DID NOT NONE OF YOU READ MY MESSAGE ABOUT GETTYSBURG BEING THE BLOODIEST BATTLE AND THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE BEST BATTLES CATAGORY!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey b3....I'm sorry that I didn't show much knowledge of the confederacy...in your opinion. I am willing to stick to my guns that there was not much democracy in the Confederacy. I am glad, however, that someone other than me is posting here. I was beginning to think I was alone.

Though we may be on opposite sides of the "question" maybe we can continue to discuss some issues. Are you a fan of the writings of Victor Davis Hanson? Just curious.
Do you belong to a CWRT?

The best Union General: to elaborate on my original list and to shrink it to one. Sherman. In fact it could be argued that the South should revere this man. Of all the generals in the Civil War...both sides...he and he alone grasped the tragedy of the bloodshed. Thus....his elusive tactics....modern strategy....which circumvented the need for full battles...crippling the Souths will to wage war...saving lives...thousands of them. Isn't it peculiar that Grant who obliterated thousands of the South's men and sons...is not held to scorn, but that one who fought a war more against the South's means to wage war....is held to be a monster. Thus...one can draw a conclusion....property was more valuable than flesh and blood. But...then...we always knew, didn't we, that the war was over..."property". An argument could be made for a conspiracy in the movement to secession.

In response to b3.....you did not refute that there was only one political party. That does not sound very democratic.

DMarino shows little knowledge of the Confederacy. Jeff Davis was elected by the Confederate States' representatives, who were elected by the people of their States where many "parties" existed. Furthermore, a careful reading of the Confederate Constitution reveals that it is was drawn to be a far better document to support a "democratic republic" form of government.

Ok...ok....the rest of the list.

Grant as stated before.
Sherman...I still stand by. He achieved through tactics that which others achieved through blood.
Sheridan as listed before.
I will go along with Gen Thomas...though often crippled by the "slows"
Hancock....yeah....pretty good.

But there is a host of others...that may ultimately have been better than Thomas and Hancock.

The thing as I see it...the cream was still coming to the top for the Union....while the cream had mostly been skimmed off the top of the Confederate Armies (consider how many officers Lee lost at Chancellorsville. The Union suffered long and hard from political generals....and for a good reason. Lincoln simply had to contend with a divided constituency....the Democratic Party vs the Republican Party. He had to hold it all together. By the way...how may political parties in the South? Well...let's see....those that were a llowed to vote could vote for Jeff Davis...or Jeff Davis...or Jeff Davis. There was no competing political party. Quite a democracy down South huh?
Just as an aside....we know that 60% of West Pointers went South. Unlike the Union...these officers returned to their individual states...where they provided "usually" good leadership. The 40% who stayed "Union" were pretty much allocated to the Regular army...thus not spreading the talent over regiments/ brigades etc. as did the South.

A question for you. Granted that the North had superior numbers....manpower....I am troubled by one comment in Grant's Memoirs. To paraphrase....."we counted all men in our armies....the rebels counted bayonettes". This, of course, has considerable implications when looking at individual battles. Is it safe to say...that fully 25% of an army is not involved in....arms? Meaning...medical/commissary/wagon trains/etc.? Grant further stated not all artillery was counted by Confeds as well. I could use some help on this.

DMarino - nice comments... you have obviously studied the war. Can't agree about Sherman. Great strategist..yes. Great General...no. Tactically he was too spotty. Grant should have fired him after Shiloh, though his personal bravery helped the first day. At Missionary Ridge, he again failed. And he could not bag Johnston even though he had many advantages. Chamberlain did not need anyone to earn his courage or skill for him, and if Grant thought him a great brigade commander, that it probably good enough. Thomas handled large armies better than any Union general except Grant, and which battle can you point to him not doing extremely well?
But, debate has raged on for many years, and everyone has an opinion. Many candidates...many worthy candidates.... so who are your other top four, since Grant should be on any knowledgeable person's list?

Grant of course,
Sherman must be counted. One can not under-estimate how be buried the South's will to wage war. You folks might want to read Victor Davis Hanson's The Soul of Battle.
Sheridan.....sure. A rough man....a fighter...only results counted.
Chamberlain....a civilian general...an ok choice. I only wish he had not made himself a hero and had let others do it for him. He was rather like General Sickles in this manner. His "Passing of the Armies" is as much fiction as fact. Especially when we get to the surrender of the Confererate forces. He wrote of things that simply did not happen. His performance at Gettysburg while more than noble.....was parlayed by him into how he saved the Union....while in fact....Little Round Top was not really in Lee's plans at all. It held little value as either a military objective or an artillery platform.
Thomas....is ok.....but "great"? I would have to say no.

