12 Of The Worst Generals Of The American Civil War 

Incompetence can be forgiven. Burnside told them he wasn't up to the job. But I believe he still did his best. McClellan was a copperhead. He would have given the south their independence if he had won the election. His commitment to the union cause could never have been very strong.

​@@dinahnicest6525 I mean McClellan DID create, organize, and train the Army of the Potomac. He was actually the only commander besides Grant to beat Lee multiple times, once at Rich Mountain and again at Antietam.

You ..reading this off a teleprompter with your boring monotone voice I survived till Braxton Bragg...

Since Bragg threw away one of the South's greatest victories at Chickamauga, wasting the lives of many good Southern boys, I'd say that man was the single worst Southern general in the war.

@@jasonwilliamson8416 Antietam was a draw. After the war, Lee was asked what was his best fought battle and he said, "Antietam." The Army of Northern Virginia was outnumbered 3 to 1 and yet fought the Army of the Potomac to a standstill, despite the fact that McClellan had Lee's battle plan. That is no defeat.

Thnat was fleas

👍​@@pauldourlet

He was timid, it might be an idea to look at the Pinkerton Agency, they almost always over estimated Confederate strength.

With the exception of Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnson and I believe Joseph E. Johnson who were Colonels in THE PRE-WAR ARMY who led Regiments of Cavalry PLEASE VERIFY!!!

Yeah, and keep in mind that this was a civil war. Plenty of men left to join the enemy.

It‘s not that simple, especially when the war is literally about politics. Half the generals defected to the secessionists, so figuring out who was reliable and who wasn‘t was always going to be a nightmare. A lot of those „political“ appointments were incidentally instrumental in bringing troops to the cause.

It would make do difference, even today there are useless officers of all ranks in all armies

Tell tubbyville.

They had the added complication of knowing intimately who they were fighting. I suspect McClellan unconsciously dragged his feet in hopes a diplomatic solution might intervene.

@@pandabear1341 right. This was a glaring case where politics definitely needed to play a role, for the simple fact that they needed people who were actually willing to prosecute the war without reservations. Regarding McClellan, my impression is not so much that he wanted to wait the war out as he wanted to be in charge and therefore petulantly refused to carry out direct orders from Lincoln and insisted on doing things, not only his way, but to deviate from whatever Lincoln demanded. And yes, this is a catastrophic attitude for a general to have. It doesn‘t help that he was overcautious as well, so he always took it extra slow. But I think he did want to win the war, at least while he was in charge of it. The Campaign against Richmond was his brainchild, after all, and he actually intended to continue it after the 7-Days-Battles. In all probability, this would have gone better than Pope‘s catastrophic Northern Virginia offensive.

Patton was one of the largest egos out there, and gave Ike more than his share of migraines, I'm sure.

@@Ares99999 Yes but Ike chose him to head the Third Army and lead the breakout from Normandy. Sometime you will accept a big migraine to achieve your goals. FDR put up with Douglas MacArthur for years.

Agreed. This guys list does not really cover that at all. You don’t have a northern victory without the training and defense that McClellan put into place not to mention supply infrastructure. Burnside as mentioned didn’t want the top job he just didn’t want hooker to get it. He had great victories in subordinate rules. He failed to address Halleck poor job. Because he is remembered as an organizer and office guy not a battlefield commander. His only victory’s came from grant and Sherman.

“We killed Bishop Polk yesterday, and made good progress today”. --General Sherman

Beauregard deserves a mention.

No he doesn't! How do you figure that he does? @@zanzibart3

Polk actually brought Kentucky into the war on the Union side. Before his invasion, the Governor had kept Kentucky neutral (he was pro-Confederate but the legislature and people weren't), but he couldn't keep it neutral after the invasion.

And an anarchist is a disobedient child who never grew up.

I mean, Sickles deserved to be more on this list than Pickett honestly.

Honestly could easily make a another list of ten. And a another, and still not run out of incompetent generals from this war.

Sickles did receive the Medal of Honor. He did cost the army more troops than needed at Gettysburg, but he fought valiantly and it did not cost the Union a major victory. After the war he creates Gettysburg military park and is very active in helping advance veteran affairs.

