Whom do you think was the best Confederate general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).

F off. I find this topic fascinating. Love talking about generals and war strategy and what ifs.

What if Stonewall was there at Gettysburg? What if the British had recognized the South? etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).

I disagree with this. The Civil War is really quite interesting from a military history perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than Robert E Lee...

You'd really need to specify "best at what" to get an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).

I disagree with this. The Civil War is really quite interesting from a military history perspective.

+1

To the poster in bold, you may not mean to do so, but this comes across as sanctimony. You grew wiser and were no longer interested in Lincoln? Lots of Phd's in history are obtained studying Lincoln. Its not like studying Abe Lincoln is confined to high schoolers and middle schoolers. Barack Obama has claimed he tried to duplicate Lincoln's well known "Team of Rivals".

Military History is a completely legitimate field of study. The OP obviously has an interest in this field.

To OP, I think the question is a bit broad, as another poster has stated. The best at what? James Longstreet was a very solid strategist. Of the prominently known Confederate generals, Jackson was, in my opinion, likely the best tactician. AP Hill is sometimes underrated. A couple of mistakes aside, he was pretty good at winning battles (or at least his own portion of the battle).

[Anonymous]

God damn. Even a thread asking an opinion on military history brings out the snarky responses. I seriously fear for the future of a society that has any civilitly in it.

To answer your question, I agree with the person who noted Lee and Jackson as brilliant generals who have been studied extensively.

[Anonymous]

Stonewall Jackson or JEB Stuart. Both were brilliant.

While the reasons behind the South succeding and strating the US Civil War was wrong and morally corrupt (and it WAS slavery, not States Rights, get real people), the Confederacy had much better military leaders and enlisted men. The Confederacy lost due to the rapid industrializing of the Northern States and their greater wealth. Of course, that too was one of the reasons the South succeded, the Southern planters knew the economy of the South was completely dependent on slave labor and would rapidly become the most impoverished region of the USA without the slaves to make the agraian society successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than Robert E Lee...

Gen. George Pickett would kindly disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stonewall Jackson or JEB Stuart. Both were brilliant.

While the reasons behind the South succeding and strating the US Civil War was wrong and morally corrupt (and it WAS slavery, not States Rights, get real people), the Confederacy had much better military leaders and enlisted men. The Confederacy lost due to the rapid industrializing of the Northern States and their greater wealth. Of course, that too was one of the reasons the South succeded, the Southern planters knew the economy of the South was completely dependent on slave labor and would rapidly become the most impoverished region of the USA without the slaves to make the agraian society successful.

I'd agree on Jackson as a corps commander. Stuart was daring and very colorful, but I don't know about brilliant. In the end though, the Confederacy lost because it was hopelessly outnumbered by an adversary that had the will to fight to the end. They achieved stunning battle victory to be sure, but they were ultimately ground down in what became a war of attrition. You can't win those outnumbered over two to one when the bigger guy is also better able to produce war materiel and supply his force.

[Anonymous]

I think the confederates were by far the favorites going in. Everyone in Europe thought they would win. Look at the Revolutionary War only 75 years earlier - #s don't mean jack when you have to conquer thousands of square miles and hold it. Being on the defensive means you have short supply lines and a welcoming population.

Nobody realized that Lincoln would be such a fighter, would sacrifice so so so much, and would refuse to quit. We owe it all to Lincoln.

[Anonymous]

The one who was killed first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, OP, are you a student working on a history paper? If not, then I can't help but ask - why do you care? Look, I think about a lot of things that folks may find odd, but this one has never crossed my mind. I read a fair amount about the civil war as a child and had a prolonged fascination with Lincoln. Then I got a little older, grew a little wiser, and morphed the fascination into Douglass, Truth, Tubman and the unknown many who made the ultimate sacrifice to move our nation towards a more perfect union (as did Lincoln, just that he was not a solo actor).

I disagree with this. The Civil War is really quite interesting from a military history perspective.

+1

To the poster in bold, you may not mean to do so, but this comes across as sanctimony. You grew wiser and were no longer interested in Lincoln? Lots of Phd's in history are obtained studying Lincoln. Its not like studying Abe Lincoln is confined to high schoolers and middle schoolers. Barack Obama has claimed he tried to duplicate Lincoln's well known "Team of Rivals".

Military History is a completely legitimate field of study. The OP obviously has an interest in this field.

To OP, I think the question is a bit broad, as another poster has stated. The best at what? James Longstreet was a very solid strategist. Of the prominently known Confederate generals, Jackson was, in my opinion, likely the best tactician. AP Hill is sometimes underrated. A couple of mistakes aside, he was pretty good at winning battles (or at least his own portion of the battle).

I am the PP you are referring to. Look, to some extent I get the notion of military history (and to a great extent I am still besotted with Lincoln). But, for me, this country's horrible stain and legacy of racism, coupled with the contemporary Confederate flag cult, renders me unable to be chill about this issue. I just don't think of this as a TV mini-series. As I wrote, I kind of get it. Then I think about "Twelve Years a Slave," and then, not so much.

[Anonymous]

I am the PP you are referring to. Look, to some extent I get the notion of military history (and to a great extent I am still besotted with Lincoln). But, for me, this country's horrible stain and legacy of racism, coupled with the contemporary Confederate flag cult, renders me unable to be chill about this issue. I just don't think of this as a TV mini-series. As I wrote, I kind of get it. Then I think about "Twelve Years a Slave," and then, not so much.

Meant to write "country's horrible stain of slavery...."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the confederates were by far the favorites going in. Everyone in Europe thought they would win. Look at the Revolutionary War only 75 years earlier - #s don't mean jack when you have to conquer thousands of square miles and hold it. Being on the defensive means you have short supply lines and a welcoming population.

Nobody realized that Lincoln would be such a fighter, would sacrifice so so so much, and would refuse to quit. We owe it all to Lincoln.

Not sure I agree with that. Sometimes I think we should have let the South secede.

[Anonymous]

Whom?

[Anonymous]

It's more fun to talk about the WORST general. I nominate Braxton Bragg!