tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744768872499365778.post5534828356740821460..comments2023-04-27T05:28:48.949-05:00Comments on Thoughts, Essays, and Musings on the Civil War: The Lost Cause and American HistoryBobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05632564881164776088noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744768872499365778.post-14890904734033618102012-09-09T09:06:34.921-05:002012-09-09T09:06:34.921-05:00Bob,
Thanks for the prompt response and enlighten...Bob,<br /><br />Thanks for the prompt response and enlightened viewpoint. I will agree that the eastern theater does grab the most attention at the expense of the western theater. I will also agree that it was in the western theater that the war was won. It was there that the Confederacy was fighting at a geographical disadvantage also. <br /><br />There's no doubt that Bragg was probably one of the worst of the generals the South fielded in it's team ( Leonidas Polk and Earl Van Dorn are in this group) but, if he were to be compared to some of the generals fielded by the Union in the western theater you cannot say Bragg was worse.<br /><br />Three come to mind that were army commanders. Don Carlos Buell threw away a potentially decisive Union victory at Perryville and had to settle for a tactical draw as Bragg had to retreat in order to save his command from possible annihilation by the ever increasing Union reinforcements. A few months earlier Buell was incredibly slow in reaching Pittsburg Landing during the battle of Shiloh yet had the gall to claim it was his command that saved the day for the Union.<br /><br />Soon after Perryville Buell was replaced by William Rosecrans. "Old Rosy" managed a very close victory over Bragg at Stones River but was later decisively defeated by Bragg at Chickamuga. Soon after this battle Rosecrans was replaced by the Virginian George H.Thomas.<br /><br />Henry Halleck is another one that belongs in this list of Union commanders who were failures in the field. His snail paced advance into Corinth with an army twice the size facing his allowed P. G. T. Beauregard to escape unharmed.<br /><br />It was not until after Rosecrans was removed and Grant was brought back into active command that we see Bragg finally removed from the scene in the west by his defeat at battle of Chattanooga. All the while Bragg had been in command two commanders had been removed after battles with the Southerner. <br /><br />If we are to look at other theaters of battle there are numerous Union commanders who were disasters and certainly worse than Bragg. There's the political generals Franz Sigel, Benjamin Butler and Nathaniel Banks for starters. Add to this list Ambrose Burnside and you have four commanders of Union corps and armies that make Bragg look like a Napoleon. Generals MacClellan and Hooker were also two Union generals who were geniuses in their own mind but failed to prove it when called upon in the field. If we are to look at these two generals performance without bias they failed as badly as Bragg did.<br /><br />Jack Torrance <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744768872499365778.post-79226119385227637302012-09-06T09:22:22.860-05:002012-09-06T09:22:22.860-05:00Jack,
Thanks again for your kind words. However, ...Jack,<br /><br />Thanks again for your kind words. However, your comment regarding the superiority of Southern generalship and soldiers demands a reply. That viewpoint is very common and typically results from a myopic view that only sees Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, and the Army of Northen Virginia.<br /><br />If one looks at the bigger picture and takes in both major theaters of the war, the view changes substantially. The South lost the war in the West and that is where Union generalship and Union soldiering were far superior. As for generals, you have Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, McPherson, and Thomas coming from the West. Add them to Winfield Scott Hancock from the Army of the Potomac, and they easily match or even exceed the capabilities of Southern commanders, who, frankly, once you get past the three I mentioned above were either average, mediocre, or worse (Bragg for example).<br /><br />The Union soldiers of the West were reknown for their ability to move quickly, march hundreds of miles, and then fight effectively. Their abilities, combined with generalship, is one reason that the Confederate armies of the Western Theater were victorious in only a single major battle during the entire war (Chickamauga).Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05632564881164776088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3744768872499365778.post-22895415155979689872012-09-06T06:01:24.901-05:002012-09-06T06:01:24.901-05:00Bob,
I agree with your overall thesis. The South ...Bob,<br /><br />I agree with your overall thesis. The South has been portrayed as David fighting the giant Goliath but, in this instance, the noble David lost. In many ways I agree with this interpretation as the South was an industrial midget when compared to the North's and in population it was fighting at least at a two to one disadvantage.On the other hand there's really little doubt that, when it came to generalship, the South was superior and the southern soldier was in many ways also superior to his northern foe. <br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Jack Torrance Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com