@@corvanna4438 Winning the medal of honor during the Civil War is not nearly as impressive as it sounds. Other decorations for valor, like the ones we have today, didn’t exist.

@@patrickrogers9689 true, however combat in the Civil War was frequently more intense. The fact is the Union was never close to losing Gettysburg. Lee was making horrible decisions, the first being to fight on that battlefield.

Yes! Sickles belongs on that list!

Two excellent additions to the list.

He did a fair job during the Maryland Campaign.

McClellan won far more battles than he lost, and with surprisingly few casualties.

@@corvanna4438 Yes but in Army command he was shy of battle. The Peninsula campaign is a prime example of this. From the siege of Yorktown to the Seven Days battles and evacuation. To me Mclellan is the North's Joseph Johnson

@@russellcollins52 Not defending McClellan's lackluster performance on the battlefield. But I think there was good reason for his timidness. He had an army mostly made up of green recruits, facing off against battle hardened veterans from the Mexican War, led by one of the best tacticians of his time, Robert E Lee. A man who Lincoln originally wanted to command the Army of the Potomac.

@@barbiquearea that is my defense for his conduct in the Maryland Campaign. That his troops were green and the officers untried at their positions. This is why Bragg gets my top vote for this list as worst Generals.

McClellan should have probed for weaknesses and struck with hit and run tactics. Better to have men die fighting than from diseases.

He was running for President.

He failed as a man and a human being! He was pitiful!

Or Ewell!

Right! Pickett was not supported by the planned JEB Stuart end around action. Stuart's command was abysmal at Gettysburg.

Pickett isn't on the list for his assault at Gettysburg. The video specifically says that wasn't his fault. He's on the list for all the rest of his crappy career as division commander. Like missing the Battle of Chansellorsville because he thought it was more important to try to get into the panties of an 18 year old plantation owner's daughter (a the age of 38) than command his division, or getting that same division literally destroyed by Sheridan's troops at 5 Forks because it was more important to be at a BBQ than to lead his division.

It was officer politics to gain control of the top commands on both sides. Also how their big boss ordered the campaigns. Robert E Lee Only had 2 dependable Generals. Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson. But they had most of the best graduates from West Point. Grant had Meade and Sherman running his 2 main armies. Robert E Lee had no good replacement when Stonewall Jackson died from friendly fire. Stonewall Jackson was the most brave and the General with the best results for the Confederates. Bragg and the others had many failures. Even when they held the advantages. Longstreet was organizational master. Meade his Union counterpart was so too. Sherman was a Souther. that fought for Union. Union without him would have had a longer War and the Confederates would have had won more battles. Sherman was the best General Grant had. He masterfully torn up the Heart of the Confederacy vs Bragg his Confederate counterpart in that area of Battle. Union won based of supplied much better and much faster troop and supply movement. Union had over 4 times as many miles of railroad and over 3 times as much more factory production. Secondly South could only negate part of that with Trade and the Union navy successfully blocked most Trade from the Confederacy. Because of such major weaknesses the Union could wear down the South quicker.

To be fair most West Point graduates had been trained for war that was more in line to what you could expect during the Napoleonic Era. However the mid 19th century saw the introduction of many new weapons that made amassing line infantry in pitched battles to be less palatable. Inventions such as the Minie Ball, repeating carbines in place of muskets and the Gatling Gun. All these factors pretty much ensured that every battle was going to turn into an absolute bloodbath.

Even the North thought Sickles was nuts.

Forrest was better than any of them.

@@barbiquearea That's always the problem, the military is ALWAYS ready to fight the LAST war!!

The irony of the contrast between Johnston's Georgia strategy and Lee's strategy during the Spring Campaign of 1864, both engaged in strategic retreats and taking up excellent defensive positions to invite disastrous frontal assaults by the Union, bleeding the Union army, is rarely noted -- Davis supported Lee and undermined Johnston (mostly because Davis and Johnston didn't get along apparently). Davis contributed to the South's loss as much as any of the South's bad generals (far fewer than the North's bad generals, however).

