Best/Worst Generals of the Civil War - Page 2 - Historum

bil73 · December 28th, 2011, 07:38 AM

Stonewall jackson overrated? LOL only viperlord but then he thinks grant is on the same level as lee. to each their own I guess

**Viperlord** · December 28th, 2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bil73

Stonewall jackson overrated? LOL only viperlord but then he thinks grant is on the same level as lee. to each their own I guess

Oh look, snide condescension with nothing to back it up.

**Viperlord** · December 28th, 2011, 01:11 PM

Another general who doesn't get the credit he deserves is Samuel R. Curtis. Phil Sheridan, a man usually interested only in self-promotion had this to say:

Quote:

Just after my return to Springfield the battle of Pea Ridge was fought. The success of the Union troops in this battle was considerable, and while not of sufficient magnitude to affect the general cause materially, it was decisive as to that particular campaign, and resulted in driving all organized Confederate forces out of the State of Missouri. After Pea Ridge was won, certain efforts were made to deprive Curtis of the credit due him for the victory; but, no matter what merit belonged to individual commanders, I was always convinced that Curtis was deserving of the highest commendation, not only for the skill displayed on the field, but for a zeal and daring in campaign which was not often exhibited at that early period of the war. Especially should this credit be awarded him, when we consider the difficulties under which he labored, how he was hampered in having to depend on a sparsely settled country for the subsistence of his troops. In the reports of the battle that came to Springfield, much glory was claimed for some other general officers, but as I had control of the telegraph line from Springfield east, I detained all despatches until General Curtis had sent in his official report. He thus had the opportunity of communicating with his superior in advance of some of his vain subordinates, who would have laid claim to the credit of the battle had I not thwarted them by this summary means.

And this in spite of the fact that Curtis had Sheridan relieved from his own army.

Curtis' role in the war was indeed significant, and he was definitely one of the North's best army commanders. He removed Confederates from southern Missouri with a deft campaign, and drives down into northwest Arkansas at the end of a very long supply line. While there, he's confronted by Earl Van Dorn, who has over 16,000 troops to Curtis' 10,500. Despite this, Curtis produces a clear victory, so demoralizing Van Dorn he fled the state, taking everything of military value he could with him. Missouri would not be threatened again until the 1864 Sterling Price raid, and it was Curtis who once again thrashed his old adversary and drove him from the state.

A bio of Curtis: Samuel Ryan Curtis (1805

**bartieboy** · December 28th, 2011, 01:36 PM

you do realize that there may have been a thousand civil wars in history so just calling the US civil war ''the civil war'' is a bit... well its very Americacentrist

**Salah** · December 28th, 2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viperlord

Oh look, snide condescension with nothing to back it up.

I would request that a moderator ban bil73 from the forum. After all, I should be banned for my 'condescending' tone concerning the South - hypocrites are so endlessly amusing

At any rate, though I do not know him nearly so well as you, I share your very high esteem for General Grant.

**Salah** · December 28th, 2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

you do realize that there may have been a thousand civil wars in history so just calling the US civil war ''the civil war'' is a bit... well its very Americacentrist

There's this nifty new sub-forum entitled 'American History', and that does seem to be where Viperlord chose to place this fine thread.

Are you here to discuss the best and worst generals of America's only Civil War, or are you here to make utterly irrelevant posts?

**Viperlord** · December 28th, 2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

you do realize that there may have been a thousand civil wars in history so just calling the US civil war ''the civil war'' is a bit... well its very Americacentrist

I do apologize if I offended you, but this is the American history forum, and in American history there's one event that's rather consistently and definitively labeled as the "Civil War".

Edit: Salah ninja'd me

yakmatt · December 28th, 2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Germanyankee

Just out of curiosity, what made you pick Chamberlain?

The guy had major stones and was thought highly enough by Grant to be given the honor of commanding the Union troops at the surrender ceremony at Appomattox. I know this is from wiki but like I said major stones:

In April 1864, Chamberlain returned to the Army of the Potomac and was promoted to brigade commander shortly before the Siege of Petersburg. There, in a major action on June 18, at Rives' Salient, Chamberlain was shot through the right hip and groin. Despite the injury, Chamberlain withdrew his sword and stuck it into the ground in order to keep himself upright to dissuade the growing resolve for retreat. He stood upright for several minutes until he collapsed and lay unconscious from loss of blood. The wound was considered mortal by the division's surgeon, who predicted he would perish;
Not expected to live, Chamberlain displayed surprising will and courage, and with the support of his brother Tom, was back in command by November. Although many, including his wife Fanny, urged Chamberlain to resign, he was determined to serve through the end of the war.
In early 1865, Chamberlain was given command of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Division of V Corps, and he continued to act with courage and resolve. On March 29, 1865, his brigade participated in a major skirmish on the Quaker Road during Grant's final advance that would finish the war. Despite losses, another wound (in the left arm and chest), and nearly being captured, Chamberlain was successful and brevetted to the rank of major general by President Abraham Lincoln.
In all, Chamberlain served in 20 battles and numerous skirmishes, was cited for bravery four times, had six horses shot from under him, and was wounded six times.

yakmatt · December 28th, 2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bil73

Stonewall jackson overrated? LOL only viperlord but then he thinks grant is on the same level as lee. to each their own I guess

Grant was on a higher level then Lee.

**bartieboy** · December 28th, 2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salah

There's this nifty new sub-forum entitled 'American History', and that does seem to be where Viperlord chose to place this fine thread.

Are you here to discuss the best and worst generals of America's only Civil War, or are you here to make utterly irrelevant posts?

That's a nifty (nice word btw) argument but doesn't American history also include south American and north American history?

I just find it a tiny bit frustrating people tend to call it THE civil war... Just my opinion

I'm here for the irrelevant post part... As always

P.S. my knowledge on this subject is very limited but I like Lee's style and character