Conference smurf::civil_war

    For the supreme commanders it's easy.  Grant and Lee.  Grant for his
    willingness to fight, and Lee for his brilliant strategic abilities. 
    Both also had the charisma to command.
    
    Picking the lieutenant generals is gonna take me a while longer.
    
    -dick

    Sorry, I'll have to make it a bit tougher for you.  See, there won't be
    2 commanders.  You'll have to pick just one.  The U.S. is still one 
    entity, and Winfield Scott has decided to retire having recognized that
    his advancing age has caught up with his ability.  Who will it be?  And
    who will the 3 generals in charge of the 3 separate armies be?
    
    Ziff

    In making my choices i'm going to stick with what worked historically.
    For commander I choose Grant.  He demonstrated his ability to control
    the overall strategic situation like a well tuned violin.  As much as
    I admire Lee far more than Grant, he didn't hold that position long
    enough, and didn't have the proper resources to demonstrate his true
    ability in that position.  I'm not saying he would have failed, I'm
    just playing it safe with a proven commander.
    
    As far as army commanders go, Lee gets a definite nod from me.  In my
    personal opinion he proved his ability there far mor than any others.
    Sherman is another obvious choice for me.  The third slot is a tough
    one for me.  I'd have to go with Thomas because of his steadiness and
    resolution.  Sure, he was pretty methodical and calculating, but I've
    already picked two gunslingers.  Two hammers and one anvil.
    
    I'd love to go with a few others, paricularly with Albert Sidney 
    Johnston, Stonewall Jackson, and Nathaniel Banks, but I already set
    my criteria on proven experience.  Some may balk at Johnston, but I've
    read several studies that indicate that he may have had more ability
    than Lee: including statements to that effect by Lee himself.  Banks
    and Jackson both died before their stars could truly rise to show what
    they might have been.  I didn't include these three due to the examples
    of A. P. Hill, and Hood: both of whom were superb division commanders
    who didn't have what it took for the higher command levels.  If we
    hadn't seen what happened when they rose above their abilities we might
    have been saying "what if..." about them too.
    
    Ziff

    What on Earth was I thinking?!  In that last one all references to Banks
    should read Lyons.  Can anyone actually picture Banks in charge of a
    major army?  What a horror show THAT would be :-0!  As Slammer would
    say: "third shift foggies are setting in".
    
    Ziff

    Okay.
    
    Grant as CIC.  THis because, although Lee was probably more intellgent
    then Grant, the latter had more of the requisite bulldog tenacity.
    
    Sherman, Lee, and Hancock as lt gens.  I choose Hancock over all those
    who were superior to him on the basis of his seemingly magical ability
    to see a desperate situation and produce the correct response, even in
    the face of direct contravening orders.  Hancock, and Hancock alone, I
    think, turned Gettysburg into Union victory, and he did the same thing
    elsewhere.  I think, also, that had Hancock been under Grant's command
    earlier, Grant would have seen his quality and used him well.
    
    -dick

    
    
    	Speaking of "what if" potential...  What if Jeff Davis had
    continued his military career after Mexico.  What was his final
    rank (relative to Lee after Mexico)?  He might have had a good
    future with the Dream Team.
    
     2
    r
    

    
    Has anyone else noticed "fashions" among historians for the 
    vairious generals? For example, Lee was seen as the incomparable
    supreme exponent of the art of war among historians for long
    after the war. Grant was tagged with the "butcher" label for a
    long time, while Sherman was seen as the "war is hell" type of
    barbarian.
    
    Oddly, in Britain there was a reversed opinion with the two
    great historians Fuller and Liddell Hart opting for Grant
    and Sherman respectively. However, it probably wasn't until
    after WWII that Grant and Sherman were finally seen as
    anticipating the twentieth century in their strategy.
    Bruce Catton in particular did a lot to bolster Grant's
    reputation, but if you read Andrew McFeely's modern biography,
    it is generally unfavourable to Grant as a man and a
    general. This is possibly due to the hindsight afforded by
    Grant's disastrous presidency.
    
    However, I feel at the moment that Shelby Foote has stated a 
    fashion for Forrest, possibly because Lee is no longer
    seen as he once was. Personally I think Lee was far superior
    to Forrest as a man and a soldier.
    