Probably Johnston would have kept Sherman from taking Atlanta for weeks, Sherman’s timely taking of the city really helped Lincoln win re-election.

Don't let Hood off the hook. He wanted to be aggressive just as much as Jeff Davis did. When he got beat by Thomas, it was just as _Sherman_ predicted. Sherman was supposed to follow Hood north, that was half the point of this "aggressive campaign". But Sherman knew Hood was over aggressive and judged -- correctly -- that Thomas and his command would take care of him.

I wonder if a man without one arm and one leg would be leading an army today? One thing about Hood, he didn't lack courage.

@@fredrickhall7039 Maybe those limb losses should have informed Davis about the impending doom of putting him in charge? There is little to admire in a man who in a few short weeks decimated his own army and (worse) was _expected_ to do so by his principal enemy. That enemy, Sherman, who outright ignored him while he was on his way to destroy his command against Thomas. That makes the whole thing doubly tragic and means that, despite his personal courage, he had no business being in command. At this point, the southern leadership was borderline delusional.

Yeah, that was the only name change that I am ok with. He wasn't even respected by the officers and men under his command and lost almost every major battle that he was a part of during the civil war.

@@russelljohnson6267 Bedford Forrest refused to serve under Bragg.

I'm wondering if Bragg got the base named after him because of all he did to help the Union win the war. Although he did win at Chickamauga due to an uncharacteristic error by Rosecrans, who was usually a good general), his troops were so badly mauled their morale was badly damaged and lost to an uphill frontal assault in the battle of Chattanooga.

TRUE

They would need to mention he inflicted more casualties than he suffered and won many more battles than he lost.

@@corvanna4438They would also need to mention that the battles that "McClellan won" were actually won by Fitzjohn Porter. McClellan was usually miles from the fighting, and in the case of Malvern Hill was actually hiding on a gunboat.

@@aaronfleming9426 Malvern Hill was a defensive withdraw. McClellan didn't need to lead a charge.

@@corvanna4438No, he didn't need to lead a charge, but usually you have to be present at a battle to get credit for winning it.

Agree, people are too hard on Burnside. And you really shouldn't believe everything that has been said about him by historians. Had the pontoons gotten there when he wanted them, Fredericksburg would have been a different story. His plan was sound, he just got to there too late, after Lee had time to prepare his defenses.

Not only that, but he did in fact outmaneuver Lee to get to Fredericksburg, but the problem was that Halleck was such a coward that he refused to do anything and failed to order the bridges brought to Fredericksburg on time. Had the Bridges been there on time, they could have been across the river on the way to Richmond BEFORE Lee got there on to Marye's Heights. Burnside had also at the Crater ordered fresh black troops to make the assault and they had been training for the assault for days while the mine was being dug, but Grant/Meade refused these troops to be used(they did not want the black troops slaughtered thinking it would be bad PR) so they ordered Burnside to choose someone else to lead the assault, his other division commanders then drew lots to see whose command would lead the assault and it went unfortunately to Ledlie. Pope was betrayed by McClellan and Fitz John Porter by delay of troops and horrific military discipline. McClellan was the Dept commander when he won his victories over Lee in W Va, he was not in command in person, although his press releases made it seem as if he was. He never should have been more than an Inspector General ensuring the proper training of troops, he believed that the AoP were HIS MEN and he never wished to endanger HIS men and the problem is that is EXACTLY the job of a leader, to risk the lives of his men to win a battle. Pickett was about 1 1/4 miles behind his lines at 5 Forks having lunch, it is not as if he had gone 200 miles away from his command. Most of these BAD generals are bad because they are POLITICAL generals given high rank because they were able to raise large numbers of troops for the war effort and both armies were based upon a volunteer model based upon the states, not actual troops of the federal govt.

​@@williamhalejr.4289that 5 Forks with Pickett, was that when Robert E Lee's son decided to have a fish bake? I think Thomas L Rosser was present?

@@mikebrase5161 Shad Bake. Spring run of Shad up the rivers. Traditional to THIS DAY.

