The Frustration of Studying the Civil War

Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest

       Someone recently called my attention to a Civil War talk board online that mentioned a youtube video I posted several years ago. You would be surprised at some of the names I was called because some of these people didn't agree with my ranking of the Confederate lieutenant generals. If they had bothered to read the introduction they would have learned that I made the video just for fun and to spark some discussion, but now I've learned that I'm an idiot. The computer reminds me of the same people who drive automobiles. Behind a keyboard or a steering wheel it seems many of us become something we wouldn't be in person. If someone doesn't agree with your opinion, then you must be an idiot. It can't possibly be that they are the idiot, that would destroy the perfect world they've created in their own minds. 

       Is there no such of thing as friendly discussion with rational arguments anymore? After further study of my subject, I can honestly say I don't agree any longer with the way I have some of them ranked. One person called me an idiot because I didn't include General Beauregard in the list. It doesn't matter that Beauregard was never ranked as a lieutenant general, but was promoted from brigadier general to full general skipping the ranks of major general and lieutenant general, but of course, I'm the idiot. 

       In my "for fun" video, I ranked Stonewall Jackson as the best lieutenant general. Most people agreed with that choice, but after that I really rankled some feathers. I was attacked because I ranked Bedford Forrest second. The reason given was because Forrest wasn't promoted to lieutenant general until March 2, 1865 and this person called me an idiot for ranking him second when he only served as lieutenant general for a month and that isn't enough time to see how well he commanded at the corps level. What this genius fails to realize is the fact that Forrest had been commanding a cavalry corps since 1863 without having been promoted. Just because he wasn't ranked a lieutenant general, didn't mean he wasn't an excellent corps commander for two years. When he was promoted, his position as corps commander never changed, so why can we not judge him on his corps leadership ability for those two years. 

       The one that always gets peoples feathers ruffled is James Longstreet. Ever since the movie Gettysburg came out, he has been claimed by many people to be the greatest commander of the war. In this country today, all it takes is a fictional movie based on a fictional novel to change peoples perception of someone. Longstreet obviously fits this category. If I had a nickel for every time someone watched that movie and told me that Lee would have won at Gettysburg if he'd just listened to Longstreet. The move Longstreet proposed was expected by Meade and he was just itching to retreat to a better position on Pipe Creek. Without cavalry present (Jeb Stuart was off on a useless raid) it would have been almost impossible to perform the flanking move without Stuart's cavalry screen. Another question I have about Longstreet is why he made the move he made in Knoxville, Tennessee later the same year. On November 9, 1863, Longstreet assaulted Fort Sanders with around 3000 men. The fort only held a little over 400 Federal troops, yet the attack was a disaster. Longstreet lost over 800 men compared to just 13 Federal casualties he inflicted. Instead of responding as General Lee would have done and took the blame, he immediately began to emulate Braxton Bragg by arresting his subordinates. The mark of a true leader is when he takes the blame for his mistakes.

       If I had the video to make over, I'm sure there are several I would reorder. I ranked Jubal Early high because of his advance to the outskirts of Washington and Wade Hampton because of I felt he was an excellent cavalry corps commander especially his Beefsteak Raid. S.D. Lee I feel like I may have ranked too high. He made a severe mistake at Ezra Chruch and failed Hood at Columbia, Tennessee, however he helped save the army during the Battle of Nashville. I perhaps ranked Richard Heron Anderson low because of how he allowed his staff to run his forces. There were times when he acted like he had little interest in the war. Hardee is perhaps ranked too low because he was called "Ole Reliable," however he was the biggest back biter in the army. He undermined all of his superiors including Sidney Johnston, Braxton Bragg, Joseph Johnston, and John Bell Hood. However, when offered command of the army, he refused the responsibility. 

       Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of A.P. Hill, but he was often rash, just look at his actions at Bristoe Station. He was impulsive and got a lot of good men killed by his aggressiveness. He can be compared to the way General Hood is often perceived. The lieutenant general in my personal opinion that I believe should be ranked in the top five is D.H. Hill. He only saw action as a corps commander at Chickamauga was the reason I ranked him low, but he was a dependable commander and if he didn't suffer from chronic back pain which left him extremely sarcastic to subordinates and superiors alike he may have reached his true potential. He became so rude to others that General Lee was happy to see his dependable subordinate transferred to Bragg's army.

       I won't go into all the lieutenant generals that I listed. The full generals were listed in another video and I didn't rank them with the officers that only reached the rank of lieutenant general. If people would slow down long enough to read the descriptions of the videos before they decide to attack someone, they may find there is little reason to become so upset and insult others.