American Civil War Generals: One More Chance

American Civil War Generals: One More Chance

  • Irvin McDowell

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • George B. McClellan

    Votes: 7 10.8%

  • John Pope

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Ambrose E. Burnside

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Joseph Hooker

    Votes: 35 53.8%

  • Earl Van Dorn

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • John C. Pemberton

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • Braxton Bragg

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Sterling Price

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • John B. Hood

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Total voters
    65

Nytram01

I'm stealing this idea from another forum because it was a very good one and quite a puzzler. (I'm giving the same questions and the same options just slightly worded differently).

McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Pope and Hooker were all the defeated generals of the Federals in the East while Van Dorn, Pemberton, Bragg, Price and Hood were all the defeated Confederates Generals of the West.

If you had to give one of them one more chance to command of a large army which one would you pick?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Of the men on the list, probably Joseph Hooker. He had quite a decent record as a corps commander both before and after his tenure as commander of the Army of the Potomac. He had a terrible moment of lost of confidence when confronted with Robert E. Lee in early May of 1863, which led to one of the most humiliating Union defeats of the war. Had Hooker kept his nerve, Lee would almost certainly have been badly defeated. Of course, he was also a bit of a jerk.

Certainly NOT John Bell Hood. He was an excellent brigade commander, a good division commander, a subpar corps commander, but a walking disaster as an army commander.
 

Odd_Numbered_Bonaparte

I went with McDowell simply because the guy never really had a chance. He was basically shoved into command and forced into battle right away for political reasons. If he had had more time he might have been competent.

On the other side, the prize for greatest screw up who should never be let near command under any circumstances is definitely Van Dorn. Pretty much the picture of the gallant idiot who gets everyone killed.
 

Reggie Bartlett

Banned
I do wonder what kind of reputation Earl Van Dorn would have had, had he not been murdered.

Perhaps he could have been the guy to give Nathan Bedford Forrest's reputation a run for it's money.
 

Just a Rube

I went with Burnside as having an interesting mixture of brilliance and incompetence. He served quite well in NC and TN, and his original plan for the Battle of the Crater was quite reasonable. On the other hand, Fredericksburg was a disaster, and the Mud March doesn't exactly fill one with competence.

So, under the principle that it depended on which side of the bed he got up that morning, he's not a terrible choice.

(I may have been somewhat swayed by the amazing facial hair, however).
 
TheKnightIrish

TheKnightIrish

It's Hooker and Butterfield. Chancellorsville was the best plan and execution to date. Lee was caught with his pants down and Hooker should have crushed him. Sedgwick let him down at Fredericksburg and we'll never really know what happened to Hooker that day - the booze or a concussion? - but the plan, its initial execution, the idea of running telegraph lines to the front (to soon for the tech but still it showed a willingness to exploit new tech which was very much not the prevailing attitude). I'm a bit of a secret Hooker fan...I like Joe Hooker too (boom boom!).
 
Zioneer

Zioneer

Banned
Well, anybody but McClellan. Either Burnside or Hooker, from what I've been hearing on this thread.
 
DirtyCommie

DirtyCommie

I went for McDowell. His initial plans for Bull Run were actually quite creative and could have worked out were it not for the fact that he was an extremely inexperienced commander with an even more inexperienced force. If he had time, I firmly believe he could have done great things.
 

Admiral Halsey

Banned
Hooker by a mile. If that cannonball doesn't hit the pillar he's leaning against and instead misses him altogether then the Union almost certainly ends up winning the battle.
 

usertron2020

Donor
Pope, simply by virtue of the fact that his defeat should have been lain solely at the feet of McClellan, who rathered see his rivals defeated than advance forward in their careers, and screw the Union cause.:mad: IMO Pope at least deserved one more chance.

And...

McClellan. Should never have been allowed any field command. Like William Frederick I of Prussia, he created a great army, but never should have been a field commander. After the Seven Days and leaving Pope in the lurch, he should have been immediately canned.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Is said army going on the offensive, or on the

Is said army going on the offensive, or on the defensive against an enemy army-level offensive?

Of the US generals, if the need is for an aggressive leader who can command an army-level offensive, I agree, Hooker is the best choice.

If, however, the need is for a cautious general who will win an army-level battle on the defensive and NOT run any risks while doing so, I'd give McClellan the nod.

