Rate the Generals-Civil War

In a previous thread I got an idea, perhaps it has already been done, I don't know, but in what order would you rate the generals of the civil war? This was a constant debate in ROTC back in the 70's, my professor ranked Longstreet #1 because his tactics are still being used. Here is my ratings:
1. Longstreet
2. Jackson
3. Grant
4. Lee
5. Sherman
6. Stuart
7. Hancock
8. Johnston (Sidney)
9. Farragut (admiral)
10. Winfred Scott

Winfred Scott and S Johnston get a play because both saw clearly the direction of the war and both got it right. I am gonna hear some feedback on Lee's placement, but I think he was lucky in tactics and lucky he had #1 and #2.

 

It is hard to comparatively rate the Civil War leaders because they brought different strengths and weaknesses to the table.

Lee was an excellent strategist and maybe the best leader of men since Washington. He played a difficult hand probably better than any man since Frederick the Great.

Jackson mastered the art of strategic offensive and tactical defensive. Longstreet excelled on the tactical offensive and had a good sense of the terrain.

With the exception of getting cut off in June 1863, Stuart managed the classic role of light cavalry well.

The best campaign of the south was the Second Bull Run campaign. Lee saw the opportunity that McClellan presented him and caught the unwary Pope in a “defeat in detail” situation where Pope’s over-aggressiveness was his undoing. Pope was over-aggressive because he came from the West, where everything moved primarily by water and the Yankees controlled the water. He could not believe lee could move that fast overland. He was betrayed by an unusually dry summer that made dirt roads as good as modern Interstates.

Pope was completely baffled by Stuart who fixed his location but completely blinded Pope as to the rebels’ whereabouts. With Pope befuddled, Jackson marched his men to a frazzle grabbing excellent defensive terrain in a place where Pope would have to attack him. Jackson grabbed Pope’s attention with the attack at Brawner’s Farm (although tangling with the Iron Brigade didn’t turn out that successfully, but Jackson had no way of knowing what he thought was a green brigade was actually the best brigade in the Yankee army. Brawner’s Farm, South Mountain and Antietam made the Iron Brigade’s reputation.) Pope thought he had Jackson where he wanted him and wore his army out attacking the railroad cut frontally. All the time Longstreet and Lee moved Longstreet’s slower-marching but offensively powerful corps into place on Pope’s left flank.

Lee held Longstreet until Pope was again fully engaged with Jackson, then unleashed Longstreet, spearheaded by Hood’s Texans (maybe the best assault troops of the war) on Pope’s left. As a result they rolled Pope’s army up like a carpet. Only a stout defensive saved Pope’s army from destruction that day.

One wonders what Gettysberg would have been if Lee had been his old self in June and July of 1863.

 

Grant’s main strength was that he truly appreciated that the Civil War was a war of attrition. To use Lincoln’s term, Grant faced the arithmetic. Knowing this, Grant could face bloody battles with confidence. He took tremendous casualties at the wilderness and Spottsylvania Court House, but lee’s army was ground down to a fraction of its old self by those two Pyrrhic victories. They weren’t really even victories as grant kept sliding to the flanks and driving on to Richmond in the same way Sherman was doing the same thing to Johnston in the hills of north Georgia at the same time.

It took Grant a while to figure it out, but at Chattanooga, he captured the same regiments he captured at Vicksburg and paroled. It dawned on Grant that the “parole” system did not work in the US like it did in Europe in Napoleon’s time. So Grant (supreme US commander in 1864) set up the prison camp system to hold even the enlisted men (both sides always held captured officers from the outset of the way) as POWs for the duration. Neither side was much equipped for holding vast numbers of POWs. The result was Andersonville, Chicago, and “Helmira.” But it ultimately deprived the south of its fighting men. And that won the war for the Yankees.

