In an ongoing effort to shamelessly steal amusing ideas from other people (in this case Keith Harris at Cosmic America), I ask you … who would you rather have on your side?
Now, Keith gave a choice obvious to many people: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. I think it’s time to test the boundaries here. So I give you the following choices:
1. George H. Thomas or James Longstreet
2. Frederick Douglass or Martin Delany
3. JEB Stuart or Phil Sheridan
4. William T. Sherman or Nathan Bedford Forrest
5. Clara Barton or Anna Dickinson
Have fun.
1)James Longstreet
2) Frederick Douglass
3)JEB Stuart
4)In a bar fight, Nathan Bedford Forrest. On a military campaign William T. Sherman
5)Clara Barton
Thomas,Douglas,Sheridan,but I’d watch my back,Forrest,Barton
1. Thomas. I don’t like treason and loyalty’s important.
2. Delany. I like guys who are into “doing” and not just “talking”. Delany signed up the first chance he had for military service, knowing what the other side would do to him if he was ever captured. The other guy got the rep.
3. Sheridan. See 1, above. And yes, I’m a believer in the Wittenberg take on “Little Phil”, but he made it out of Yellow Tavern and the other guy didn’t.
4. Sherman. See 1, above. Capturing Atlanta, Georgia and the Carolinas beats the pants off some Hollywood histrionics and beating up on Sam Sturgis. And for our Southern Heritage friends who think Cump indulged in “atrocities”, take a closer look at Fort Pillow.
5. Barton. But I’d take either one for the job, I guess.
John has basically expressed my thinking on the question. My feeling on the Barton – Dickinson choice is similar to what he wrote about the Delany – Douglas choice. Barton seems more like a doer than Dickinson, who just seems like a really impressive talker, though my knowledge of her is limited.
Sherman trumps Forrest, obviously.
IMO Sheridan trumps Stuart.
I think the Thomas-Longstreet comparison is the real interesting one. A good case can be made either way.
I’ll pass on the other two.
Longstreet
Delaney
Sheridan
Sherman
Barton
Since my side is the North, in 1864 I’d rather have Grant as his style would work better with the type of forces in play at that point. In 1861-2 I’d prefer Lee as he could probably have brought victory for the North more quickly. Other than that I’m with Charles Lovejoy.
Mark, me being a southerner , or even if I was a northerner at the time , I would pick Grant over all the rest if he had of been on the list.
Thomas
Douglass
Stuart
Sherman
Barton
Longstreet
Douglas
Sheridan
Forrest vs Sherman? That’s a tough one. Depends on what I’d be doing.
Barton.
Holy cow. I didn’t realize Delaney helped the red shirts grab power in 1876. The guy was a real loose cannon wasn’t he?
What?? No mention of Garry Howatt, Mick Vukota, Billy Smith or Gillies. I’ll take them anyday.
Smitty would definitely “bring the lumber”.
Thomas – better at operations planning possibly and not as undermining a colleague probably
Douglass – cared less about Africa and would be a great spokesperson for me
Stuart – could be trusted to get the job done and would be impressive social company
Forrest – I agree with others. It probably depends on what you’re doing, but Forrest could do a lot
Dickinson – she must have been something, a gifted, outspoken orator and not afraid to climb a mountain that people still die climbing today
In addition I’d also take Beauregard over McClellan.
I’d take Bory’s horse over McClellan. Among other things they wouldn’t have let it on board the Galena during the fighting at Glendale and it couldn’t operate whatever calculator Mac was using to inflate the Rebs to 200,000.
Testing The Boundaries
Longstreet
Samuel L. Jackson
Sheridan
Sherman
Angie Dickinson
Bummer
Angie for sure. She defined “it” in her day.
1. Both men were like rocks but with George H. Thomas its meant in a good way
2. Frederick Douglass
3. JEB Stuart for Calvary Corps leader Phil Sheridan – everything else
4. William T. Sherman – except in a bar fight or a gun duel
5. I prefer a young Angie Dickinson but will settle for Barton
1. The Rock of Chickamauga is a solid, unmovable object on the low post: he’s my power forward.
2. Douglass: veteran presence and locker room respect earned the hard way: a great center.
3. JEB is mobile and creative- put him at small forward.
4. I like a 2 guard who is crafty and can maneuver: give me Uncle Billy.
5. Clara is a selfless organizer: a perfect 1 guard.
Can I have Mahone as my sixth man coming off the bench?