    Even Lincoln's reputation has oscillated over issues like 
    Fort Sumter and the Emancipation Proclamation, however he
    deservedly still stands head and shoulders as the single
    most outstanding character of the war. However, I would
    put Grant, Lee and Sherman as major characters, with
    Jefferson Davis, Jackson and a host of others on the next
    rung. I'm not sure if I would put Forrest as high as 
    any of the names mentioned.
    
    In may dream team, I think you couldn't go wrong with:
    Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Phil Sheridan.
    
    Toby 
      

    
    I am somewhat surprised nobody seems to have even considered
    Longstreet. 
    
    Aaron.

    Longstreet is one of those I would like to consider, but in the
    criteria that I set for my choices (i.e. proven in that position)
    he didn't qualify.  My only concerns regarding him would be his
    hesitance to sieze the initiative when an opportunity presented
    itself, and his well known pouty attitude when people in authority
    disagreed with him.  Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favotites.
    
    Ziff 

    
    	Gawd! It looks like I've been gone to long! Somebody's got to
    straighten out ya'll yankee's!!!...... :^)
    
    	CIC, Robert E. Lee hands down. Look what he did with so little.
    Imagine what he could have done with the resources that Grant had.
    
    	Lt. Gen.'s, U.S. Grant, granted I agree, he had the bulldog
    tenacity, but with Lee's guidance, gawd what a weapon!
    	W.T. Sherman, I personally believe he won the war for the North.
    He tore the guts out of the Confederacy.
    	A.S. Johnston, does Shiloh ring a bell? I believe he was killed
    before he was able to show just how good he was. He certainly gave old
    Grant a run for his money.
    
    	I won't forget Longstreet either, granted he was a brilliant
    general, but he was suited more for a defensive, trench-type warfare
    position. He was ahead of his time, but, with old Longstreet covering
    my rear position, I'd feel right comfortable.
    
    	My shock troops, led by Stonewall Jackson and John Reynolds. Each
    general played a significant role in their time. Both wasted before
    their stars could truly be realized.
    
    	My ears and eyes. Without a doubt, Sheridan and Forrest. I don't
    believe that they need any further explanation on their capabilities.
    
    	I would match these fellows against anyone of that time period.
    
    			Just my $.02 worth.....
    
    					The Alabama Slammer

    What a great topic...
    
     If the C.I.C. was just going to be an organize and strategize type 
    leader, I would go with McClellan.  Not a great General when it came
    right down to fighting but, in building and getting an army ready he
    can't be beat.   
    
    I would then give my three commands to Grant, Lee, and Jackson.  
    
    Jackson would be my advance command his do to his ability to surprise 
    attack out of no where and then be able to either hold his ground or 
    disappear with out a trace.
    
    Grant would be next in line as his abilty to drive his troops hard and
    not be afraid to throw them in to the fray head on.
    
    Lee with his tactical ability and good leadership skills would be a logical
    choice for the reserve command. 
    
    Of course this would all change if the C.I.C was going to be hands on.
    Then I would go with Lee as C.I.C. , Jackson, Grant, and Longstreet.
    He was Lee's right hand man and is Lee had listned to him at Gettysburg
    things might have been diffrent.
    
     Dan

    I'd like to approach this a little differently. If the Civil War were
    never fought the leaders we are familiar with may never have come to
    the forefront in a different type of national emergency. What if we say
    that it's late 1865, the war is over, and suddenly there is tension
    between the US and some European powers who think their footholds in
    North America are threatened by US enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine.
    Say that Austria-Hungary, France, and Great Britain form an alliance to
    go to war to protect their interests in Mexico and Canada. The alliance
    pours tems of thousands of disciplined troops into both countries and
    border skirmishes lead to a war on two fronts.
    
    The strategy of the alliance is to retake former Mexican possessions in
    Texas and California in the south and the Lakes area and New England
    in the north. In addition, the British Navy in the Caribbean lands
    troops in various locations from Florida to North Carolina and also
    threatens Washington DC.  
    
    US Grant is General of the Army so he is automatically in command. He
    decides he needs four independant armies to meet the threat. The
    Northern border army to face Canada, a Mid-Atlantic army to protect the
    population centers from Washington to New York, an Army in the
    Southeast and the last for the Mexican Border. He has to pick the best
    possible commanding generals for these armies. Who does he pick?
    
