# Civil War generals: Union got better ones time went on? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 28, 2018, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726 "2018-07-28T11:36:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/21 "2018-07-28T17:44:51Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > There were _six_. The famous one and another five brigadiers. Also four Johnsons, four Johnstons, and five Jones. Not a terribly diverse lot ;). > > . But only one Bragg, right? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/22 "2018-07-28T18:09:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But only one Bragg, right? [Two Bees, but only one Bragg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Confederate)). ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/23 "2018-07-28T18:20:00Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’ve been reading a bit about the Late Unpleasantness, and one comment I saw was that the CSA started out with better generals, but as time went on, they didn’t develop new ones, while the USA generals weren’t very good to start with, but gradually they developed new ones, like Grant. > > Is that a fair assessment? if so, how come? was Lincoln better than Davis at recognizing talent? > [@senoy](#): > > Probably the opposite. Union generals got better because there was nowhere to go but up. Confederate generals got worse because there was nowhere to go but down. > > Let’s pretend that you and I are both baseball managers with a 25 player roster. I put my 9 worst players on the field and you put your 9 best. Over the season, injury and sheer ineptness force me to replace my worst players with their ‘backups’ who are actually better players. At the same time, injuries would force you to replace your best players with backups. Over the season, your team will be worse and mine better, but not because of my managing skill, but in spite of it. > > Stonewall Jackson as an example is widely regarded as one of the best tacticians that has ever existed. There’s not a way to replace that kind of loss in the talent pool. Grant on the other hand is still studied for his strategy at Vicksburg. Why the heck was he a subordinate in a western campaign? > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So why did the Union start with the better generals as back-ups, and the poorer generals as starters? > [@Andy\_L](#): > > Scott seems to have anticipated a long drawn out war and to have planned for it (“The Anaconda Plan”) - which made him unpopular among those who expected a short war, but the actual conduct of the war (and Union victory) followed Scott’s plan pretty closely. Screw alternate history. Life follows baseball. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/24 "2018-07-28T18:39:52Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But only one Bragg, right? Many Braggarts, one Bragg. 😃 The Union was handicapped by the fact that it inherited the command structure, minus defections to the rebels, in place at the time. Since America hadn’t been at war for twelve years, there hadn’t been much real ability to demonstrate war-time leadership qualities. And, as pointed out, the numbers commanded in the Mexican-American War were relatively small in comparison to the army commands involved in the Civil War; Gen. Winfield Scott had only 12,000 with him when he landed, and only about 8,000 effectives with him on his campaign inland. Therefore, the Union command structure had a number of leaders who were simply there because they had done their time, not because they were good military commanders. An example was Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell, commander of the Army of Northeastern Virginia at the First Battle of Bull Run. McDowell had no actual command experience at the time; the closest he had come to command was to be aide-de-camp to Gen. John Wool in Mexico. It’s not that McDowell was totally incompetent; the plans for First Manassas weren’t that bad, and if that battle had occurred later in the war, when the troops were properly trained and led, it might have succeeded. But he didn’t know how to command, and his subordinates didn’t, either. But McDowell was only in command because he had gotten friendly with Sen. Salmon Chase, who was now in the Cabinet, and who got him promoted to his command. It took time during the war for the cream to rise to the top. I will point out that that was true in the South among the rebels as well. But the rebels did start with a greater number of capable generals (many of whom had served in command of units in the Mexican-American War), including P. G. T. Beauregard, McDowell’s opponent at Bull Run/Manassas. So they had an early advantage. Someone else above has already pointed out that the Union might have done much better if the first real competent general it identified hadn’t turned out to be a complete egotist who was more interested in making himself the dandy of Washington D.C. than he was in actually fighting a war. General McClellan had shown a good grasp of tactics and a fighting spirit in the mountains. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that a few of the better generals for the Union were Army mis-fits, who had at various times resigned to do other things. I’m pretty sure that applies to both Grant and Sherman, and I seem to remember that others fit that bill as well. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/25 "2018-07-28T19:16:27Z")
If I remember correctly, _Lee’s Lieutenants_ has an appendix of all the Confederate high-ranking officers killed in the war. It was a long list. In many cases, an officer was killed in battle before he had a chance to really learn his job. > [@](#): > > The CSA lost more general officers killed in combat than the Union Army did throughout the war, in the ratio of about 5-to-1 for the South compared to roughly 12-to-1 in the North. . . . Replacing these fallen generals was an ongoing problem during the war, often having men promoted beyond their abilities (a common criticism of officers such as John Bell Hood and George E. Pickett, but an issue for both armies), or gravely wounded in combat but needed, such as Richard S. Ewell. The problem was made more difficult by the South’s depleting manpower, especially near the war’s end. > **[General officers in the Confederate States Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_officers_in_the_Confederate_States_Army)** > > The general officers of the Confederate States Army (CSA) were the senior military leaders of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War of 1861–1865. They were often former officers from the United States Army (the regular army) before the Civil War, while others were given the rank based on merit or when necessity demanded. Most Confederate generals needed confirmation from the Confederate States Congress, much like prospective generals in the modern U.S. armed forces. > Lik... ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/26 "2018-07-28T20:17:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > I’m pretty sure that applies to both Grant and Sherman, and I seem to remember that others fit that bill as well. Even Grant and Sherman had to learn on the fly. For example they were both responsible for getting caught with their pants down at Shiloh. Though their talent shined through and they eventually partially redeemed themselves in the latter stages of the battle, that initial failure to properly watch for the enemy was very nearly disastrous. For that matter if Albert Sidney Johnston hadn’t died in combat early in the battle it is _possible_ they might still have lost. He seems to have been both much more aggressive and a bit more imaginative than his #2 Beauregard, who assumed full command after his death. Albert Johnston was another example of a highly respected senior commander who had defected to the south and was the highest ranked general to die in combat on either side. It is probable his early death hurt the Confederacy more than most, though hard to say if it would have made a serious difference. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/27 "2018-07-28T21:06:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > McClellan wasn’t completely inept. He had a lot of good military skills. The problem was he lacked the ability to commit to a battle, which was a fatal flaw. But his competence in other areas made it difficult to see this flaw. Armies, after all, didn’t fight battles every day. > > So McClellan was a good general ninety-nine percent of the time and a bad general one percent of the time. The problem was that the one percent he was bad at was the most important one percent of being a general. I read somewhere that McClellan took to heart the deaths of his soldiers to an unhealthy (healthy?) level. Therefore, he wanted to make absolutely sure that before committing them to their deaths, he was in the absolute correct tactical and strategic position before acting. The end result was that he always waited too long and got more of his men killed than necessary. He should have captured Richmond during the Peninsula Campaign in 1862. Indeed he was within sight of Richmond until Lee took over and shook his nerve. Lee should have been destroyed at Antietam. He was outnumbered 2-1 AND McClellan had found Special Order 191 which detailed Lee’s plans. But McClellan hesitated and sent his men in piecemeal to be slaughtered. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/28 "2018-07-28T22:57:37Z")
I’ve always thought that McClellan’s failure wasn’t really his - or not all of it - but of the organization in which he was a part. Simply put, he was a brilliant management General but not a great field General. If the union had the imagination to say early in the war, “George, your talents lie it getting a group of dumbasses trained, supplied and ready to fight. Do that here in Washington City. When you say they’re ready, you’ll hand them off to whichever field general - Meade, Grant, Whomever depending on the theatre - and we’ll get you a new batch to do your magic on.” things might have done differently. Different people have different talents. But circumstance forced a square peg of McClelland into a round home of ‘He’s a general. He can do it all.’ that just didn’t work. As for Grant and his superior numbers perhaps being responsible for his reputation as a field General? Grant was the one with the vision to finally say, “Fuck this. This has gone on long enough. I’m going to end thing thing if I have to bury the south in bodies to do it. I’m coming straight at Lee so he can’t respond. Cump, you march to Savannah and stop the south’s ability to prosecute the war.” That’s not ‘rep by numbers’, that’s realistically seeing your advantages and using them. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2018, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/29 "2018-07-28T23:13:50Z")
> [@Jim\_s\_Son](#): > > Grant started to war as a civilian, Sherman had a nervous breakdown earlier. > [@William Tecumseh Sherman](#): > > General Grant is a great general. I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always. I’ve often thought that’s one of the most human and realistic comments about army camaraderie you can find. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/30 "2018-07-29T00:54:13Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > As for Grant and his superior numbers perhaps being responsible for his reputation as a field General? Grant was the one with the vision to finally say, “Fuck this. This has gone on long enough. I’m going to end thing thing if I have to bury the south in bodies to do it. I’m coming straight at Lee so he can’t respond. Cump, you march to Savannah and stop the south’s ability to prosecute the war.” > > That’s not ‘rep by numbers’, that’s realistically seeing your advantages and using them. As summarised by Grant: > [@General Grant](#): > > I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer. Which I always thought was a P. G. Wodehouse line, since he quoted it frequently. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/31 "2018-07-29T01:19:29Z")