@@USGrant-rr2by thanks I remember reading about it 20 plus years ago. Age and time made the particulars fuzzy.

yeah i was reading a book on the battle of Bentonville and the author basically said that Bragg was the best Union General the Confederates had.

They should've kept the Fort Bragg name...because the role his incompetence played in the Union victory made it a brilliant backhanded compliment.

True, but this is a list of bad generals, Burnside was being realistic.

@@InternetDarkLord Burnside did have some successes. He managed to defeat Longstreet badly at Knoxville.

It was said of McClellan that he could do everything with the Army of the Potomac but lead it to victory.

Not a great field commander, because he was too often too cautious, being unwilling to take risks when the opportunity to exploit a situation presented itself. But he was great at building an army.

The fact that he let JEB run around his flank not once, but twice is not forgotten. Had not Lincoln replaced him I think the Civil War would have gone longer than it did IMHO.

He was relieved from duty in my home county.

Great at organizing, very good planner, terrible field general. About as good a summary of Little Mac as you can make without giving him even less credit than he deserves, or more.

Good points both. Quite a few political generals did well - Joshuah Chamberlain (ok, not a general) at Little Round Top, Carl Schurz made a decent divisional commander, etc.

@@heridfel Chamberlain was both decorated and promoted after Gettysburg. He left the Army as a brevet major general with the substantive rank of brigadier general. Chamberlain and Grant were probably the two most successful US generals to take unusual routes to flag rank.

Another thing to consider is that before the Civil War, officers at West Point were trained with the same military doctrine developed during the Napoleonic Era. However weapons had changed significantly since Napoleon's time, and new innovations such as the Minie Ball, repeating carbine rifles replacing muskets, advancements in artillery and munitions, as well as the introduction of the Gatling Gun made traditional ways of warfare less feasible.

@@barbiqueareaAll of the things that you mentioned were introduced during the War. Your basic point is vaiid. The technological advances made it a bad time to learn tactics on the fly.

@@roberthudson1959 Yeah I mean even Grant despite being the best general on the Union side made some decisions that looked pretty insane in hindsight. One of the reasons the Army of the Potomac’s casualties were so brutal during the overland campaign was because Grant threw away countless good men with his frontal assaults on Lee's well dug in trenches at Fredericksburg. That was until he built his own trenches outside of Fredericksburg, and extended them to force Lee to stretch out his limited manpower.

Hooker, later as Corps Commander in the Army of the Tennessee REDEEMED himself in the Chattanooga Campaign during THE BATTLE OF LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN.

Hooker ordered Howard to prepare for Jackson's attack. Howard disobeyed the order. The next morning Hooker suffered a massive concussion, which probably contributed considerably to his poor performance.

lt's widely speculated that Hooker had a brilliant plan which would have worked. He set a trap for Lee, but froze at the crucial moment and failed close it, allowing Lee to get away with an irresponsible, risky maneuver that would have doomed his army with a more decisive, competent Union general in command.

Hooker was an excellent organizer and a very good corps commander. As one of the other commenters noted, he probably suffered a concussion at Chancellorsville. While he was self-serving and a blowhard who alienated more than a few of his colleagues, Fighting Joe doesn't belong on the list.

An additonal contributions by Maj. Gen Hooker -- I recall the Hooker significantly contributed to the popularization of the term "Hooker" into the American Lexicon.

He did this because he sympathized with The South. He still felt that The South still wanted to reunite and a giant push by the Yankees could make this happen. Of course he was lying to himself and the nation. A bloody war was all that could bring then together especially since Lee would soon go on the offensive soon afterwards.

The numbers involved in that campaign were also miniscule, and the stakes were low. It was silly of McClellan to think he could take the enemy capital without coming to blows with its main battle army.

Nah. He was Peter+2 (promoted beyond his abilities)

@@williamcurtin5692 Hood's decisions and actions at Franklin and Nashville were so egregious, it's difficult to assume they were made by a rational mind.

Could be. But his earned reputation as a successful and sometimes absolutely dishonest intriguer would indicate that he was in possession of his faculties at least part of the time. And I've never gotten the impression he was very bright in the first place.

