I realized neither was tougher or braver than the other.
I began to lean towards the technical advances, and social advances brought on by the war. I also enjoy reading about how they accomplished things before electricity and gasoline. I find the age fascinating.
My only regret is that I have not learned how to ride a horse. Until I do that, I will never remotely comprehend the hardiness of these people. For example: Gen. Grant riding nearly sixty miles into Chattanooga with a severely bruised leg. That takes fortitude, man.
But I did learn to dance. Before television and radio, dancing was all they had...and they surely had a great thing.

As an australian,i dont know as much as you guys on Gen Lee,but from what i have read and seen,i think his biggest error was allowing Picketts charge,in the face of artillery and massed gunfire.That was a tragic debacle,IMHO.

It boggles the mind that Gen. Lee allowed this to happen. Particularly since he himself oversaw the infliction of over twelve thousand casualties on Union Forces that tried similar tactics at Fredricksburg in Dec 62, six months prior, while suffering less than two thousand of his own.

Somewhere I read that Gen.Lee suffered from GI problems at the time, the 'runs.'
Having had GI problems I can attest to it's reducing one's effectiveness.
The cause, it said, came from hungry Confederates marching into lush Pennsylvania and just gorging on the fresh, delectable produce growing at the time. This is an interesting tidbit, and one I wonder if it has merit. If it is true, then I don't think it was the runs that sparked his aggressiveness, but perhaps a narcotic used to treat such ailments. Again, having used narcotics medically, I can attest to their euphoric, aggressive qualities. Any one else want to weigh in?

lee heart problems were botering him,i agree pickrtts charge doesnt make sense some point to wrights breach of the us line the day before but i dont know

And I dont think Picketts charge was aided by the fact the confederates had too stop and then clamour over a farmers fence,that really slowed them down,made them sitting ducks.

I am confused: Wright's Beach, the day before? Please clarify for me.

As for the fence, I don't think anything really made a difference; they had over a mile to charge, flanked by cannon and facing concealed Union troops behind a stone wall. Nothing was in their favor. Another fact: these Union troops were not going to break and run. On their on soil, esprit de corps very high, they were easily the equal of the Confederates. Lee committed a terrible blunder, unforgiveable really. Fifteen thousand men into the face of such cannon and covered troops. Pickett never forgave him...and I can't blame Pickett. Lee's lucky someone didn't put a ball between his eyes; it was such a monumental deliberate error.

wrights breach,sorry in my haste i dont ceck my spelling,on july 2nd attack by men of anv 3rd corps ambrose wrights brigade attacked us near where armistead hit it july 3rd-he had sucess no support-had to retire.

I see, Mr. Kakman. 'Wright's breach.' Funny, I lived in North Carolina for six years, having visited many of their battle fields, interior and beachside. For some reason I was thinking there was a Wright's Beach...this comes from Orville Wright testing his plane at Kitty Hawk(imagine, only 37 years after the civil war).

there is a wrightsbeach in nc just to the east of wilmington but i dont know if its named for the wrights,i never thought about that.alot of the fences in pickett-pettigrw charge had been thrown down but many were still up and thease were sturdy pennsyvaina farmers fences it was like crossig many fields instead of crossing one big one[thats out to piesnches]

oh, then I guess it would impede troops marching en masse.
Fence after fence, bunching up. Brrrr, thousands of one ounce minies thudding into flesh, six pound, twelve pound balls cleaving limbs awsy. Troops clustered, can't get around, forward, too many in front, more coming from behind. Damn fences. Bombs exploding, men falling, screaming. Thousands of Union troops, hate on their faces, screaming at them, urging them on to kill them...
Gettysburg, 2002, a beautiful place in the summer, especially over the July Fourth Weekend.
The fences would have been strong in places, not easy to move, long trunks of wood, no coordination. Troops trying to stay in line, yet move wood, hold rifle, feet stumbling, pushed from behind. The enemy so visible up ahead above them. Orange flame, stone wall, smoke, more smoke. Cannons booming over and over and over...
How did they find men to do these things?

Yes,the horror of war,its terror and horror summed up in the disaster of the Charge.They must have been incredibly brave men,they must have known they were doomed,yet on and on they went.Extrodiary bravery.Yet,what was learnt,nothing!We can be hard on Lee,but it happened again and again.In WW1(which i have always considered very similar to the horrors of the civil war)thousands and thousands of British troops were sacrificed by stupid Generals on the Somme battlefieds.Yet again,as with Picketts charge,thousands of Tommies marched straight into german artillery and machine guns,and were cut too pieces.In two days,the Brits lost 26,000 men,the biggest defeat in British history.At Gallipoli,550 young aussies died when they charged at the Nek,a Turkish stronghold of trenches,with rows of machine guns.It was only the size of two tennis courts,yet their idiot general sent them "over the top"into withering fire.Not one aussie survived the charge,it was a massacre.Not one Turk was even wounded.So,what was learned from the civil war,not much that is for sure.Useless sacrifice of fine young men,the folly of war.