Sherman was Grant’s Jackson, but he brought something else to Grant’s command. Sherman spent most of his professional career in the South. He married a southern woman. Just before the war, Sherman was the superintendent of what later became LSU. Sherman knew the South - intimately. Its economy, its psyche, and its strengths and weaknesses. Although Grant had figured out that his army could live off the land in the South, Sherman figured out how to do so on a grand scale and leave nothing behind. Sherman was the perfect instrument for striking at the very fabric of the South. Sherman knew the war had to be prosecuted with Jacksonian (Andrew Jackson, that is) ruthlessness. the south would never appreciate it, but they understood the power of ruthlessness.

On a smaller scale Sheridan was another Sherman. It is odd that Sheridan was remembered as a cavalry leader because he was a distinguished infantry commander at Pea Ridge, Perrysville, Stone’s River, Chickamauga, and Chattanooga, and took over an infantry corps in the Appomattox campaign. But burning out the Shenandoah as Sherman burned out Georgia and south Carolina starved Lee’s army and accelerated desertions.

 

Other Civil War leaders.

Winfield Scott knew exactly how the war would go but was too old to command. After Mexico, Wellington called Scott the world’s best living general.

Winfield Scott Hancock was a good corps commander.

Outside of Lee’s coterie, the best leader in the south was Nathan Bedford Forrest. A natural. While he was mostly know as a light cavalry commander, he showed he had a good command of infantry tactics as well. In fact his cavalry usually fought as mounted infantry: ride to battle, dismount and fight on foot. Forrest’s mystique (particularly in Tennessee and Mississippi) rivaled that of Lee. Forrest should have held higher command, but he was held back by his low social status in a status-conscious South.

Greatly under-rated George B. Thomas. An outstanding defensive leader. Drove Grant nuts because he moved slowly on the offensive. Thomas was the perfect leader to hold the flak after Sherman took off across Georgia. Thomas wore Hood’s army out in the Franklin/Nashville campaign.

Worst commanders? Two Confederates. Gideon Pillow was a known blockhead in the Mexican War and was a blockhead in the Civil War. Felix Zollicoffer was the poster child for why you should never let newspapermen anywhere near the levers of power.

 

You completely left the "Rock of Chickamauga" George Henry Thomas off your list. After the battle (which he rescued for the Union), he told his corpsmen to bury Union and Confederate soldiers together, that he was "tired of states rights".

 

Custer wasn't a general, but he surprised hell out of Stuart at Gettysburg.

 

Custer became a brigadier after Gettysberg. He was senior enough to be in the room when Lee surrendered to Grant.

Because of Little Big Horn, Custer is highly under-rated as a general in the Civil War. One of Custer's troopers killed J.E.B. Stuart at yellow Tavern and Trevillian station is still considered a modek for mobile warfare.

 

Interesting replies- thanks

 

Not the best general, but Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is an illustration of martial valor...the defense of Little Round Top was perhaps the most stirring moment of the Civil War.

 

I will try to address most of the posts. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great leader, his atrocities at Pillow deleted him from my list as I cannot see the reasoning, hence a giant loss of respect there. Thomas was to be my 10th but I could not leave out Scott as his overall plan was the reason for the success of the North (the Anaconda plan). Two thoughts on Custer, one he was brave and audacious beyond belief, a good quality in a Cavalry officer. The second is up to opinion, many thought that Stuart, after being chastised by Lee on the second night dispatched a regiment just to hold off Custer in order to be in position for Picket's charge and that Custer did not make him retreat. Speaking of Gettysburg, Gen Buford should get a mention for picking a position in the first day that allowed him to hold off Ewell in detail until Meade could be in position. Just seeing the opportunity at that time and accessing the situation showed great skill.
As for the poorest Generals I would include Bragg, Burnside, Pope and Pillow. Sheridan had his arse handed to him at Brandy Station when he should have expected a trap, that is why is is off my list. As for Cold Harbor, Grant had no option but to attack, he regretted it in his book, but his explanation was acceptable.

 

You're asking for perfection. You'll never get it in war.

 

Wow, some real history buffs here. Consider me humbled.