Best Civil War General

[Marlin]

I grew up believing that a TRUE "Damned Yankee" had to come from Connecticut; something to do with the ole Yankee Peddlars or something like that..... Also, in order to be a real one, you must have been either a Boston Red Sox fan or a Boston Braves fan.

Boy, I remember the days when Warren Spann was pitching for the Braves and Maurie McDermott for the Red Sox..... Each of them was a pretty good hitter, too! No need to have the AL designated hitter back then!!!

[momo]

Mmmm....best Civil War general....I'll break it down into tactical and stratigic leadership. As for tactical it has to be Thomas Jackson, his valley campaign was brilliant, taking Harpers Ferry was another master stroke and his rolling up the flank of the Union army at Chancolersville almost was the turning point of the war. However, when he fell Lee lost his most agressive commander, and it cost the South dearly at Gettysburg. After that battle the South was on the defensive for the rest of the war.
As for strategic leadership, it has to be U.S. Grant. He understood that this was the first total war, and that numbers and industrial might would secure a Union victory in the end. Lee on the other hand was still using Napoleonic methods and looking for that one decisive battle.
As for Grant being a drunk Pistol, I am reminded of Lincoln's retort (maybe apocryphal) when someone told him that Grant drank too much, "What does he drink? So I can order my other generals a case.":

[islenos]

Grant and Sherman were War Criminals. Lee only cared about his beloved Virginia being free without wanting the Union to collapse. Jackson followed Lee like a love sick puppy.


The finest field General of the War of Northern Aggression was Albert Sidney Johnston. Unfortunately, his life was cut short at the battle of Pittsburg Landing.

Or

Pierre Gustave Toutant-Bureaugard, who whipped the Yankees ass at Fort Sumter, 1st Manassas and Pittsburg Landing. But bad blood between he and Davis made life difficult for the Little Napoleon. Otherwise he was a far superior tactician then Lee.

[JLA]

R. E. LEE!!!

REBEL by birth
SOUTHERN by the grace of god

[user]

It may be late in the day, but here in Virginia, it's officially Lee-Jackson Day, a state holiday. So happy Lee-Jackson Day.

----
Northern Virginians aren't yankees, they're defending the borders.

[Marlin]

You're most correct, user !!

Monday is the celebration of the birth of Robert E. Lee in both Mississippi and Alabama.

[45nut]

General Robert E. Lee for me.

Hey polishshooter,

I fortunately DO have a dog in this fight. My ancestors arrived in the late 1600's and as a direct decsendant of a Revolutionary War Hero, I feel I must point out that the War of Northern Aggression began over states rights issues, not slavery. Lincoln lost a lot of support in the North and there were riots after the proclaimation was read and when the draft was started.


The Southerners were fighting for much the same reason that we fought the Revolutionary War. Unfair economic practices coming from a large ferderal governmet as opposed to a King. Some of the text below reads like modern newspapers.

The most significant dividing point between North and South, which led eventually to war, was the issue of states' rights. Obviously, the flashpoint of this disagreement centered around slavery, but North and South had sparred over this philosophy on other issues as well, including tariff policy. The South believed that the states were sovereign and were obliged to the U.S. government, only so long as they voluntarily consented to the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the Unionists held that the states were subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and part of a perpetual Union.

North and South each entertained different visions for the United States. The South fully embraced Thomas Jefferson's class-based, agrarian "utopia," and strongly resisted Alexander Hamilton's desire to move the U.S. economy toward banking, commerce, and industry.

Early battles in this contest included the the National Bank, the assumption of state debts by the new federal government, foreign trade, neutrality toward Europe, and of course the admission of new states and territories.

From an economic perspective, the South felt increasingly threatened by the North. The North had most of the industry, most of the jobs, and most of the people (thanks in large part to immigration). The North would then force through tariff policies that would compel southerners to buy from the North, rather than from overseas. This would take money from the South literally at the expense of the North. The only thing the South had was agriculture, and it seemed (to them) that the North was striking at that as well with its anti-slavery policies.

Shelby Foote wrote about one Southern POW that was questioned by his captors. He was asked if had any slaves, he said no, asked if had kinfolks that did and again said no. Why then are you fighting us? "Because you're down here" The North invaded the South and why would you propose that most Southerners would not fight back?

All of the above aside, if the South would have won the war, I don't think we would have become the world power that we did.

Most of my ancestors (on my Father's side) fought for the Union, but the ones that fought for the South were in the 14th Virginia Cavalry. That ought to make you happy pistol!

[Charlie the sniper]

Oliver Cromwell.........oh sorry, that's the English civil war!

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Charlie the sniper

Oliver Cromwell.........oh sorry, that's the English civil war!

Well, one must remember, Charlie, that in 1661, Oliver Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey, and was subjected to the ritual of a posthumous execution. Symbolically, this took place on 30 January; the same date that Charles I had been executed. His body was hanged in chains at Tyburn. Finally, his disinterred body was thrown into a pit, while his severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685. That must have been quite a display. Of course, you English folks always did seem to have a "thing" for chopping off heads. Henry VIII was probably the world's best divorce lawyer.

[RunningOnMT]

Lacking knowledge of the details of the various civil war battles I wouldn't comment on who was the best tactician but if I were going to pick a favorite general it would have to be Robt. E. Lee. Everything I've read about him says he was a thoroughly decent man of impeccable character, A soldiers general whose men would follow anywhere. That's the man I would choose to serve under.

[swanshot]

Grant, because he I think he was the only general who actually understood the war he was fighting. No glamor, no glory, just destroying the enemys ability to wage war. In this respect he could be considered one of, if not the first of the "modern" generals. I believe he faced the grim realality of what he was doing, and did it.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by swanshot

Grant, because he I think he was the only general who actually understood the war he was fighting. No glamor, no glory, just destroying the enemys ability to wage war. In this respect he could be considered one of, if not the first of the "modern" generals. I believe he faced the grim realality of what he was doing, and did it.

After the Union defeat at Cold Harbor in June 1864, Grant became known as "the Butcher" in the North. But you are quite correct, Swannie. Grant may not have been the best tactician to come out of the war, but he was one of the very first to recognize that defeating the Confederacy was only possible by destroying its ability to wage war. The North had overwhelming superiority in men and material. Grant was the first to use that advantage effectively.

[pmvargo]

Lee is my vote
but rember all of them went to west point
it was not just resorces that make for a good out come all the people have to suport the cause also
good example the vietnam war all our boys were over their fighting and all the people over here were crying get out that bringd moral down and puts the same government that sent us their to change their mind we had better resources than viet nam had
but they still won ?????????????

[spectre14]

I'm suprised Sherman rated so low. He devised the concept of total war and was a logistical genius. He took a force of 62,000 men and 5,000 cavalry 650 miles through enemy territory with no supply lines in less than 100 marching days losing less than 600 men. He also coined the term "War is Hell". However Grant, Lee, and Jackson were also great generals. I am also partial to Lee as he is my ancestor.

History.com

[nightfighter]

McCLELLAN was the best general. All anyone had to do was just ask him...he would freely admit that he was the Union's only hope. Or, so he said to letters home to his wife. If he had not designed the military saddle, he would have had contributed nothing to history.