I agree with much of what **Elvis, JB99** and **Little Nemo** have written. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > …An alternate history idea - Lee is offered the command of the US forces before Fort Sumter and the secession of Virginia, and once committed to the Union side, Lee remains with the Union even after secession. Lee was so talented that he might have won the war for the U.S. before Lincoln had been able create the fragile political consensus that let him issue the Emancipation Proclamation - meaning slavery would persist, and perhaps lead to another war in a generation or two. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/32 "2018-07-29T01:21:26Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Even Grant and Sherman had to learn on the fly. For example they were both responsible for getting caught with their pants down at Shiloh. Though their talent shined through and they eventually partially redeemed themselves in the latter stages of the battle, that initial failure to properly watch for the enemy was very nearly disastrous… An early Grant biographer tried to put the best face on this, saying that yes, Grant was surprised at Shiloh, but he _expected_ to be surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/33 "2018-07-29T01:39:10Z")
Shiloh was the Civil War opposite of the Spanish Inquisition, then? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/34 "2018-07-29T01:45:01Z")
You have to admit that P.G.T. Beauregard was probably the coolest general officer name in the war on either side. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/35 "2018-07-29T02:05:34Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > There were _six_. The famous one and another five brigadiers. Also four Johnsons, four Johnstons, and five Jones. Not a terribly diverse lot ;). > > . There was an American general named Jefferson Davis. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/36 "2018-07-29T02:49:17Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > I’ve always thought that McClellan’s failure wasn’t really his - or not all of it - but of the organization in which he was a part. > > Simply put, he was a brilliant management General but not a great field General. If the union had the imagination to say early in the war, “George, your talents lie it getting a group of dumbasses trained, supplied and ready to fight. Do that here in Washington City. When you say they’re ready, you’ll hand them off to whichever field general - Meade, Grant, Whomever depending on the theatre - and we’ll get you a new batch to do your magic on.” things might have done differently. > > Different people have different talents. But circumstance forced a square peg of McClelland into a round home of ‘He’s a general. He can do it all.’ that just didn’t work. > > As for Grant and his superior numbers perhaps being responsible for his reputation as a field General? Grant was the one with the vision to finally say, “Fuck this. This has gone on long enough. I’m going to end thing thing if I have to bury the south in bodies to do it. I’m coming straight at Lee so he can’t respond. Cump, you march to Savannah and stop the south’s ability to prosecute the war.” > > That’s not ‘rep by numbers’, that’s realistically seeing your advantages and using them. Totally belied by his results in the opening days of the war. The reason he was in Washington, D.C. was because he had obtained good results in the field in western Virginia. He was a perfectly fine field commander, as long as he wasn’t given time to second-guess himself. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/37 "2018-07-29T03:11:06Z")
Did he have independent command authority in those early situations, or was he subordinated to a superior? It can make a psychological difference if you’re following orders, as opposed to acting on your own. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/38 "2018-07-29T03:31:13Z")
Winfield Scott was the commanding General of the United States Army in 1861. Old, fat, and unable to sit on a horse he was competent but in no way a field general. In any case, Lincoln replaced him after Bull Run. With McClellan. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/39 "2018-07-29T03:38:11Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Did he have independent command authority in those early situations, or was he subordinated to a superior? > > It can make a psychological difference if you’re following orders, as opposed to acting on your own. Pretty much independent, IIRC. He was in command of the Department of Ohio, and I believe pretty much took direction only from Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott, the general-in-chief of the United States Army. His actions in Grafton, Phillipi and Rich Mountain were taken on his own initiative, to protect the vital Baltimore & Ohio RR. At the time, he was one of the second highest-ranking officers in the Army (Maj. Gen.), behind only the general-in-chief. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2018, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726/40 "2018-07-29T03:43:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Winfield Scott was the commanding General of the United States Army in 1861. Old, fat, and unable to sit on a horse he was competent but in no way a field general. In any case, Lincoln replaced him after Bull Run. With McClellan. What is your point? Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott was the general-in-chief of the United States Army. That person would never be expected to lead an army in battle. His plan for winning the war (derisively dubbed the “Anaconda Plan” by detractors) was almost exactly the strategy which eventually won the war: split the rebels by winning the Mississippi, while strangling them of supply along the coasts. Of all the generals the Union had, Scott was probably one of the best. But he did have some idiosyncracies of his own, and he wasn’t dynamic enough to hold his position in the chain of decision-making. As a result, he got routinely bypassed by members of the Cabinet, by his junior officers, and by the President. His replacement by McClellan, or someone else with verve and elan, was probably inevitable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-generals-union-got-better-ones-time-went-on/818726.md?page=3)