There were no Great Generals in the US Civil War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHJK5XfTom4

The debate in recent years about monuments to the great heroic generals of the Civil War, blah blah blah, reminds me that there were no great commanding generals on either side in the Civil War. There were winners and losers to be sure, and officers on the side of right and the side of wrong who did their duty well. But as to battlefield tactics, battle plans and strategy both military and political…nope! No American Sun Tzus at work in that stupid war; which is my first point.

The CSA should have surrendered before it started. Their military situation was obviously hopeless. Vastly outnumbered and outgunned in every possible way, bottled up by an unbreakable blockade; anyone with any common sense had to know it was a lost cause already. It appears they had no military strategy for the impossible task of defeating the US Army & Navy juggernaut so it must have been political, to wit: Knowingly sacrifice enough men to inflict enough pain to weary “the people” of the USA of war. Like Islamic Jihad.

Discrediting the greatness of Southern generals is the fact that not only did they ultimately lead the CSA to defeat, but their few glorious successes consisted of fighting a defensive war on their home turf and avoiding defeat. In the age of modernized canon and WMDs, with greater mobility the Rebels made any incursion painful for the Union. In reality though Lee and company lost in nearly every encounter. They were bleeding out the whole time. Lee was no genius. He did ok parrying a bunch of nobodies but as soon as he went on the offensive he lost badly to a nobody named Meade, who never earned the title of great. Knowing he couldn’t win at Gettysburg Lee charged ahead anyway. And the war in the East afterward was simply a suffocating relentless retreat.

There is some argument for “Wrong-way” Longstreet, who is rarely eulogized anyway. Stonewall Jackson a raving god-warrior marched right into his own men who killed him. A few notable cavalry generals are revered but they too were overrated according to the won/lost column. They were plantation owners and accomplished horsemen who in reality spent most of their time riding around or away and not achieving much in the way of military objectives. The acclaimed Nathan Bedford Forrest made his name by successful surprise attack and retreat, but he never threatened any meaningful victory.

The US military was lead by a succession of pathetic generals culminating in Grant. McClellan who was pro-south could probably have ended the war in two months but did nothing. And not one after him, despite huge advantages, made any winning move for two years topped off by Meade allowing Lee to escape at Gettysburg and prolonging the war for two more years. Yikes!

Sherman is perhaps the most undeserving of all Civil War generals to be called great. He inflicted massive never-forgotten misery and punishment upon defenceless civilians when the war was essentially over, with his “heroic” March to the Sea and up the east coast burning and pillaging. He’s near the top of the worst guy list.

Its harder to assess the quality of Union generals like Sheridan who performed great feats against no opposition, or vastly outnumbered, depleted, starving exhausted Confederates. They didn’t pull any rabbits out of a hat.

The smartest general, if not great, was US (Unconditional Surrender) Grant who just sought to stalk and engage the enemy at every point so as to eventually overwhelm him; Mike Tyson style. Which is what he did out West and then in Virginia. He had many more casualties than his adversaries but they simply couldn’t replace the losses and he could. This included supplies, horses and everything else. Grant recognized that he was unbeatable in a war of attrition, hardly battlefield wizardry. Charge, lose 5,000 men. Charge the next day and lose 5,000 more. And Lee loses 3,000 each day. Game over.

A major problem with generals down thru the ages is that weapons and armament technology are constantly outstripping tactics. In the Civil War soldiers, regiments, were marched headlong into grapeshot and canister from canon, repeating rifles and pistols.

Great generals are imaginative, resourceful and resilient. They know when to fight and when not to. They’ve got to know their limitations. But mostly great generals are guys who win because they have superior forces and firepower and use them. Patton was a great general. He had every advantage and he took every advantage. So too Alexander, Napoleon, Cesar and anyone else you can name.

I wrote a song about the futility of the Lost Cause and General Hood perhaps the least great of any general in the war.