He was good up through Corps command but the Tennesse campign in 1864 was horrible. As an Army commander he was pretty bad.

McClellan was only relieved of command after his failure to pursue Lee after Antietam. His inactivity after the Seven Days Battles led to the formation of the Army of Virginia under John Pope, the defeat of 2nd Bull Run led to McClellan being recalled to halt Lee's invasion in September, 1862.

The little Napoleon lost the race for Prez, too

Very true. And even among those who did have decent military training, they were soon called to command units much larger than they had experience with. Years ago, I studied the career of Union General Adelbert Aames while in National Guard OCS. Aames was part of the last class to graduate from West Point before the Civil War, making him a Lieutenant at the start of the war. By Gettysburg in 1863, he was already a Brigadier General! This rapid rise in rank partially explains the failure of many West Point grads...

Lee can be directly blamed for the Confederate defeat. Lee was totally invested in the defense of Virginia, which is why the rest of the Confederacy was getting savaged. Lee is deprived the other states of so much that Sherman marched at will through the South.

Hence as the narrator stated. 2 types of general officers. Military and political

@@artwerksDallas there were political generals that performed well, Chamberlain for example

@@corvanna4438 don't disagree. Just restated what the narrator said. Besides I am from Arkansas. Our military/political appointee was S h I t. Albert Pike.

Custer ought to be on the list. He got more troopers killed in dumbass charges than any cavalry officer in the war.

Yes and at Gettysburg Custer demanded Longstreet surrender while Grant and Lee were negoiating terms .Longstreet turned to his aide and loudly orderd 2 Divisions brought up on line . Custer ,shocked ,went away .Longstreet before his children had died of illness had a reputation of being one o f the best poker players in the Army and he out bluffed Custer -those Divisions no longer existed.

Those slaves weren't freed. They were simply appropriated and used as manual labor -- forced labor at that -- by the Yanks. And New Orleans was the second largest city in the South at that time; Nashville was bigger. There was no real organized resistance in Maryland at the time Butler "captured" Annapolis and Baltimore, so that's not much of an accomplishment. Butler was a thief and an incompetent.

Maryland was a border state. They never joined the South.

They never joined the south because union troops occupied their state capital.

@@markbeckens There were plenty of people in Maryland who wanted the state to join the Confederacy. There were some bitter divisions in that state.

@@mjjoe76 there were bitter divisions in many states. Why you had brother fighting brother. The Maryland legislature voted like, 50-10 to not leave the union. I'm not sure how anyone can use the "capturing" of 2 cities in a state that never left the Union as feather in a generals hat. Did Butler get credit for every city in the north he and his army walked through?

His ego over common sense.

Officers in almost every army at the time were the offspring of rich families and got their promotions according to wealth instead of military prowess.

Wasn't Grant only 3 years older than McClellan?

It seems that McClellan really cared for his troops and was petrified of losing any of them. That's a great attribute for a person, but a terrible one for a general. You can't win a war without losing some.

A lot of people forget that McLellan was a superb admininstrator and logistician. He essentially trained he Amy of the Potomac from scratch. He may not have been a 'fighting' General, but Grant etc would have had nothing to fight with had McLellan not done the ground work

The fact that he ran for president as a Democrat tells one that McClellan always had an agenda other than winning the war

@@thehowlingmisogynist9871 Oh, Grant did quite well with troops in the Western Theatre that had received no training from McClellan

Hood was strung out on pain medication by the time he assumed command of the Army Of Tennessee, laudanum to be exact.

@@jasonwilliamson8416 Let's not forget who defeated Hood at Nashville: His old West Point instructor, Maj. Gen. George H. "ROCK OF CHICKAMAUGA, SLEDGE OF NASHVILLE" Thomas, who proved that Hood was a failure in the classroom as well.

I'm just saying that I believe Hood would have done things differently had he not been reduced to a pain medication junkie that was missing a leg and only had the use of one arm. Not a guy you want in charge of an entire Army.

@@jasonwilliamson8416 I definitely see your point.

