Worst Confederate General

[River of Death]

I can't believe no one has done this one before.

Note that there is no 'other' option, please pick the worst General from this list. (Also, according to some, a few people on here should be close to the best General - it's a matter of opinion).

 

[Nytram01]

Of your list I think Braxton Bragg is most deserving of this title but if I had an other option I would say Hood.

I dont suffer from Bragg syndrome if thats what your thinking, I just think that he was not cut out for Army command. With somebody above him who could grab him by the shoulders, push him in the right direction and tell him exactly what was needed to be done Bragg was very good but when making those decisions himself he was very poor. He also managed to allienate every general in the AoT, failed to build on any victory his got, failed to take advantage of any situation he found himself in the advantagous position in and was instrumental in John Bell Hood gaining command of the AoT in the Atlanta Campaign, being both the man who recomended Johnstons removal and strongly supported Hood as Joe's replacement. Bragg was a good trainer of men and a strict diciplinarian but he was unimaginative and incapable of creating a good working environment for the soldiers and generals under his command.

James Longstreet was an extremely good corps commanders. As a corps commander his showed a ability to look at battle situation and persieve the best way to fight the battle but at times he also had a sour disposition and was prone to argue with his commanding officers when he thought he was in the right. In the few chances that he got for individual command he showed a lack of drive and a lack of immagination but when he was under the command of Lee, and at Chickamauga, he showed enough enthuisasm and talent that he is still considered to be one of the best generals of the war and one who should should have gotten a commandof an Army but didn't.

Joe Johnston's effectiveness was hampered by his relationship with the Confederate President who didn't like him and dissagreed with his idea on how the war should be fought. Joe Johnstons saw the preservation of the Confederate fighting force as essential for the preservation of the confederacy while Davis believed that keeping hold of important cities and forts at any cost as being paramount for Confederate Survival. Basically Joe believed that as long as the Confederates could still effectively oppose the Union with a stong presence of men in the field then the North would grow tired of the conflict and sue for peace while Davis believed that he had to force the north to sue for peace by defeating its armies. On the defensive, as he proved in the Altanta campaign, there was no other Confederate General able to equal him, with perhaps the exception of Longstreet but thats a matter of opinion, but he was not agressive like Bragg of Hood (agressive but bad) and as such was not one of Davis favorites.

In summary of these three; Longstreet was a great corps commander but proved ineffective in the few chances at individual command he got, Bragg was a good corps commander but a disaster as an army commander and bad as Davis military advisor while Joe Johnston was a good army commander but through lack of agression as well as his poor relation with the Confederate President he failed to reach his full effectiveness.

On a side note of the three Union General that I consider the best of the conflict (Grant, Sherman and Thomas) we know of the opinion of Joe Johnston as a general from two of them. (We know nothing of Thomas' opinions on anything as he destroyed his own war notes because he didn't want his life "hawked in print for the eyes of the curious"). Sherman regarded Joe Johnston as a good general and a "sensible man who only did sensible things" and Grant counted him as one of the few Confederate generals he had any respect for.

 

[jmberry]

Braxton Bragg by a longshot.

 

[67th Tigers]

It's a tossup between three men, from the maths I've run so far. These three men are Bragg, Hood and Jackson.

Bragg is the easiest to "pardon" out of the lot of them. He's usually facing Buell, Rosecrans or Thomas who are prettymuch the three best Union generals. When facing Grant the two seem roughly evenly matched.

Hood is frankly useless, although again, the main sample used is Nashville, where he's facing Thomas.

Jackson will surprise many, but he is a consistently ineffective General. Indeed, Jackson at Cedar Mountain scores the worst command multiplier I've yet to encounter.

Notably, these three are the three Confederate Generals covered in Wood's "Civil War Generalship", one of the few books to compare ACW tactics to Napoleonic tactics and conclude they really had nothing in common.

Surprised Longstreet is there, he commanded the four best Confederate attacks of the war.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Bragg is the winner. But I must say that Hood should be on this list and Johnston should not.

 

[DMA]

I've got to say it's a toss-up between Bragg & Polk. Polk, after all, was responsible for the invasion of Kentucky, which ensured the Western Theatre was opened up, making defence of the CSA next to impossible. And the less said about Bragg the better...

 

[robertp6165]

I've got to say it's a toss-up between Bragg & Polk. Polk, after all, was responsible for the invasion of Kentucky, which ensured the Western Theatre was opened up, making defence of the CSA next to impossible. And the less said about Bragg the better...

Actually, out of those two, Polk was definitely the worst. He got my vote out of those on the list. The only reason his complete and total incompetence isn't more generally known is that he never had army command...he was always a subordinate, first to A. S. Johnston, then to Bragg, then to Joe Johnston. His superiors quite often get the blame for lost battles that, at their root, should be laid at Polk's feet. Bragg was definitely bad, but he did have SOME saving graces. He was a good organizer, and quite often his battle plans were sound, although the execution of them wasn't. Polk had none of those saving graces.

