So everyone, in a topic I'm sure will start some sort of argument, who do you think was the most overrated general, Union or Confederate, of the Civil War?

2582193
I'll have to think about this one. I really don't want to say Grant, as he proved quite capable at some points; and Lee was just as good as they say.

I'll look around some more. If I had to guess, it's either a Confederate who was just called that (following on the stereotype that all the South's generals were good) or a Union general who just got lucky.

2582193
Honestly I want to say Lee mostly because has been give the reputation that he can do no wrong and any failure that happened was his serbordant's fault. But if I was to pick on... McClellan

For the Federals, it was certainly McClellan. I was doing a living history demonstration at Antietam when I "got into it" with two other members of my unit who thought he was the best thing since the percussion cap. Just then a tourist came up to us and asked how to get to his headquarters. "Oh!" I said, "It's all the way over there, more than a mile! You'll have to drive it!" Implying, of course, that he wasn't even near his army at one of it's most crucial moments.

For the Confederates, it was T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Yeah, I said it. He may have been a picture of the Southern Christian Gentleman, but his reputation has been inflated above any realistic portrayal of his abilities. His basic strategy was "See Yankees?" Yes. "Attack Yankees." He basically only ever went up against second-stringers, so one of his greatest advantages was the incompetence of his enemies.

2582284
2593426

Saying McClellan was overrated is a bit of an odd answer, as he is universally considered to be a good organizer and a crappy general by almost every respected Civil War historian. I don't really hear a lot of "McClellan Rocks!" by anybody.

2582193

I'll probably go with Lee on this one. I have nothing but respect for the man himself, but his reliance on the offensive in a war where tactical defense ruled, could sometimes mess things up big time. Gettysburg and Pickett's Charge is probably the most infamous, but the whole plan of going on the offensive and forcing some grand battle on the Federal's own ground was pretty shaky in the first place.

2602566 At the risk of being flamed, I'm going to have to agree with you on Lee. I believe someone once said that Gettysburg was the price the South aid for having Lee. While I could dismiss the too offensive claim if Gettysburg was the only time that happened, he did that shit at least two other times. I don't think he ever had the same grasp of modern war or grand strategy that Grant and Sherman did.

2593426 Yeah, let's not forget his poor and rather uncharacteristic performance during the Seven Days. If he had acted like he usually did, it might not even have been seven days.

2582193
For the Confederate Side, I'd said Joseph Johnston. All that guy did was fall back.

For the Union Side, I'll go with McClellan.

I don't know why Lee is getting bashed so much here. His army was the only organization that produced victories for the Confederacy. I'd argue without Lee and his army, the war would have ended in early 1862 and the country would have been reunited with slavery still intact.

5402666

The key word here is "overrated." Lee is worshiped by many casual Civil War students as a great and brilliant general who got screwed by one bad mistake (and even then, some try to pin Gettysburg on Ewell or Longstreet). The real Lee made many mistakes, on and off the battlefield. He misjudged his own strength, his enemy's will, and pursued an erroneous strategy (focused on aggressive invasion of the North) that led to his downfall. Many of his great victories damaged his army more than the enemy, and nearly all of them were more due to incompetent Federal leadership than his own genius.

This does not dispute that he is good, even excellent. But he is distinctly overrated by many.

My vote for most overrated goes to Jackson - all the flaws and myths of Lee, with a much smaller list of self-won accomplishments to back it up.

5404407

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I also have to disagree.

Lee didn't do so hot during the Cheat Mountain Campaign in Western Virginia. His reputation took a hit there. But after that, when he took command of the Confederate forces outside Richmond he really began to shine. During the 7 days battles he launched repetitive costly assaults that unnerved McClellan. Yes McClellan sucked as an opponent but I believe Lee saved the Confederacy with his strategy of unnerving the Union Commander. I don't believe Joseph Johnston would have had the courage to take the offensive had he not of gotten wounded during the 7 days campaign.