Would you take the Rock over Stonewall Jackson?
1. Thomas. He was a steady and generally successful commander, probably underrated due to being overshadowed by Grant and Sherman then sent off to Nashville where he was nearly relieved due to misunderstanding. One wonders how things might’ve turned out if Thomas had taken over for Buell before or after Perryville. His lackadaisical performance at Perryville seems the only serious blemish on his war record.
I feel that Longstreet is overrated. He delivered a number of bad performances: Seven Pines, Gettysburg, Suffolk, Knoxville. In the past his delays at Second Bull Run would also go on this list, but I think Hennessey has sufficiently justified Longstreet’s actions in that battle. His biggest success was the attack at Chickamauga, but it’s role in smashing the army was luck: he did not know his attack would hit a gap in the Union line. His performances at Glendale, Antietam, or Fredericksburg were fine but nothing noteworthy. He wasn’t involved in the fighting at First Bull Run, was absent for Chancellorsville, and missed nearly the entire Overland Campaign after his friendly-fire wounding at Wilderness. Lee seems to have had great confidence in him but I have yet to be impressed.
3. Stuart. He was tardy at Gettysburg, but otherwise did an outstanding job with outnumbered cavalry until his death. Sheridan was one of the best Union cavalry commanders, but that’s not saying much. I think too many people remember Yellow Tavern and not enough people remember Trevilian Station.
4. Sherman. He was a man to command an army. Forrest was a very talented cavalry raider but nothing more.
How about Thomas vs Stonewall?
Thomas and Stonewall seem to be very different styles despite the similiar nicknames. Off the top of my head they are Montgomery and Patton: the former usually methodical and patient, the latter aggressive and daring (and eccentric). Of course, Thomas didn’t have Monty’s ego. (Monty-Patton and Longstreet-Jackson might be some interesting comparisons.)
Jackson had an important performance at Manassas, had a near mutiny in his early Shenandoah/Romney command, screwed up at Kernstown, marched and fought very well the rest of the Valley campaign, was awful in the Seven Days (but at this point it seems accepted that Stonewall was probably absurdly sleep deprived), his lines were endangered at Fredericksburg, he was outstanding at Second Bull Run, did well at Antietam, and outstanding at Chancellorsville. He also seemed to strike fear in his opponents.
I think Jackson was the kind of general Lee was happy to have because they shared that daring, aggressive, ignore-the-odds style. Too much risk-taking for my blood; I’m not gambler. So I would personally prefer the steadier Thomas, but I’d expect most people to prefer Jackson.
I wonder if the Confederate general who best compares to Thomas was Joe Johnston? Johnston had more political issues (including perpetual conflict with Jeff Davis) and at times was definitely too timid. But were their positions reversed I see Thomas also making a series of delaying actions in retreat then striking when opportunity presented itself.
Well, Stonewall actually didn’t do all that well from a tactical standpoint in the rest of the ’62 Valley Campaign – see McDowell and Port Republic. He also screwed up at Cedar Mountain. He screwed up at Brawner’s Farm. And he screwed up on Day 2 of Second Bull Run when he failed to exploit the fruits of Longstreet’s attack on the Union left. As for the Seven Days, I don’t subscribe to the notion that his poor performance was solely attributable to sleep deprivation – even if it were, anybody that incapable of exercising command had a duty to report it to his commanding officer and arrange for substitution. A lot of the problems that week were suspiciously similar to his consistent tactical failings elsewhere.
I don’t think Jackson’s troops were in much of a condition to exploit Longstreet’s sweeping success at Second Bull Run. They’d been fending off attacks all along the line for two days (some of which threatened breakthroughs), and I think many were running out of ammunition. Longstreet’s attack should’ve swept like a wave but it lost coherency even before it hit Chinn Ridge.
