I have always wondered whether or not Americans care for a good defensive general. From the American history I know the generl feeling seems to be that defensive generals aren't good and the only way to win a war is to be offensive.
Take the (arguably) two best generals of the 1800's, Napoleon and Wellington. Given the choice, it seems, that most Americans prefer Napoleon who spent most of his career being offensive to Wellington to spent most of his time being defensive. I mean...not one single American General (to my knowledge) was ever compared to or nicknamed Wellington but I can name two without really trying that were nicknamed Napoleon (thats P.G.T. Beauregard and George B. McClellan). And it seems that Napoleon get no end of praise from Americans while Wellington gets very little...almost as if they dont want to admit Napoleon was beaten.
Even when in regards to their own general they seem to prefer offensive generals to anyone of good defensive capabilities.
From the ACW for example the first names that come up when thinking of who the greatest generals of the war were are always Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackon, U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman...all who were offensive. Often overlooked or under-rated generals of the ACW are James Longstreet, Joe Johnston and George Henry Thomas...all who were defensive and are subsequently accused of being slow and hesitant.
So is it just that the Americans prefer the glory that the offensive general get or do they simply hold no stock in a good defensive commander?