If one has to select one, however, Hooker is the most likely to do acceptably well in both roles.

McDowell, Burnside, and Pope all would have made reasonably solid corps commanders, if under an effective army-level commander (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, of Thomas, for example).

Of the rebels, the best of a bad lot is Bragg; he managed not to destroy the Army of Tennessee. Van Dorn, Pemberton, Bragg, and Hood should never have been entrusted with anything more than a division.

Best,
 
EnglishCanuck

EnglishCanuck

On the Union side I say McDowell. That's simply because He of all the generals listed showed the least incompetence and was thrust into a position of command of an undisciplined army which was unready for war and suffered accordingly. He just took much of the blame (undeservedly) for the battle.

McClellan was never going to do anything but fret, and lacked the confidence to actually push the advantages he had, he would have served his country far better sitting in Washington and running logistics rather than leading a force in the field (credit is due where credit is due). Pope was far too willing to walk into a trap, and wasn't really anything beyond mediocre in my opinion. Burnside was a bad commander and he knew it, he didn't inspire great confidence, could find a reason to argue with anyone, and his ability to coordinate the army was subpar.

I'm going to take the dissenting opinion on Hooker and say that while he was excellent at the Corps level, he should never have been allowed near command of an army. He lost Chancellorsville well before the much discussed cannonball incident by ceding the initiative to Lee, and Fredericksburg really shows that his aggressive style of fighting, coupled with his inability to properly coordinate his forces on either occasion shows he was really out of his depth. He constantly second guessed himself, and inspite of some brilliant planning managed to bungle each battle pretty spectacularly. He was just out of his league and IMO it showed in precisely where he failed.

On the Confederate side I would say Price deserves a second chance. He was aggressive, willing to think outside the box, and was more often than not paired off with true incompetents like Van Dorn. He did suffer from strategic tunnel vision, but I think he may have been well served as a man who was left to his own devices harassing the Union in Missouri.

Van Dorn should never have been given control of a parade, let alone an army. Pemberton probably also deserves a second chance since by and large his mistakes really seem to have been as a result of conflicting orders and misfortune versus true incompetence.

Like others have said Hood was just far too aggressive and would more likely than not get any army he led torn to pieces on the offense while not being truly capable of coordinating an army (he's basically the Confederacy's Hooker IMO) and Bragg was really just to unlikable a person to be put in command of an army with a similar over aggressive personality which made him less likely to consider strategic goals versus simply attacking the enemy, which is why IMO he failed in his invasion of Kentucky.
 

FrozenMix

Banned
usertron2020 said:
Pope, simply by virtue of the fact that his defeat should have been lain solely at the feet of McClellan, who rathered see his rivals defeated than advance forward in their careers, and screw the Union cause.:mad: IMO Pope at least deserved one more chance.

And...

McClellan. Should never have been allowed any field command. Like William Frederick I of Prussia, he created a great army, but never should have been a field commander. After the Seven Days and leaving Pope in the lurch, he should have been immediately canned.
Click to expand...

Pope was always dangerously overconfident, even in his Western successes, and way too dismissive of his enemies. He would have found a way to screw up at some point.


Yes, McClellan messed up bad, but Pope also believed in cabals and conspiracies that did not exist and it hurt his relationship with his support from the AotP at Second Bull Run.

McClellan had arguably the closest chance to ending the war earlier as he was damn near close to capturing Richmond, and the plans he laid out for the campaign were brilliant. It is baffling that someone who came up with such a good plan and created such a powerful army managed to fuck up in such epic proportions. There was almost no way not to get the job done, and yet he still failed.

Hooker is my pick, as he like McClellan had a very good plan and did all the things right he should have except when the shit hit the fan. But he showed enough competence before and after the disaster at Chancellorsville, arguably caused by a very stray and unlucky cannon ball that concussed him, to warrant a second chance.

I understand the thoughts for Burnside and Hood as they showed a degree of competence. But in the position of commanding general, they both showed no competence. Peter Principle classics, the lot of them.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
At Fredericksburg, Hooker argued against the

EnglishCanuck said:
On the Union side I say McDowell. That's simply because He of all the generals listed showed the least incompetence and was thrust into a position of command of an undisciplined army which was unready for war and suffered accordingly. He just took much of the blame (undeservedly) for the battle.