As to the casualties, Lee's army inflicted more causalities on his opponent then what his army received at 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville (not by a lot at Antietam I will admit. Both sides virtually had over 10,000 casualties). Gettysburg was a defeat, but Lee managed to exfiltrate his army out of enemy territory while syphoning valuable resources from the Pennsylvania countryside. I believe Lee's second invasion was not a mistake. I think the hope was for a victory on Union soil so that Grant would break off the siege at Vicksburg and come East with a good chunk of his army. As for Lee's first invasion . . . that was risky, a lot of his troops abandoned the army as soon as they crossed into Maryland, but if he would have won a victory at Antietam then Europe may have recognized the Confederacy, and the war would have changed drastically. So I don't believe either of Lee's invasions were bad moves, they were launched with a reason other than to terrify the north.

And during the Overland campaign, Lee made Grant pay for every inch of ground he took from the Wilderness to Petersburg. Nearly causing Abraham Lincoln to loose the election in 1864. He probably would have too if it wasn't for Union victories in Atlanta and the Shenandoah Valley.

Yes I agree with you, Lee made mistakes. But, he was by far the best Confederate Commander the Southern States fielded during the conflict. So I do not think this guy's reputation is overrated at all. But, this is just an opinion. You are more than welcome to your own. The Union had brilliant field Commanders in Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Sheridan and ultimately this was the team that won.

5404544

Lee didn't do so hot during the Cheat Mountain Campaign in Western Virginia. His reputation took a hit there. But after that, when he took command of the Confederate forces outside Richmond he really began to shine. During the 7 days battles he launched repetitive costly assaults that unnerved McClellan. Yes McClellan sucked as an opponent but I believe Lee saved the Confederacy with his strategy of unnerving the Union Commander. I don't believe Joseph Johnston would have had the courage to take the offensive had he not of gotten wounded during the 7 days campaign.

I agree - Lee was very much the man the Confederacy needed at the time. And yes, it only worked because McClellan suuuuuuuuuuukt.

As to the casualties, Lee's army inflicted more causalities on his opponent then what his army received at 2nd Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville (not by a lot at Antietam I will admit. Both sides virtually had over 10,000 casualties).

The exact number of casualties is irrelevant - Lee was proportionally losing more men than his enemy. Longstreet allegedly noted that if Chancellorsville was repeated six times, the Army of the Potomac would still exist and Lee's army would not. And if even a great victory such as that proved an attritional defeat, the correct answer would have been "fight as few battles as possible." More on that later.

Gettysburg was a defeat, but Lee managed to exfiltrate his army out of enemy territory while syphoning valuable resources from the Pennsylvania countryside. I believe Lee's second invasion was not a mistake. I think the hope was for a victory on Union soil so that Grant would break off the siege at Vicksburg and come East with a good chunk of his army.

Couple issues with that:

-Vicksburg surrendered on July 4, one day after Gettysburg. It was far away too late for it to be saved by an Eastern victory.
-While the Confederate army did gather supplies in Pennsylvania, it was also effectively cut off from its own logistics. The army could not have long sustained itself there.

Lee went North to get the war out of Virginia, and this was the right choice both times. Every day Virginia was spared was another day its plentiful farms and factories could work unmolested to keep the Confederacy afloat.

While going north was the right choice, fighting there absolutely was not, and not just because he lost. The risk was enormous: with his back to a river, Lee could have been utterly destroyed. He could not hope to do so to Meade or McClellan - both battles saw the Union with wide open lines of retreat, and no real effort by the Confederacy to interdict them. The idea seemed to have been that a northern victory would have been crushingly demoralizing, and this was based on hope rather than reason. So long as the Army of the Potomac remained intact (it would have) and the Lincoln administration been willing to fight on (it would have), the war would have endured. Lee would be forced back to Virginia and his supplies, Vickburg would have fallen, and the AoP would have invaded once more.