    Well, if I were he....
    
    I'd put Philip Sheridan in command of the Northern army. Besides his
    obvious military competence, he spent some time before the CW
    campaigning against Indians in the Northwest. He'd understand the
    armies requirments for fighting winter battles. His natural courage,
    persistance, tactical expertise, and knowledge of logistics would make
    him the best choice.
    
    I'd put Winfield Scott Hancock in command of the Mid-Atlantic army.
    Grant believed him in a class with Sherman and Sheridan and the perfect
    selection for building up the defences around the threatened population
    areas and protecting Washington.
    
    The Army in the Southeast would need a local hero to rally the former
    Confederate veterans. It would need a courageous, tireless, fighter who
    could move men quickly and with deadly resolve. If I were Grant I'd
    swallow my pride and appoint Nathan Bedford Forrest.
    
    Moving to the Southwest where a superior and wordly tactition would be
    needed to face an army of French and Austrian regulars, only R.E. Lee
    could do. Besides knowing the terrain (having fought in the Mexican
    War) he could field and train army of volunteers faster than anyone else 
    in the country. That's my dream line-up: Grant, Sheridan, Hancock, Lee,
    and Forrest.
    
    Tom     
    

    here's my dream team.    my main man is lee   grant is over rated,lee
    would have had grant for lunch if he had half the supplies grant had.
    
    my field men are sherman,forrest, and chamberlin.

    
    I seriously doubt Lee would have taken command of ANY troops after
    the war. Nor would any be offered. This is probably true of a lot
    of Confederate officers. After all, it's a bit too much to imagine
    Forrest leading the Buffalo Soldiers in an attack on the Europeans.
    
    Aaron.

    Not too difficult: from what I understand there were several freedmen
    serving in Forrest's ranks.  I agree that very few ex-Confederate
    generals would accept commands even if they were offered, which is
    unlikely; but that is the fun of this topic: imagining the improbable.
    If we take it too seriously it will lose its flavor.
    
    Ziff

    RE .13:
    
    Well, not to intrude a fact ;^}, but I think Grant would have given
    Sherman, and perhaps Pap Thomas, commands before Forrest - who was,
    after all, untried as an Army commander.
    
    MikeR
    

    
    
    I don't think it out of the question that RE Lee would seek to
    command troops if the US (with the South and Texas) were attacked.
    He was a professional soldier and obviously a man of honor. Hard to
    picture him greeting the Redcoats on the streets of Richmond waving a 
    British flag and passing out bottles of wine. He'd fight alright. And
    given his reputation I think he'd be trusted with an army which would
    probably be composed mostly of Texans and other Southerners. (Just an
    opinion, of course:^).
    
    I agree Forrest leading an army would be unlikely in reality but I said
    "If I were Grant..." I picked him because he too would be unlikely to
    sit around while the British sacked Charleston or Richmond and the
    type of fighting in that area (quick landings and attacks all along the
    Southern coast) would suit his style perfectly. Also, he'd have a
    loyalty base in the local population that no Northerner could count on.
    
    As for Billy Sherman, well, I think he was probably as good a burn-out
    candidate as anyone. Perhaps a staff position under Grant....   
    
    Tom
    

    
                     <<< Note 64.12 by CSTEAM::DONNELLY >>>
                          -< A little different tact >-

>    I'd like to approach this a little differently. If the Civil War were
>    never fought the leaders we are familiar with may never have come to
>    the forefront in a different type of national emergency. What if we say
>    that it's late 1865, the war is over, and suddenly there is tension
>    between the US and some European powers who think their footholds in
>    North America are threatened by US enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine.
>    Say that Austria-Hungary, France, and Great Britain form an alliance to
>    go to war to protect their interests in Mexico and Canada. The alliance
>    pours tems of thousands of disciplined troops into both countries and
>    border skirmishes lead to a war on two fronts.
 
    	I'm going to have to agree with MikeR that in this time of great
    	national emergency, it will be politically necessary for me to 
    	use the known winners from the late conflict.   
    