@@jasonwilliamson8416 The problem with Hood lies with Jefferson Davis, who was talked into relieving Johnston, who was fighting a defensive action vs. Sherman in Georgia, and replacing him with Hood, who would go on the offensive, and wreak his army in the process

I agree. After McClellan, he was in a lot of pressure to attack. Then he had to wait weeks for the pontoons to arrive, giving the Rebs plenty of time to prepare for him. The Crater had so much meddling from generals like Meade that the operation was mostly out of Burnside's hands. I'll add parenthetically that though Meade had proven himself to be a reasonably competent general, he never gets his proper share of the blame for Sickle's diversion at Gettysburg. I'm not exonerating Sickles, but Meade knew that he was his least competent corps commander. But he didn't like him, so he repeatedly (and childishly) refused his requests for assistance in positioning his troops, and even mocked him when he reported sighting the enemy at his front! Little Round Top was a good place for infantry, but not artillery (shooting down at such a steep angle dismounts guns in the recoil), it was separated from Cemetery Ridge by about 100 yds. of rocky swamp (there had been a lot of rain that week), and even if he had occupied it, his corps would still have been stretched the thinnest of all on the Union line. Then as soon as the 3rd corps was dislodged from the Peach Orchard, the Rebs put their batteries there, just as Sickles had predicted. Meade completely neglected his left flank and got caught with his pants down, even after being warned.

⁠@@dinahnicest6525 I think Sickles actions at Gettysburg were still definitely incompetent. Not only did he disobey orders but I feel that his movement was uncalled for. The position on Little Round Top for artillery might have been not ideal but he also was defending Cemetery Ridge which was the main part of his line. Cemetery Ridge not only was good for infantry and artillery it was also a shorter defensive line than the peach orchard or the wheat field. Even if it was longer then his men to occupy Meade had reserves that he used to fill in the gaps Sickles left after abandoning the ridge. From what I have heard about Meade and Sickles conversations I feel that Meade was more begging the disobedient Sickles to move back into position. Another point is that when Sickles did not move Meade tried his best to support by filling in the gaps.

@@Kevbing9825 I'm not exonerating Sickles. He advanced his corps 11 miles ahead of where he was ordered to stay. He disobeyed Mead's order by bringing the 3rd corps to Gettysburg at all. So did Reynolds. Meade did not ask Sickles to pull back. He didn't know about the move until the attack began. Sickles offered to come back but it was too late and Meade replied "They won't let you." Three times, Sickles had sent aides to ask for help in positioning his troops, and each time, Meade vaguely replied "the position that had been occupied by Geary." But Geary's division was never placed "in position". They were just bivouacked in the general area. Even after the rout, and the line was reinforced, virtually no artillery was placed south of the McGilvery line. It's hard to say what might have happened if Sickles hadn't disobeyed the order, but considering the fact that Meade never looked left until the attack began. LRT is likely to have been blown to bits by Longstreet's Artillery then overrun by Hood's entire division before anything could have been done about it. If Meade hadn't let his dislike of Sickles cause him to avoid communication or even to look at his left flank, he most probably would have been better prepared for an attack that he should have anticipated.

@@dinahnicest6525 Even if Sickles did not move position I doubt Longstreet’s artillery would have blown them to bits. The defensive position on the high ground would be too much of a challenge for Longstreet’s artillery. Even if his artillery would have destroyed them in that position Sickles did not have to move his entire corps. He could have put a regiment or some skirmishers to delay the rebels until better artillery support like what Hancock did which blunted the entire rebel attack.