Lee was a proper, knightly Southerner. He fought battles. He was very good at it. But he was far less good at fighting wars. The South's best road to victory lay in avoiding battles, not courting them. Preserve the meager manpower, deny the North victories, and stalemate them long enough for the '64 election to oust Lincoln. Lee did not see this, and so frittered his strength away in battles with everything to lose and little to gain.

s for Lee's first invasion . . . that was risky, a lot of his troops abandoned the army as soon as they crossed into Maryland, but if he would have won a victory at Antietam then Europe may have recognized the Confederacy, and the war would have changed drastically.

European recognition was always a longshot. While many lords and damsels rooted for the aristocratic South, trade and political relations were firmly established with the North. Great money, effort, and lives stood to be lost in confrontation, and the South could not possibly hope to match the difference. If Europe recognized the Confederacy, it would only be well after the South no longer needed them.

I do not know if Lee personally saw that as an incentive for a Northern invasion; if he did, it is to his discredit for taking military action for a pie-in-the-sky hope.

And during the Overland campaign, Lee made Grant pay for every inch of ground he took from the Wilderness to Petersburg. Nearly causing Abraham Lincoln to loose the election in 1864. He probably would have too if it wasn't for Union victories in Atlanta and the Shenandoah Valley.

Yes I agree with you, Lee made mistakes. But, he was by far the best Confederate Commander the Southern States fielded during the conflict. So I do not think this guy's reputation is overrated at all.

The best Confederate army commander? Yes, absolutely. He was possibly the best of either army, at least on the actual field of battle (strategy, not so much). He's overrated, 's all I'm saying. Less because of himself and more because of all the praises sung of his alleged genius.

5434728

The exact number of casualties is irrelevant - Lee was proportionally losing more men than his enemy. Longstreet allegedly noted that if Chancellorsville was repeated six times, the Army of the Potomac would still exist and Lee's army would not. And if even a great victory such as that proved an attritional defeat, the correct answer would have been "fight as few battles as possible." More on that later.

Lee was a proper, knightly Southerner. He fought battles. He was very good at it. But he was far less good at fighting wars. The South's best road to victory lay in avoiding battles, not courting them. Preserve the meager manpower, deny the North victories, and stalemate them long enough for the '64 election to oust Lincoln. Lee did not see this, and so frittered his strength away in battles with everything to lose and little to gain.

Yeah, I agree. Given the South's inferior numbers and industrial base they should have taken the defensive as much as possible. However, this is not what the Southern white population wanted. When Lee took over the army, the Southern people wanted their army defending Richmond to drive out the invaders, not sit in the earth works around Richmond. So that is exactly what Lee did. He took the offensive from the Seven days to Antietam because that is what the Southern people wanted. I'm not saying that was the smart thing to do, but these offensive victories and stalemates increased Southern moral dramatically and thus prolonged the war long after it should have ended. Lee was very attuned to the moral of the white Confederate population, and the population wanted offensive victories. This is why Johnston was relieved of his command during the Atlanta campaign and replaced with John Bell Hood. (Which was a disaster, but Hood did precisely what he was told to do).

And the defeat of the Abraham Lincoln administration in the 1864 election was absolutely a goal of Lee's. And he did preserve his strength as best he could during the overland campaign. He never ordered a major offensive operation against the army of the Potomac again after Gettysburg. The only exception to this was sending Jubal Early to clear the Shenandoah Valley of union troops (which he did) and to harass Washington DC, which caused Grant to send a part of his army to defend the capital during the siege of Petersburg. I believe Grant lost 60,000 men to Lee's 30,000 from the Wilderness to Petersburg which nearly cost Lincoln the election.

All in all you make some very well thought out points and arguments. And I tip my hat to you. But that being said, Lee was pretty screwed to begin with when he took over the Army of Northern Virginia. Going up against opponents that always outnumbered him, and always had more of everything. And I think he deserves a lot of praise for building and leading arguably the best army during the war. I know I've hammered this point home before, but I think it deserves to be retold.

Is he overrated? I still don't think so, but you got me thinking. I am very stubborn and slow of to change.

I've very much enjoyed discussing this issue with you my good chum. I'll give you the last word on this because I've pretty well said what I've wanted to say.