    	For the Mexican border, I would send the western army under its
    	commander W.T.Sherman, as I know he can be trusted to carry out
    	orders when out of easy communication. The right wing in California
    	would go to his former associate Pap Thomas who is used to
    	coordinating with him. These are the troops that are used to
        travelling long distances in hostile territory.
    
    	By the same reasoning, I would send the Army of the Potomac north
    	toward Canada under its commander George Meade, with
        general-in-chief Grant keeping a close eye on it as before. The
    	sub-army in the Great Lakes would be Phil Sheridan and his men.
    
    	The North Atlantic commander would be primarily an administrative
    	job, and thus well-suited for former general-in-chief Henry
        Halleck. He would need a lot of capable subordinates to rush to
    	invasion sites at a moments notice, providing work for Hancock,
    	Banks, Gillmore, etc.
    
    	Due to the great emergency, it is probably necessary to restore
    	arms to former Confederates, but probably unwise to let them 
    	operate in former northern states. There is only one choice to
    	organize and command them: Robert E. Lee. He is both able to
    	inspire them and also loyal enough not to use his troops to revolt
    	against Washington. Due to the long coastline, there is once again
    	plenty of opportunity for independent command for able ex-CSA
    	leaders. (I wish that those who picked Forrest for this job would
    	attempt to justify it in Note 63. This would seem to be primarily
    	an administrative/logistic post, with troops moving on interior
    	lines by rail, against concentrated enemy forces directly adjacent
    	to their coastal supply bases. This would give Forrest no chance
    	to conduct his deep-penetration raids, and would put him fighting
    	concentrated forces that expected battle, which he made a poor
    	showing at during the Civil War. He would be far better on the
    	Mexican front as a subordinate, and Sherman would be glad to have
    	him on his side!)
        

There are a few issues not well discussed here in selecting
the dream team for a "national emergency".  We need to flesh
out the scenario a bit.

The first thing to compare between invaders and the USA is the 
relative abundance of resources (men, material, factories, food, 
etc.).  Another is the relative technological advancement of weaponry 
(ie smoothbores, rifling, repeaters), of warships (ironclads, gunboats), 
communication, or most anything else.  My final question here has 
to do with where the fighting will occur (in Canada/Mexico, or in 
Massachusetts/Louisiana).

The North had the advantages of *all* of the above.  With vastly 
superior arms (quality *and* number both), it won't take a military
genius to defeat your opponent.  The importance of where the fighting 
occurs is shown via the crippling effects to the South of Sherman's 
march, splitting the South with the fall of Vicksburg, and the loss 
of all the South's shipyards.

Now, I contend that any invader who did not have some or all of 
these superior positions would not present a "national emergency".

Excuse my long winded approach here, but this scenario kind of
deflates the position of those who would 'go with a winner'.
Because:
	McClellan would never have time to organize an army (the South did
		not initiate invasion and so Mac had lots of time).
	Grant would never be able to pay the butcher's bill (outgunned now).
	Sherman couldn't debilitate the invader if the fight was at home
		(as compared to the March in the South).

Given any of the disadvantages described above, I'd have to put 

	Lee as overall commander, with
	Grant (admitted organizational abilities...also gives him Sherman)
	Jackson (independent command proven in Shenendoah, etc.)
	A.S. Johnston (acknowledged abilities before ACW, proven at Shiloh
    		...with more info, he and Lee might be switched)


Now, there are lots more things to dream about in the "what if" scenario.

1)  If there was no ACW, Grant would not be on the list.  Jackson either.
We'd have to flesh out the leaders with Mexican war heroes from West Point.  
Maybe old Jeff Davis would even sneak in.

2)  After the WBTS, no rebel commander would be returned to arms following 
the defeat of the CSA.  Only when the Union neared defeat from foreign 
invaders would desperation lead to this decision.  Then again, perhaps 
the foreign invaders would offer the (former) CSA states all they wanted 
to return to the fight against the Union or even to remain neutral.

3)  After the WBTW.  The USA is desperate and returns command to 
CSA veteral generals.  These proven leaders from weak positions pull 
out a victory.  The largest bodies of Union troops are now led by 
N.B. Forrest and his peers.  Will Forrest lay down arms for President
Lincoln (or his successor) ....  even if Forrest's men all once wore
butternut...?

    Otto