 

[DMA]

Actually, out of those two, Polk was definitely the worst. He got my vote out of those on the list. The only reason his complete and total incompetence isn't more generally known is that he never had army command...he was always a subordinate, first to A. S. Johnston, then to Bragg, then to Joe Johnston. His superiors quite often get the blame for lost battles that, at their root, should be laid at Polk's feet. Bragg was definitely bad, but he did have SOME saving graces. He was a good organizer, and quite often his battle plans were sound, although the execution of them wasn't. Polk had none of those saving graces.

No argument from me other than to add Polk did manage to get himself killed whilst Bragg didn't

 

[robertp6165]

It's a tossup between three men, from the maths I've run so far. These three men are Bragg, Hood and Jackson.

Bragg is the easiest to "pardon" out of the lot of them. He's usually facing Buell, Rosecrans or Thomas who are prettymuch the three best Union generals. When facing Grant the two seem roughly evenly matched.

Hood is frankly useless, although again, the main sample used is Nashville, where he's facing Thomas.

Jackson will surprise many, but he is a consistently ineffective General. Indeed, Jackson at Cedar Mountain scores the worst command multiplier I've yet to encounter.

Notably, these three are the three Confederate Generals covered in Wood's "Civil War Generalship", one of the few books to compare ACW tactics to Napoleonic tactics and conclude they really had nothing in common.

Surprised Longstreet is there, he commanded the four best Confederate attacks of the war.

Am I alone here, after reading this post, in seriously questioning 67th's sanity?

Whatever "command multiplier" you are using is seriously whacked if it says Buell, Rosecrans, and Thomas were among the best Union Generals, Jackson was among the worst Confederate generals, and Bragg was the equal of Grant! If that is the result you are getting from your "command multiplier," whatever that is, then it appears to be suffering from a serious case of G.I.G.O. Or maybe it's just good old fashioned B.S. Whichever is applicable.

You can twist statistics around to "prove" whatever point you want to make. There's a reason for the old saying about there being lies, damned lies, and statistics. Thank you for providing us all with a case study.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Where's Hood?

...Of those listed, I'd say Bragg. But Hood, definitely.

 

[DMA]

Where's Hood?

...Of those listed, I'd say Bragg. But Hood, definitely.

Hood is actually not that bad over all. Yes as army commander, he was dreadful, but as divisional, or even corps commander, he was rather good.

What I don't understand from the list of options is why Longstreet is listed

 

[Zyzzyva]

Hood is actually not that bad over all. Yes as army commander, he was dreadful, but as divisional, or even corps commander, he was rather good.

What I don't understand from the list of options is why Longstreet is listed

Granted, but Atlanta and Nashville kinda blow his reputation out of the water, in the same way that Fredricksburg all by its lonesome puts Burnside at the bottom of the Union list.

And I agree. Longstreet? Why?

 

[DMA]

Granted, but Atlanta and Nashville kinda blow his reputation out of the water, in the same way that Fredricksburg all by its lonesome puts Burnside at the bottom of the Union list.

Not that I disagree, but at least Hood did achieve much success at lower command levels, whereas Burnside didn't really achieve much of anything, success wise that is, save for some action early on in South Carolina IIRC.

And I agree. Longstreet? Why?

It would have been better to put Magruder or someone else as an option.

 

[BrianP]

I voted for Bragg, but lets not also forget Earl Van Dorn, who did not exactly die a hero's death...

 

[River of Death]

forgot to vote on my own poll until now.

In reply to various people:

I didn't include Hood for just that reason - that as a divisional commander in 1862 and 1863 he was superb, and proved instrumental in at least drawing (if not winning) Antietam and Gettysburg (btw, Happy 145th Anniversary, Gettysburg). And yes, Nashville was bad, but he was attacking and outnumbered (and he was being told to attack), so the results were predictable. Same thing at Atlanta. In fact, his first attack against Thomas almost succeeded......but one of his lower commanders failed to engage and Thomas brought up massed artilley just in time and did all of his heroics and saved the line.

Magruder or "someone else" were thrown into backwoods commands before they could do anything drastically bad.

Longstreet is on there almost for fun, but there is a crowd of people saything that he single-handedly lost Gettysburg, repeatedly made things difficult for Lee, under-performed at Chickamauga and Knoxville, and generally was a nuisance for becoming Republican during reconstruction (this crowd of people is headed by General Jubal Early...)

Johnston has been accused of being too cautious, and generally NOT in regards to the Atlanta campaign - more with the Peninsula campaign. He just seemed overall mediocre, and perhaps deserving of the title.

As for Jackson, !!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I favor Polk. His was the most global mistake, invading Kentucky. Unless Richmond or Washington actually fell early (highly unlikely) the war was going to be decided in the west, and so, due to river geography, the Confederacy is best off if Kentucky stays neutral as long as possible - then the Cumberland and Tennessee (and to a smaller extent, Mississippi) are not opened up, thus prolonging Vicksburg and Atlanta. Lee held his own (and then some) in the east; if the war could be not lost in the West, until November 1864 and/or foreign intervention, the Confederacy could win by not losing.