@@Kevbing9825 Sickles didn't just spread the 3rd corps thin, he spread Longstreet as well. If he hadn't advanced, all of Hood's and Alexander's artillery that had been used against the whole southern front and the peach orchard would have focused instead on LRT. Guns can easily be elevated to at least 45 degrees. Howitzers are made specifically to lob shells that explode high above their targets. The whole Union line was facing west. Without Sickles' blunder, Hood would certainly have moved his artillery line further to his right (the east), and with Alexander on his left, they could have enfiladed the whole Union line. People who know a lot more than we do have been debating this for 160 years. You and I aren't likely to resolve this. I must admit that Sickles' move was not a good one. But staying put had disastrous potential as well. Ultimately, he didn't just ruin Meade's plan, he ruined Lee's also. And the South was repulsed without gaining anything. But I don't want to defend scumbag Sickles. I want to point out Meade's negligence. He had a well-known contingency plan for withdrawal, but not for defending his flank? He, and everyone had good reason to dislike Sickles, but that doesn't justify the "goggle-eyed snapping turtle" in letting his emotions cloud his judgement. If Meade had spent a fraction of the time, or any time at all, as he did on the defenses of the right flank, this wouldn't have happened. All 20,935 of Longstreet's men would have descended on Sickles' 10,675 men. Could Meade have gotten Sykes' 11,019 men in position in time? (Caldwell's 3,320 men were already positioned to their right). He should have been better prepared. Anyone could have predicted a possible flank attack from Lee.

Good points. The biggest problem with the Confederacy was Davis who liked to think he knew better than his generals, except the ass kissers, and they were many. Relieving Johnston with Hood was a colossal blunder. If Johnston still had the army of Tennessee, it would have delayed the fall of Atlanta and perhaps influenced the Europeans into recognizing the South. Johnston was the only Confederate general that Grant said he feared (for good reason IMO), and Sherman rejoiced when Hood took over...... but Johnston and Davis despised each other. Bragg was prickly and abysmal in any capacity. Burnside knew his limitations and asked not to given the army of Potomac. Lincoln was not well served by almost all his generals in the east and made enormous blunders himself.... until Grant. Butler may have been known as Beast Butler, but it should be mentioned that he reacted to southern women emptying their chamber pots out of their upper story windows on his troops walking below. Another poster has gone into Butler in more detail below. There were some stinkers not on this list. There are generals that were never reinforced when they could have been and lost battles because of that due to petty squabbles. Pope was one. According to History .com.... "Pope, who had one chance to prove his leadership at Second Bull Run against Confederate General Robert E. Lee, failed miserably and retreated to Washington, D.C. He had not received any help from McClellan, who sat nearby in Alexandria, Virginia, and refused to go to Pope’s aid" McClellan got his command back after that...and he certainly he deserves to be on this list.

Hood was addicted to Laudnum after Gettysburg due to the loss of the use of his arm.

Hood was a marvellous Brigade Commander, an more than adequate Divisional Commander but as so many have pointed out was not the man he was after Gettysburg

@@jamesmaclennan4525 I have a fellow guitarist buddy who is a decedent of Joe Johnston. He has a great deal of the material written by Joe. All the correspondence between Joe and Jeff Davis. They despised each other. Joe was a proud and prickly fellow and was pissed at the lack of seniority he got at the beginning of the war when officers junior to him in the US army were given commands instead of him. That said, he did pitch in and take command of the Army of Northern Virginia. He was badly wounded at Bull Run and at that point he had to sit out the next year or so. Davis was so desperate in the west after Bragg made a total mess of the affairs there that he was forced to bring Joe back. The relations between Joe Johnston and Jeff Davis never improved and Joe was relieved for his defensive tactics. He was correct of course not to engage in pitched battles with Sherman who had superior numbers and to be careful with his amry to pick the right time and the right place. He was also beloved by his men for not needlessly squanding their lives. The difference in the Army of Tennessee was remarkable... when he saw the condition of the men he went on a crusade to get the proper provisions and equipment. Like Sherman after the war, he was always ready to help his those in former commands and he became very close to Sherman. Even Grant wrote that the only Confederate general he feared was Joe Johnston. Too bad Jefferson Davis never utilized him properly. As I understand it, Joe's plan a was to draw out the fight in the west and not lose any major battles so that in the upcoming election, Lincoln might have been defeated by a war weary nation, and that the European countries would then recognize the Confederacy. Hood was the worst possible choice to take over for Joe. Hood was friends with Davis and sabotaged Joe in letters back to Richmond. And the rest, as they say, is history...

@@raymondlee3414 Hoood lost his arm at Gettysburg and his leg at (I think )Chickamagua .He had to be strapped in to the saddle.He visciously campaigned to have Johnston relpaced by himself and yes he was addicted to Laudnum .