I agree that Jackson should have relinquished command temporarily to get some rest. That he did not is an example of a serious shortcoming on his part: his secretive (thus presumably untrusting) nature and an inability or unwillingness to recognize his limits. A NPS ranger at Chancellorsville last year shared a theory I had not previously heard: Jackson probably already had the first stages of pneumonia when he was accidentally shot, and might well have died from it even if he hadn’t been shot. That he made no mention of it and didn’t make any efforts to shift command temporarily to a subordinate would be right in line with his behavior at the Seven Days.
Was it Frank O’Reilly? I ask because the new issue of Blue & Gray features the first of two articles by Frank on Chancellorsville. In the article he notes that Jackson had come down with some sort of “cold” on May 2 and apparently was running a fever during the flank march. i had not heard that previously. You raise valid questions about the state of Jackson’s troops on Day 2 of 2BR but I’m still persuaded by John Hennessy’s critique. It certainly was consistent with Jackson’s repeated tactical shortcomings.
I somewhat agree about Longstreet. Lee knew him best and had a high regard for him, but when out West he did nothing – nor did he accomplish much as an independent commander anywhere. His post Civil war nattering about “fighting on the defensive” during the Gettysburg always struck me as BS – exactly HOW was Lee to do this.
Like many good Corps Commanders, that was as high as he could go. Not that Longstreet thought that. People never give Lee enough credit for working with a bunch of unstable, cantankerous, eccentric, Corps Commanders and getting them to work together and fight for him.
1. Thomas. Although the better question would be Thomas or Jackson?
2. Delaney
3. Sheridan.
4. Sherman
5. Barton
George H. Thomas
Frederick Douglass
Phil Sheridan
William T. Sherman
Clara Barton
I always want winners on my team. We should really play Fantasy Civil War generals and have a draft and everything.
I second Barb’s choices.
Somewhere (CWT?) there was a piece describing the major CW cmmanders, north and south, as if they were baseball prospects – pretty funny stuff…
For those looking to go from one level of competition to another, how about the following:
1. Williams or Sumner?
2. Cambridge or Grant?
3. Pennefather or Sherman?
4. Paulet or Thomas?
5. Scarlett or Sheridan?
6. Milne or Farragut?
Best,
Speaking of voting on choices, Kevin Levin informs us that Grant was just voted Person of the Year 1863 at the Museum of the Confederacy… (Jackson did come in second, however.)
http://cwmemory.com/2013/02/23/ulysses-s-grant-poty1863/
1. Thomas. He may not have been flashiest but he was the surest. Longstreet was a damn good corps commander, led what were arguably the 4 greatest Infantry assaults of the war (2d Manassas, Gettysburg, Chickamauga and Brock Road) but he suffered in independent command (see Suffolk & Knoxville) and was the only Confederate general to lose to Burnside!
2. Delany. As has already been said, he put his life in harm’s way. Douglass did great things but as an old Infantry officer I will always tip my hat to one who places their hand in the air and volunteers to fight for their country.
3. Phil Sheridan, hands down. Stuart was very good as a cavalryman and did a yeoman’s service stepping in when Jackson went down. But again he was always within Lee’s orbit. Sheridan may have done poorly at Trevilian’s Station but that was Wade Hampton, not Stuart. And it is hard not to appreciate the Sheridan of the Slaughter Pen, Missionary Ridge and Cedar Creek.
4. Cump Sherman. Grant basically could ignore what happened west of the Alleghenies once he came East. How well did Forrest do on independent command at that level of responsibility?
5. Clara Barton. I have been married to a nurse for 25 years. That’s easy to answer.
1. Thomas, because sometimes it’s harder to make the right decision (for him, staying loyal to the US rather than Virginia).
2. Douglass, because he was more devoted to improving things here in the US, and he had cooler hair.
3. Sheridan, because my best man was a feisty little guy like him. But he barely edges out Stuart, the Haunted Tank’s “guardian ghost” (from DC Comics’ G.I. Combat).
4. Sherman, hands down, because my great-great-grandfather would never forgive me if I chose a KKK founder over his commanding general.
5. Barton, because a nurse is better to have around than an orator, and she’s better looking.
My answer to number 5 is Mary Ellen McClellan. Any gal who had that many guys after her must have been something else.