The more I think of Gen. Lee and his ordering Pickett and men to slaughter, the angrier I get.
Yes, I asked why did he do such a thing when he had witnessed Union troops assault impregnable lines at Fredricksburg, losing nearly twelve thousand men to the confederates two thousand.
But now I'm really hot and not prepared to concede ground that he was a terrific general.
I forgot about the Seven Days battles in June sixty two; specifically Malvern Hill.
The Union held an impregable position atop the hill. They had cleared away the approaches up the hill, sort of like clearing debris off a bowling lane for balls to roll unimpeded towards the pins.
The confederates were as hapless as bowling pins...and Lee bears the blame.
Almost the entire Union Army was dug in behind emplacements. They had two hundred and fifty guns, cannons, pointing down at the enemy.
Gen. Lee ordered poorly coordinated attacks uphill at these positions. If anything, the Union held a stronger position than that at Gettysburg.
By battle's end, the Malvern Hill part, the confederates had lost fifty three hundred men. It is surprising that they were able to inflict thirty two hundred losses on the federals under those conditions.
A confederate general D.H. Hill lamented, "This isn't war, this is murder."
How right he was. The more I review Gen. Robt. E. Lee, the more I see similarities with Gen. John Hood and his assaults against formidable positions at Atlanta and then Franklin and Nashville.
Both rate lower and lower on my scale.

Yes, my Australian friend, it seems we learn nothing of war, even today. In Iraq we were sure technology, not more troops, would win the day.
In combat I think a man wonders, "Will I pull the trigger; can I shoot a man?" This is quite a big question that has haunted people.
Not being an officer, yet I wonder, and through my readings, I think they ask the equivelent of the' can I kill a man?" when they ask the question "Can I order men forward that I know will be killed?"
In their circles such a question can make or break a career. I think some officers simply lose all reasoning in some situations, like your example of Gallipolli where all 550 Australians died and not a single Turk.
Sadly many men have died to prove the worth of an officer. Malvern Hill, Gettysburg did nothing to prove Lee's worth for sure.

Yes,Peter,you are right there.My late father served six years in WW2,in the middle east,and new guinea.He was wounded twice,ended the war a Lieutenant.He rarely talked about the war,but when he did,you really listened.He was haunted by it for many years,right to the end really,he died aged ninety.He suffered nightmares of the carnage on Crete,fighting hand to hand against Hitlers crack paratroopers.And the Japanese he held in awe,no tougher soldiers,he said,He was in artillery,a FOO.He blamed himself for shelling a Jap stronhold in new guinea,and accidentally killing some civilians,which he did not know the Japs held hostage.He took a great interest in the civil war too,he had to study the shenandoah campaign as part of his artillery training.He said the civil war saw the artillery come into its own,with all its horrors.He always said,"Those most in favour of war,the armchair patriots,are those who have never been in a war,and no nothing of its horror."He was a very great man indeed,and we here are all proud of him.

He sounds worthy of the pride everyone has in him; paratroopers on crete, Japanese soldiers in the jungle...New Guinea.

I put a site in here; I don't know how to make a link: it's called 'historyanimated.com.'

It shows civil war battles and WWII battles; very interesting the way it uses maps and moving graphics to denote armies. Along the way, as it progresses hour by hour through thesse battles, text boxes come up and provide historical perspective about what you see.

It has helped me.

I last viewed Gettysburg, finding it very informative and useful. And I want to rebutt myself about Robt. E. Lee:

The Union right took a hellacious pounding on the second day, coming near to breaking, but didn't. I think I can understand a little better Lee's rationale for the attack:
He thought they were weakened. Sadly, he had too much faith in his artillery, which overshot the mark; had it rained down exactly on the line maybe he would have succeeded better(this goes hand in hand with another entry I made elsewhere: how many attacks turned out disastrously because of unfounded, blind faith that artillery barrages would soften up targets? Not too many cases in history).
And finally he had counted on JEB Stuart riding in from the east when the union broke, totally completing the rout. He didn;t count on Union Cavalry stopping Stuart cold.

Life is a gamble, especially in war. Had the Royal Navy not attacked the Italian Navy so audacously, sinking and damaging many ships, then the evacuation of Crete oould very well have been a disaster. The British threw the dice, based on facts, and came up winners. Lee threw the dice and came up snake eyes.

I don't understand some of the Longstreet controversy; it seems corps leaders had the real potential to obstruct over all commanders, in both armies. But he nearly succeeded on the union left. When he retreated another confederate general allegedly pointed his revolver at longstreet. Who was right? Union forces were reinforcing the left. I wonder.

This is why we study and discuss. Having hindsight doesn't make us better at knowing the reasons, but provides thoughtful insights.

piesnchess wrote:

:( Yes,Peter,you are right there.My late father served six years in WW2,in the middle east,and new guinea.He was wounded twice,ended the war a Lieutenant.He rarely talked about the war,but when he did,you really listened.He was haunted by it for many years,right to the end really,he died aged ninety.He suffered nightmares of the carnage on Crete,fighting hand to hand against Hitlers crack paratroopers.And the Japanese he held in awe,no tougher soldiers,he said,He was in artillery,a FOO.He blamed himself for shelling a Jap stronhold in new guinea,and accidentally killing some civilians,which he did not know the Japs held hostage.He took a great interest in the civil war too,he had to study the shenandoah campaign as part of his artillery training.He said the civil war saw the artillery come into its own,with all its horrors.He always said,"Those most in favour of war,the armchair patriots,are those who have never been in a war,and no nothing of its horror."He was a very great man indeed,and we here are all proud of him.:)

My deepest respect to your grandfather, piesnchess. And this:

"He always said,"Those most in favour of war,the armchair patriots,are those who have never been in a war,and no nothing of its horror.""

is soooooo true!!