May 16, 201016 yr If anyone did more with less on that list it would have to be Washington in my opinion considering what he had and what he went up against. Although I have always considered him to be a rather mediocre general even though he was an amazing role model for future Americans. I was really big on Washington until I started reading alot about him. He wasn't a great general, and his morals and characters have to be questionable at best IMO. The reason we think so highly of Washington? He had all unfavorable reports and writings about him (or most of them) burned when he was in the presidency. Very good leader, but I'm not sold he was a great person.
May 16, 201016 yr I've got to go with Lee. If the South would have had the production and transportation capabilites of the North he would have won the war.
May 16, 201016 yr Lee had better and more experience soldiers along more capable and gifted officers to start the war. To say he did more with less is a bit disingenuous. When finally faced with a battle hardened Union Army by the end of the war his brilliance was considerably less clear. Not to say he wasn't good, he was extremely good. I just think that most people have a bit of rose colored glasses in regards to him. Not to mention he had the great benefit of squaring off with the bizarrely incompetent McClellan during the early stages of the war. :lol:
May 17, 201016 yr I was really big on Washington until I started reading alot about him. He wasn't a great general, and his morals and characters have to be questionable at best IMO. The reason we think so highly of Washington? He had all unfavorable reports and writings about him (or most of them) burned when he was in the presidency. Very good leader, but I'm not sold he was a great person. My comment was more directed at future leaders of the country and precedents he set that were valuable for future guidance. Stepping down after 2 terms was probably among the most important in my estimation.
May 17, 201016 yr I totally agree. Lee was great and likely the only man who could have done what he did, thus he's a great general...one of the greatest in American history. But, it was less because of tactical genius and more because of his ability to hold his army together and inspire them. I don't agree that he looked any worse later in the war...even after Gettysburg, he was able to lead and inspire his army to victories against larger numbers and fresher, better supplied men. The problem was, to use a basketball analogy, Lee wasn't in a position to trade 3's for 2's. He couldn't afford to lose 10,000 men no matter how much damage he inflicted on Grant's army. The Union would just fill the holes. The Confederacy couldn't. Eventually, the strategy employed by Grant won out, as it inevitably had to. But, a lesser general couldn't have extended that war another two years as Lee did. In fact, with Jackson and Longstreet gone and his army at its biggest disadvantage, I think the time after Gettysburg may have been Lee at his best. He was just fighting an unwinnable war at that point. Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet were perhaps the two best commanders in the Civil War. Those two commanded the two halves of Lee's army. Stonewall was the aggressive one who took the fight to the enemy. Longstreet was the slow, steady, reliable guy who Lee called his old warhorse. Ironically, both guys were shot by friendly fire in the Wilderness near Chancelorsville. Can't help but wonder if that place was cursed. Lee certainly had to wonder. But, the South had a lot of good soldiers and a lot of good commanders. Coming with that were clashes of egos...Lee's greatness, IMO, was that all those men would fight for him when it mattered, forgetting their personal problems. And, the army loved him. He was almost like a beloved father to his men. As far as men go, Lee had more to work with, IMO. Lee made mistakes. His decision to attack at Gettysburg after they failed to secure the high ground on day one was the biggest. James Longstreet was a man years ahead of his time...he understood the value of defensive, trench warfare decades before it was truly implemented. Unfortunately, nobody would listen to him during the Civil War. As for Grant, there was nothing genius about his strategy to win. He simply understood his advantage and used it, unlike all the men before him. But, to be fair, Lincoln made him commander over the entire Union army, not just the Army of the Potomac, so he actually had the ability to implement a unified strategy with the entire Union forces. He was also left alone and allowed to conduct the war without interference, unlike others before him. The other great thing about Grant is that he understood that Lee was the key to ending the War...not Richmond or some other symbol. To end the war, Lee must be defeated. America's best generals... Well, he almost certainly isn't the foremost military genius, and probably doesn't have the best winning percentage in battles, but how can anyone other than George Washington not be #1? He lead us to victory in the war for independence. Without him, there would have never been another American General. 1. George Washington I'm curious to hear why his morals and character are questionable. One I haven't seen on here, that should be, IMO... General Winfield Scott - He commanded the American forces to victory in the Mexican War when his army was outnumbered 3-to-1, deep in Mexico and cut off from an easy supply line. He was decisive and smart. He just didn't get to lead the army during one of the most memorable wars. Both Lee and Grant are two of my personal favorites. I'll try to chime in some more when I get time. I can't believe someone started this thread. I was just pondering this very question a couple days ago and thinking to myself I'd like to hear others thoughts about some of these men. Thanks Jumper_dad. Edited May 17, 201016 yr by 5wide
May 17, 201016 yr Question for discussion: Why do we consider Confederate generals a part of the greatest American generals when it was America they were fighting?
May 17, 201016 yr Question for discussion: Why do we consider Confederate generals a part of the greatest American generals when it was America they were fighting? Because most folks have always been taught to view the Civil War as a family feud, so to speak. An internal squabble. It's like the cousin you always fight with at family reunions. They might annoy you to no end, but they're still blood kin.
May 17, 201016 yr No love for Black Jack Pershing? Started to ask that question myself, but figured I'd rambled enough for one post.
May 17, 201016 yr My comment was more directed at future leaders of the country and precedents he set that were valuable for future guidance. Stepping down after 2 terms was probably among the most important in my estimation. Washington set a pretty selfish example to follow from what I've read and IMO. Most of the things he did seem pretty self-serving, but some parts of America have followed his lead so I guess you're right.
May 17, 201016 yr No love for Black Jack Pershing? "Lafayette, we are here!" Even though Pershing didn't say this (it was stated by his "designated orator," Colonel C.E. Stanton), it still doesn't diminish his tipping the scales in the Allied Nations favor during World War I.
May 17, 201016 yr Not to mention he had the great benefit of squaring off with the bizarrely incompetent McClellan during the early stages of the war. :lol: Ah, George McClellan. He could never get enough guards for himself! Lincoln ultimately fired him from his generalship of the Army of the Potomac and then beat him like a rented mule in the 1864 election by an electoral count of 212-21. Of course much of Lincoln's success in that election came on the heels of Sherman's romp through Georgia which broke the Confederacy, while McClellan's party (although not necessarily him) was advocating peace in hopes of ending the war.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.