Three Best Generals of The Civil War.

[Hugh de Salle]

As the title implys just for the record heres my 3.

1/ Grant.
2/ Sherman.
3/ Thomas.

All Union Generals and all had a decisive facotor in the War , I really struggled to find a CSA general to put on the list maybe Longstreet.

Grant is number 1 as he just got the job done it didnt matter if it was a small engagement or large and more importantly he learned by his mistakes.

Sherman was the first modern day general who truly understood war he predicted it would be a long war and understand the need to destroy the souths economy via a scroched earth policy.

Thomas is a peculiar choice for me as i find him Mr reliable and the nickname of slowtrot very decieving he was a very good genereal indeed who tended to hate the spotlight but again like Grant just got the job done with little fuss.

You disagree then post you own list with reasons.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Grant- Because of his innovative persistence. I.e. Not only was he unwilling to admit defeat but when faced with an intractible problem he would throw innovative solutions at it until it was solved.

Winfield Scott- Although he never really fought in the war itself, he came up with the Anaconda Plan that was instrumental to the Union winning the war

Lee- Sure, Lee had his failings as a strategist as he was never able to destroy all or even part of the Union army despite winning most of the battles he fought and he was never able to turn his victories into strategic gains but his skill as a tactician has to be acknowledged. On so many occasions he faced overwhelming odds with the stakes being nothing less than the survival of the CSA and won because he took swift, bold actions that rarely failed to catch his opponents (even Grant) off gaurd. Without his efforts on behalf of the south, the war most likely would not have lasted nearly as long as it did.

[Bullero]

Grant was good at butchering of own soldiers, Sherman at burning villages.

[Sir Daubbles]

N.B. Forrest did the mostest with the leastest.

Setting aside his character flaws, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who did more with less during the entire war, on either side.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Grant was a "general" who used terror and "scorched earth" to force the South to surrender. He then proceeded to use just about the same methods in his political struggle for power just as he was becaming a president. A simple case of Bonapartism. He reminds me of nazi generals.

Union lost nearly all battles in the beginning of the war, yet somehow people tend to think otherwise because the US federal propaganda was very strong after the war, so much so that Gettysburg movie in the 90s reeks of one-sided view.

I reckon it goes like this:

1. Stonewall
2. Longstreet
3. Meade

Meade as a General was in control of the army for only three days, under tremendous pressure, had imbeciles like Sickles who only fought for their own gains and disregarded discipline, yet he broke the back of the Northern Virginia army and sent it in a long retreat.

Stonewall Jackson was an idealist, a great man and a knight of the war. Longstreet had sound strategic prowess, despite the fact that he later turned "full union", got fat and married someone who was born in the middle of the Civil War.

[Imrahil Alqua]

All right. Are we going by tactical skill, or love of personality?
Because my FAVORITE general has to be J.E.B. Stuart, although I admit he was no great tacticion. His cocky attitude is just fantastic. He's like real life Han Solo.

Second is the little-known but none the less brilliant mind of Albert Sidney Johnston. He fought in the Texan War of Independence, the Mexican-American War, the Utah War and the Southern War of Independence, winning fame and glory in all. His premature death at the Battle of Shiloh, some believe, was one of the chief reasons the South lost the war. Jefferson said that he was the "finest general officer in the Confederacy" and that his death was "the turning point in our fate".
Oh, and why did he die? He died freaking personally leading a cavalry charge into enemy lines. A bullet severed an artery in his leg. The wound could have been very easily taken care of, but Johnston ordered his personal physician to attend to Union wounded instead.

Closely following him is 'Ol Stonewall Jackson, one of the most brilliant American generals ever to live. In my personal opinion, Lee gets far too much credit for the CSA's tactical brilliance, when actually it was Jackson that did the planning. I mean, have you SEEN Jackson's Shenandoah Campaign? It's freaking brilliant!

So by personality:
-JEB Stuart
-ASJ
-Stonewall Jackson

By overall tactics and actual skill:
-Stonewall Jackson (seriously, read about the Valley Campaign.)
-James Longstreet (he was sort of the workhorse of the CSA. He wasn't flashy or charasmatic like Stuart or Jackson, but he got the job done.
-Meade or Grant. Now I know Grant gets a bad rep for his preformance at Cold Harbor, but his Vicksburg Campaign was a tactical masterpiece.

[Caramirdan]

Jackson, and just for one word: Chancellorsville.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Caramirdan:

Jackson, and just for one word: Chancellorsville.

You could argue that Grant and his brillant Vicksburg Campaign was more decisive in the outcome of the war than Jacksons flank attack at Chancellorsville but you could also argue that if Jackson had survived would the Union have held the heights at Gettysburg 4 weeks later on the first day.

Intresting.

[bridgeofblues]

There is a small list when there's over 1000 general of the war. I glad people gave Both Thomas "The Rock of Chickamauga" some love, and Longstreet Who was a better general then Lee and actively did more to help repair of the south than any southern general during the reconstruction. Both men Lost so much personally for the choice of preserve the union or healing this nation.

[The Cunning Fox (raZoleg)]

Originally posted by Caramirdan:

Jackson, and just for one word: Chancellorsville.

The way he went around a giant Union army in the middle of the day and pushed it back striking from the swamps, or the way he got shot by his own troops?

