Stonewall Jackson as a Military Commander

Stonewall Jackson as a Military Commander

  • Great Commander

    Votes: 14 19.2%
  • Good Commander

    Votes: 51 69.9%
  • Average Commander

    Votes: 7 9.6%
  • Bad Commander

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Horrible Commander

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    73

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep - and to be fair, at Cold Harbor, Grant was the

I've also thought of Grant as a great general.... except at Cold Harbor.

Yep - and to be fair, at Cold Harbor, Grant was the AG commander, Meade was the Army commander. Some responsibilities lay with both men.

Grant commanded forces - army or army group - that forced the surrender of three enemy armies in the field (Donelson, Vicksburg, and Appommatox), and substantially defeated two other armies in two separate battles (Shiloh, Chattanooga), either one of which presumably would have vaulted him into the ranks of great captains, especially given the realities on the battlefield during the course of the respective actions.

It is also worth pointing out that Grant commanded, and sucessfully, at almost every level from battalion and brigade commander in 1862 to army group and general-in-chief in 1864-65, with stops along the way at corps and army level; the only level he did not command in combat along the way was divisional commander, really, and Belmont sort of qualified, given the detached forces involved.

Lee never commanded at any level less than (roughly) divisional in West Virginia, and was jumped over corps to army in 1862 when he replaced Smith.

Jackson started out at the regimental and brigade level, went to division and then corps, and then acted as a detached "small" army commander and corps commander, alternately, beneath Lee.

He (Jackson) never came close to carrying out the responsibilities Grant did, and quite successfully, and much less over the time frames and distances Grant was responsible for commanding...

Grant was the great captain of the era, by a long shot.

Best,
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Doesn't good generalship include the ability to take

So should Shiloh be recorded as a union victory due to Grant/Sherman good generalship or Beauregard/Bragg bad generalship.

Doesn't good generalship include the ability to take advantage of bad generalship on the part of one's opponents?;)

I'd give it to Grant...

I'd also suggest that Grant and his subordinates (McClernand, W. Wallace, L. Wallace, Hurlbut, Sherman, and Prentiss), despite the obvious weak reeds, were a far more formidable team in a crisis than AS Johnston and his (Beauregard, Polk/Clark/Cheatham, Bragg/Ruggles/Withers, Hardee, and Breckinridge) were in an equally trying situation...

Likewise, despite the obvious weaknesses of the Grant-Buell relationship, they certainly did better working together on the second day than Johnston and Beauregard had on the first ... and AS Johnston and PGT Beauregard - in terms of relative rank and responsibility, at least - come closer to the peer relationship of Grant and Buell than any of the other general officers on the rebel side.

If you look at the US and rebel commanders at the army level in 1861-62 (army defined as commanding at least multiple multi-brigade "heavy" divisions in the field in action, if not corps) it is unclear to me the rebels had any significant advantages. For example, as a quick guess in terms of the six commanding generals on each side who led the most troops in the field and saw the most action as independent commanders in this period:

US army level commanders, 1861-62
Buell
Burnside
Grant
Halleck
McClellan
McDowell

Rebel army level commanders, 1861-62
Beauregard
Bragg
AS Johnston
JE Johnston
Lee
Smith

I mean, there's one standout on each side; 2-3 mid-level players on each side, and then probably two men on each side who were promoted far beyond their respective levels of ability.

Best,
 
At the operational level, Jackson was first class in the Valley campaign, at Chancellorsville, and at Second Bull Run/Manassas - at the last, his immediate uncovering of his wing upon reading the captured despatch shows an instant comprehension of the dynamics of the situation that would be above most commanders.

Against that, his strange conduct during the Seven Days (exhaustion, as people have suggested).

Don't know all that much about his tactics - I'm still only a third of the way through Henderson - but he seems to have emphasised surprise, and the concealment of forces on the defensive as well as on the attack.

Bad points: he kept his own subordinates as much in the dark about his intentions as the enemy.

His instructions were to be followed to the letter - no more, no less, no initiative.

This strikes me as a poor way of bringing on future leaders - Ewell's failures at Gettysburg and in The Wilderness can possibly be put down at least partly to his service under Jackson (or he may just have been a complete idiot).

Still, on the basis of his successes, I'd say he was above average - he didn't have the opportunity to prove himself great.
 
Last edited:

Redhand

Banned
So should Shiloh be recorded as a union victory due to Grant/Sherman good generalship or Beauregard/Bragg bad generalship.

In my opinion, it was an utter mess of a battle that saw little command and control for either side until the second day. I think the actions of divisional commanders like Prentiss saved the battle for the Union, and the blunders and disunity of the Confederates doomed them from the point in time that their initial momentum stopped. Grant and Sherman deserve a lot of the credit for the second day actions that drove the Confederates from the field.

However, it is my firm belief that Shiloh was won and lost by the rank and file and actions at the Brigade level.
 
Top