Polk went and destroyed that by invading Kentucky to get a good gun emplacement by the Mississippi River (which he was immediately outflanked of by Grant in Paducah). No short-term benefit and a lost war. Not even Lee-esque-Thomaslike-ReynoldsianASJohnstonian-etc.etc.etc. tactics in later battles could improve his reputation (which, incidently, he didn't have).

 

[Zyzzyva]

Personally I favor Polk. His was the most global mistake, invading Kentucky.

And Hood lost the west in a very similar manner, and he certainly wasn't Lee or Sherman in terms of generalship either. If you can vote for Polk you can at least add Hood.

 

[Nytram01]

I cirtainly wouldn't argue against Polk if the question was who made the worst decision of the war, his decision to invade Kentucky being the one in question, but he was not really in a position to do as much damage to an army as Bragg or Hood. Bragg destroyed the AoT as an effective fighting force by making it totally disfunctional and demoralised, Cleburne's division being an exception, while Hood lost more men in a shorter amount of time than any other general of the war that I know of.

What Bragg and Hood have in common is that they were both promoted above their levels of competance. Bragg's highest level of competance was corps command and Hood highest level of competance was division command. Also they both had the support of Davis but both proved terrible at Army command.

 

[River of Death]

And Hood lost the west in a very similar manner, and he certainly wasn't Lee or Sherman in terms of generalship either. If you can vote for Polk you can at least add Hood.

Not exactly. Polk was explicitly ordered NOT to move into Kentucky, but went and did it. Hood was implicitly ordered to attack, and as much and as soon as possible. As mentioned elsewhere, his attacks at Atlanta were good in conception, just not quite strong enough (and the victims of bad luck and Thomas' heroics). At Nashville......yeah, that was bad, but by this point the Confederates were trying anything. He again had the approval and good wishes of Jefferson Davis, and was outnumbered. I doubt that by this point even a Lee-Jackson combination in the west could have reversed the tide in the 'farther west' before Sherman could complete his various marches.

Furthermore, I neglected to include some of Polk's 'oversights' at Vicksburg. While Pemberton, Johnston, and Grant were still in the maneuvring stages, Polk had 2 opportunities to take his wing of 18,000 troops and crush down upon Union detachments of 10,000 troops, by surprise, and destroy one of Grant's wings. He neglected to do so, despite being explicitly ordered one of the times. Furthermore, in battle the day after that, without orders, he just off and took his wing away from the still-raging battle and retreated to the east, never coming to Pemberton's aid and leaving said gaping hole. Arguable he also mismanaged his wing at Chickamauga.

Hood, again by contrast, esentially single-handedly stopped the might of the Union XIIth, and half of the the Ist and IInd corps at Antietam/Sharpsburg, was the spearhead in the attack at 2nd Manassas/Bull Run, and at Gettysburg recognized before it happend the disaster waiting to happen in Devil's Den and related, appealed to Longstreet and Lee, was rebuked, and still went forward with determination and destroyed the left of the IIIrd corps, part of the arriving Vth corps, and damn near captured Little Round Top. (This without an arm and a leg.)

 

[Zyzzyva]

Not exactly. Polk was explicitly ordered NOT to move into Kentucky, but went and did it. Hood was implicitly ordered to attack, and as much and as soon as possible. As mentioned elsewhere, his attacks at Atlanta were good in conception, just not quite strong enough (and the victims of bad luck and Thomas' heroics). At Nashville......yeah, that was bad, but by this point the Confederates were trying anything. He again had the approval and good wishes of Jefferson Davis, and was outnumbered. I doubt that by this point even a Lee-Jackson combination in the west could have reversed the tide in the 'farther west' before Sherman could complete his various marches.

Furthermore, I neglected to include some of Polk's 'oversights' at Vicksburg. While Pemberton, Johnston, and Grant were still in the maneuvring stages, Polk had 2 opportunities to take his wing of 18,000 troops and crush down upon Union detachments of 10,000 troops, by surprise, and destroy one of Grant's wings. He neglected to do so, despite being explicitly ordered one of the times. Furthermore, in battle the day after that, without orders, he just off and took his wing away from the still-raging battle and retreated to the east, never coming to Pemberton's aid and leaving said gaping hole. Arguable he also mismanaged his wing at Chickamauga.

Hood, again by contrast, esentially single-handedly stopped the might of the Union XIIth, and half of the the Ist and IInd corps at Antietam/Sharpsburg, was the spearhead in the attack at 2nd Manassas/Bull Run, and at Gettysburg recognized before it happend the disaster waiting to happen in Devil's Den and related, appealed to Longstreet and Lee, was rebuked, and still went forward with determination and destroyed the left of the IIIrd corps, part of the arriving Vth corps, and damn near captured Little Round Top. (This without an arm and a leg.)

This is a poll, not the Tegytsurb channel. If you like Hood, fine, but give the rest of us the option of not liking him.

 

[Trotsky]

Nobody liked Braxton Bragg, not even Bragg himself. He fought himself when he was in the old army.