Both General Lee and General Jackson had honorable careers and were both exceedingly good at their jobs. Which do you think was better? After voting in the poll, please tell why you voted for them.
I will have to go with Jackson based on the fact that he didn’t give unclear orders.
Instead, he left his subordinates in the dark by not telling them anything except the absolute minimum of instructions.
Why is this better?
Instead, he left his subordinates in the dark by not telling them anything except the absolute minimum of instructions.
Why is this better?
This is a tough one, because both also had some pretty ridiculous flaws that got in the way of effective generalship.
And not dissimilar ones - Jackson's secretiveness works out not unlike Lee's lack of respect for staff work and clear orders.
I'd bet on Lee just because Lee could work with subordinates (and make them work with each other) better.
I will have to go with Jackson based on the fact that he didn’t give unclear orders.
In my opinion, this is not only better, but how it should work. Soldiers (and subordinates generally) don't need to know why they do things, they merely need to do them.
But I'm in an extreme minority in this view.
I'd bet on Lee because when it counted for the Confederacy Lee single-handedly reversed the tide of the entire war and in 1864-5 he conducted perhaps the most brilliant defensive campaign of the entire war. Only one other Confederate general, Bragg, did anything similar and in Bragg's case it was purely the paralysis of the Union Western command that enabled him to do it. Lee did all his acts himself by his own action and thereby assured a psychological advantage not broken until the Union's own great man went at him and it took a guy who was equally able to turn disaster into victory to beat the CSA's A-Team.
Jackson, like Sherman, was a brilliant thinker but I'd never want either directing a battle.
Jackson's old division being routed hopelessly at Cedar Mountain comes to mind. That was unforgivably botched by Stonewall's inability to handle anything he didn't dictate the terms of.No, he simply didn't give orders at all. At least Lee gave unclear ones that his subordinates proved able to make into actually brilliant feats of arms. Unclear orders v. no orders favors unclear ones every single day of the week. At least with unclear orders there's *some* idea.
No, he simply didn't give orders at all. At least Lee gave unclear ones that his subordinates proved able to make into actually brilliant feats of arms. Unclear orders v. no orders favors unclear ones every single day of the week. At least with unclear orders there's *some* idea.
Agreed. Jackson at division or corps level, with a good general on top, could do well. Picking between Jackson and my (and your) favorite Confedrate officer, the Virginian loses. Both Virginians, if we compare Lee to him.
Jackson's old division being routed hopelessly at Cedar Mountain comes to mind.
Or, as an occasion showing one of his other faults...Jackson ruining Garnett's career for Kernstown.
Say what you like on Bragg, but he never was so utterly mean spirited (in absence of a better description, because this goes beyond cold) to his subordinates.
Well I will admit that I don’t really know much about Jackson so I will give that concede that to you snake.
But compared to lee who if had given a clear order to Ewell most likely would have won at Gettysburg I still have to pick Jackson.
Well I will admit that I don’t really know much about Jackson so I will give that concede that to you snake.
But compared to lee who if had given a clear order to Ewell most likely would have won at Gettysburg I still have to pick Jackson.
Except that Ewell would never have advanced his corps as he did (prior to the "Why didn't Ewell advance?" moment) if Jackson was in charge, because disobeying an order - remember, Lee ordered Ewell not to bring on a general engagement until the army is concentrated - would get Jackson pursuing him with an almost malicious vendetta.
I admire Jackson in some ways, but he could be a colossal jerk.
Eh, the problem with that entirely is that Longstreet has the whole "Trying to steal Bragg's job at the worst possible time" thing against him. It's not that displacing Bragg would necessarily have been bad, but with the Army of the Cumberland trying to relieve the siege and the siege itself nowhere near completed, that was not at all the time to sour Bragg even worse than he'd be otherwise.
On the battlefield, I do think Longstreet has the best record of any CS officer. By the same token George H. Thomas has the best of any Union officer.....
Pretty much. And you're right about Bragg, as if Bragg were remotely so inclined, he had more than enough excuse to be that petty. There were plenty of men who would have pulled a Jeff Davis on Leonidas Polk for a fraction of what Polk regularly did. And of course for all his faults, Bragg single-handedly pulled off in the West what Lee did in the East, and even when he lost battles controlled the pace of them against superior numbers.
Unfortunately for Bragg in any comparison with Lee, Bragg's indecisive disposition and his tendency to look for scapegoats rates poorly with Lee's decisiveness and willingness to accept responsibility for his own failures.
Not to mention that like with Antietam neither Jackson nor Longstreet would have wanted a Gettysburg as it unfolded IOTL. Longstreet at least did his all to enforce Lee's idiotic orders in cases like Pickett's Charge. Jackson would in all probability have finally pulled a Polk on Lee even his popularity cult couldn't have glossed over. How Lee would have solved that problem would make for a fascinating min-TL in its own right.
The real winner, of course, is George Meade.....