[cromagnonman2k]

Jackson was definitely good on his own, but working under the command of Lee seems to have seriously hampered him. Other generals performed well at lower levels until promoted beyond their ability, like AP Hill and Hooker. It's very difficult to pick the "best" when so often it was teamwork that made the dream work.

Most scholars have returned to the idea that Grant was the best general of the war, followed by Lee and Thomas. Joe Johnston was very solid general, and played to the South's strengths (and weaknesses). Lee, on the other hand, butchered his own men at a higher rate than Grant. Rosecrans is probably underappreciated, and Lyon was decisive in keeping Missouri in the Union.

It's important to note that the Confederate armies operated almost entirely on home ground, where they could rely on local support and intel (for example, Jackson's victories were almost entirely based on superior knowledge of the ground). Rebel troops complained after their invasions of the North that the Union soldiers fought much harder there and they'd prefer not to go back. When judging generals, one must take into account the difficulty of waging a strategic offensive into enemy territory.

[[BRE] Tancred]

My 'actual' top three is as follows : Forrest, Lee, Jackson. Lee is constantly underrated nowadays because he was on top for so long, I guess it's original to say he actually sucked but it's just an educated ignorant thing to do. Given his resources, no one else could have done what he did (except Forrest maybe but he was never fighting at such a scale). Grant/Thomas/Sherman were excellent, but they never fought a campaign while being severely outnumbered/outgunned, that's why it's impossible to put em up there imo because they were never put to the extreme test of skills.

The three most underrated would be those : DH Hill, Sheridan & Burnside. The last one has a terrible reputation for Fredericksburg but he was forced by Lincoln to fight this battle and his subordinates are mostly to blame for the poor execution of the battle. He actually defeated Longstreet after and made several good calls before.

[ozkat (VegasOZ)]

Bedford Forrest, Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Col_KellyTnT:

My 'actual' top three is as follows : Forrest, Lee, Jackson. Lee is constantly underrated nowadays because he was on top for so long, I guess it's original to say he actually sucked but it's just an educated ignorant thing to do. Given his resources, no one else could have done what he did (except Forrest maybe but he was never fighting at such a scale). Grant/Thomas/Sherman were excellent, but they never fought a campaign while being severely outnumbered/outgunned, that's why it's impossible to put em up there imo because they were never put to the extreme test of skills.

The three most underrated would be those : DH Hill, Sheridan & Burnside. The last one has a terrible reputation for Fredericksburg but he was forced by Lincoln to fight this battle and his subordinates are mostly to blame for the poor execution of the battle. He actually defeated Longstreet after and made several good calls before.

As has been mentioned in an above post 10 the fact that The North fought almost exclusivly on Southern soil and therefore had a huge logistics and itelligence disadvatage gives more credit to Commanders that can operate in the enemy interior while cutting there own supply lines like Grant and Sherman did.

I certainly dont feel that Lee was a bad General i think its safe to say he was a very good but he suffered from what we can plainly all see which was over confidance he also did not learn from his mistakes id also like to stress that in the Grant vs Lee argument that Grant lost less men in all his campaigns than what Lee lost while achieving positive outcomes that effected the war.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

As has been mentioned in an above post 10 the fact that The North fought almost exclusivly on Southern soil and therefore had a huge logistics and itelligence disadvatage gives more credit to Commanders that can operate in the enemy interior while cutting there own supply lines like Grant and Sherman did.

I certainly dont feel that Lee was a bad General i think its safe to say he was a very good but he suffered from what we can plainly all see which was over confidance he also did not learn from his mistakes id also like to stress that in the Grant vs Lee argument that Grant lost less men in all his campaigns than what Lee lost while achieving positive outcomes that effected the war.

I like to think of it as Lee being the Hannibal to Grant's Fabius. Its not a perfect 1:1 but in the broad strokes I think it holds some truth.

[[BRE] Tancred]

@Hugh De Salle

Intelligence disadvantage perhaps (though these were mostly caused by trusting the Pinkertons and their dubious counting methods) but logistical I don't think so : the fact that their supply lines were longer was largely made up by their industrial power => Southern soldiers were starving and frequently on low ammo, this barely ever happened for northerners.

Lee made mistakes, Malvern Hill, Pickets charge, holding at Antietam. Nobody's perfect. But it's a bit harsh imo to say he didn't learn. After Gaine's Mill he understood that grand assaults with 60+ brigades we pointless because such numbers would bring coordination issues. After 2nd Bull Run he understood that passive defense was also pointless and would bring long-term defeat : he went on the offensive. After Gettysburg he understood the value of fortifications and won an impossible victory thanks to it at Cold Harbor. I could keep on for quite some time but I think you get my point.

Lee grew overconfident over time yes, but as the Japanese (in their great wisdom) point out : victory is a disease. Hannibal, Napoleon, WW2 Germany, it's not an isolated case.

Of course Grant lost less men, he was a very good commander with huge manpower and industrial capacities to back him up. Of course he defeated Lee since he was agressive with a 2/1 advantage but he also was very sloppy at times : the first vicksburg campaign (a disaster), North Anna (where he was saved by the fact Lee had a stroke), the Wilderness, and of course Cold Harbor. Overconfidence also was a thing for him.

Anyway enough rambling :)

@Bobcat

I totally side with that comparison, pretty good point.