"Great" is a tough word...I will think more about who I would put in this category.

Now...McClellan was a great "trainer"....maybe a great quartermaster....certainly a great showman. Certainly a great conniver. Great at intruige. Damn...if only he could have fought!!! The only time he did fight....Antietem....he felt he had one a "great" victory....little realizing he could have bagged the whole Confederate army.....even General Hooker knew it.

Gettysburg was the bloodiest battle it shouldn't be in the best battle catagory!

Judd - creating the list may reveal some names and some direction for you book, but you need not "defend" your selections with anything other than short replies. As for Chamberlain's actions, I am sure that you have thought much about the 19th Century idea of "courage." No group in the Civil War suffered higher casualties than regimental and brigade commanders. Those officers HAD to lead from the front or they would not have been successful. Heck, many corps commanders - even army commanders Lee and Johnston - on both sides unnecessarily exposed themselves to direct fire; there are many examples that you probably know better than I. So I think Chamberlain was not only strong physically and emotionally, but also more than a little unlucky. People that I think exposed their men to the detriment of their cause would be headed by Willie Pegram, but that is another whole list! Thanks for posting...you have added a lot.

You’re quite right to say that my last submission was too hard on General Chamberlain. On rereading the final paragraph, I don’t like it either - Two ideas are jumbled together to interfere with each other – Very poor writing.

The fact that Chamberlain was wounded six times yet continued to fight until the final roll call is an astonishing achievement, especially considering the medical technology of the day and the damage a 58 caliber soft-nosed rifle ball could inflict. The man had an Olympic order of dedication and doesn’t need to be the greatest military mind in history to deserve recognition.

But the fact that he was wounded so many times is a symptom of an underlying problem. Too many of those dedicated young Generals of the Army of the Potomac were repeat casualties - Barlow, Bartlett, & Devens to name a few. East of the Blue Ridge, and from Malvern Hill in June 1862 to Five Forks in April 1865, none of the major battles were cleanly executed by Union Generals. The problem was mostly at the top level of command. This is where men like Grant and Hancock need scrutiny.

There are several lists that would be fun to post, but it’d be like giving away the base material for chapters of a book. Sorry for the annoying answer, but research takes time and time is money.

Judd - nice comments about Gen Blunt, though perhaps you are a little hard on Joshua! I think he did more than get in the way of several bullets. Toiling in the western theater did not usually earn one recognition, but you certainly make a nice case. Why not put up a list of your favorite 10 "citizen-soldiers"? I am sure many of us would love to review it.

Edited by author 09-28-2003 05:57 AM
What is a citizen-soldier? Let’s define him as a soldier who has neither attended West Point nor served in the Regular Army prior to the Civil War – We’ll accept volunteer service in the Mexican War or militia service against Indian raids.

Was Joshua Chamberlain truly the best “citizen soldier” of the war? Without dragging out the register of all 583 Union Generals, I have no difficulty scratching up a list of 6 Brigadiers and 11 Division & Corps leading volunteers whose achievements might be considered on a par or greater than those of Chamberlain.

There’s no room to discuss all 17 of these men, but of them all, James G. Blunt stands out to me as the best of the bunch. None of us have mentioned him, including myself (mea culpa).

From the fall of 1862 to the end of the war, James G. Blunt dominated the Trans-Mississippi region north of the Arkansas River much as Forrest dominated northern Mississippi State. No other Union General operated so far from railhead and river-born supply and for so long. All of his battles were uncomfortable affairs for the Confederacy – Old Fort Wayne, Cane Hill, Prairie Grove, Van Buren, Honey Springs, Westport, and Newtonia to name a few. Blunt had a combination of imagination, aggressiveness and field-sense comparable to Nathan Bedford Forrest. His pursuit after the Battle of Prairie Grove devastated Hindman’s army. His pursuit of Price (with help from Pleasanton’s Cavalry) after Westport drove the Confederates from the Missouri River to Texas.

Neither Joshua Chamberlain nor John A. Logan held such independent command or achieved so much and so often as did Blunt. If Blunt were a Confederate, his achievements would be celebrated along with those of Forrest and Jackson.

Let us say this about Joshua Chamberlain – He was wounded six times! I don’t know of any other General wounded so often who stayed to finish the war. Clearly the man did his duty and must have had remarkable healing powers. But something’s wrong when a soldier is wounded so often. To paraphrase George S. Patton – You don’t win a war by getting shot. Either Chamberlain’s approach to war was too intense or he suffered from the bad decisions made by superiors of the Army of the Potomac. I suspect the latter.

Actually Ozark, 10 Confederates just about uses up the list, while the Union had so many good ones that putting up only five makes the list very selective. LOL!