McClellan was never going to do anything but fret, and lacked the confidence to actually push the advantages he had, he would have served his country far better sitting in Washington and running logistics rather than leading a force in the field (credit is due where credit is due). Pope was far too willing to walk into a trap, and wasn't really anything beyond mediocre in my opinion. Burnside was a bad commander and he knew it, he didn't inspire great confidence, could find a reason to argue with anyone, and his ability to coordinate the army was subpar.

I'm going to take the dissenting opinion on Hooker and say that while he was excellent at the Corps level, he should never have been allowed near command of an army. He lost Chancellorsville well before the much discussed cannonball incident by ceding the initiative to Lee, and Fredericksburg really shows that his aggressive style of fighting, coupled with his inability to properly coordinate his forces on either occasion shows he was really out of his depth. He constantly second guessed himself, and inspite of some brilliant planning managed to bungle each battle pretty spectacularly. He was just out of his league and IMO it showed in precisely where he failed.

On the Confederate side I would say Price deserves a second chance. He was aggressive, willing to think outside the box, and was more often than not paired off with true incompetents like Van Dorn. He did suffer from strategic tunnel vision, but I think he may have been well served as a man who was left to his own devices harassing the Union in Missouri.

Van Dorn should never have been given control of a parade, let alone an army. Pemberton probably also deserves a second chance since by and large his mistakes really seem to have been as a result of conflicting orders and misfortune versus true incompetence.

Like others have said Hood was just far too aggressive and would more likely than not get any army he led torn to pieces on the offense while not being truly capable of coordinating an army (he's basically the Confederacy's Hooker IMO) and Bragg was really just to unlikable a person to be put in command of an army with a similar over aggressive personality which made him less likely to consider strategic goals versus simply attacking the enemy, which is why IMO he failed in his invasion of Kentucky.
Click to expand...

At Fredericksburg, Hooker argued against the attack; not sure why you'd blame that on him, rather than on Burnside, who was the army commander...

Best,
 
EnglishCanuck

EnglishCanuck

TFSmith121 said:
At Fredericksburg, Hooker argued against the attack; not sure why you'd blame that on him, rather than on Burnside, who was the army commander...

Best,
Click to expand...

Wrong battle Smith.

Second Fredericksburg just shows that Hooker wasn't really up to directing army level movements. He didn't keep track of Sedgwicks attacks and since he had already lost the initiative he wasn't even able to take advantage of Sedgwicks breakthrough on the 3rd.

That Hooker wanted an offensive demonstration in the first place shows mildly poor judgement considering the fiasco that was First Fredericksburg.
 
TheKnightIrish

TheKnightIrish

EnglishCanuck said:
Wrong battle Smith.

Second Fredericksburg just shows that Hooker wasn't really up to directing army level movements. He didn't keep track of Sedgwicks attacks and since he had already lost the initiative he wasn't even able to take advantage of Sedgwicks breakthrough on the 3rd.

That Hooker wanted an offensive demonstration in the first place shows mildly poor judgement considering the fiasco that was First Fredericksburg.
Click to expand...

That was part of where the idea of running a telegraph between Butterfield and Hooker with the advance forces was a great idea who's time had not yet come. It broke down. I blame both him and Butterfield for not reverting quickly to any alternative but Sedgwick must bare the lions share of the blame for Sedgwicks failure.
 
EnglishCanuck

EnglishCanuck

TheKnightIrish said:
That was part of where the idea of running a telegraph between Butterfield and Hooker with the advance forces was a great idea who's time had not yet come. It broke down. I blame both him and Butterfield for not reverting quickly to any alternative but Sedgwick must bare the lions share of the blame for Sedgwicks failure.
Click to expand...

On the strategic level I lay the blame squarely at Hookers feet for the fiasco that was the Chancellorsville campaign, but in fairness Sedgwick does take some of the blame for failing as a subordinate. Though I've always felt a little more merciful towards Sedgwick considering he was facing the most well known meat grinder in the whole Civil War at that point, maybe doesn't exonerate him fully but it at least gives a reasonable explanation for why he dallied the way he did. Meanwhile none can be found to excuse Hookers bungling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top