They did other things haha!

Good point. Napoleon praised Archduke Charles, who won a battle (no mean feat against Napo) but lost the campaign of 1809. In the case of Kutuzov, Wellington and Blücher (whom Napo also completely underrated), they won the campaigns, and hence Napoleon, if he had acknowledged their quality, couldn't feel that he was actually superior, so he belittled them and blamed defeat on other factors. A side note: Blücher was indispensable at Waterloo - having been defeated and almost captured two days before, he recovered from his wounds, argued his generals around and drove his men to Waterloo with total determination, arriving just in time to save Wellingtons left wing. Not bad for a 70-year old! I don't know of any Civil War general who performed similar feats - maybe Stonewall Jackson?

For all his..mixed results as a field commander, managing to get the mess that was the Union army after 1st Bull Run sorted out and turned into the highly trained (if, at times, miserably led) force it became is no small achievement. And it is a achievement that is mostly Mclellan's.

Similar to how Dems praise rinos

Lee had a high opinion of Grant .Grant 's moving his entire Army across the River and getting to Petersberg tool Lee completely by surprise and he admitted as much

Except Napoleon, of course, is the greatest general of all time - his won/drawn/lost record is second to none

To McCellan's credit he did indeed stop Lee's advance at Antietam but he failed to put in all his troops and failed to follow up his triumph. Such is war. His earlier victories in West Virginia were hardly the stuff of epic battles as Lee was a latecomer to that front.

McClellan had more than enough men in the Peninsula campaign. His problem was that he convinced himself that he faced 200,000 rebels, a figure so absurd it defies explanation. Yes, Grant lost 60,000 men in his Overland campaign...and in six weeks he arrived at City Point having battered Lee to a pulp, and proceeded to keep him bottled up there for the rest of the war. McClellan lost 20,000 in the Peninsula campaign and arrived at City Point not as the head of a victorious army, but as a coward who hid miles from the fighting, having been driven and humiliated by Lee, who was very much NOT bottled up. McClellan's army at Antietam was not a "rag-tag army of untrained new recruits". It did include new recruits, but it also included all the battle-hardened corps of the Peninsula and Bull Run campaigns, including the elite V Corps, which he failed to commit to battle. At Antietam, McClellan failed to hold a council of war or to share his plan (if he had one) with his corps commanders - despite taking an extra 24 hours to prepare for battle. He sent his corps into battle piecemeal, staying miles away from the action in a clear pattern already established on the Peninsula. When Ambrose Burnside reached his objective, McClellan failed to support him, leaving Burnside to be driven back by the timely arrival of Hill's division. Beside the fact that Lee's army was objectively more "rag-tag" than McClellan's, Mac's excuse is laughable. Many other Union forces fought successfully in a far more rag-tag state. At Wilson's Creek most of the 1st Iowa was wearing reverse aprons to cover their bare buttocks since their pants were so worn out. Elements of Curtis' army at Pea Ridge marched 40 miles in 16 hours before engaging in combat for 2 days. Thomas' army fought at Mill Springs in a rain storm, then pursued the beaten rebel army through a river of mud for 8 miles. Grant's men at Fort Donelson slept without cover in a snowstorm the night before the battle there. The simple fact is that McClellan made big boasts before battle, and big excuses after them.

"Reportedly" Butlers gets alot of hate from the south. Democrat turned into a activist against slavery during and his work after the war.

@jumpingjacks5558. Ah yes, another armchair general who knows nothing about history or the military. For your information, George Armstrong Custer was the youngest general in U.S. Army history, making Brigadier at the ripe old age of 23, and earning his second star, (that's Major General), by age 24. A renowned cavalry leader, Custer helped save the Union Army at Gettysburg when his Michigan Cavalry Brigade of four regiments defeated the vaunted Major General J.E.B. Stuart on the third day of that battle at East Cavalry Field. A year later at Yellow Tavern, Virginia his troopers whipped Stuart again, killing him in the process. Union Major General Phillip Sheridan was quoted as saying Custer's service had more to insuring Union victory than virtually everyone else (although Grant and Sherman would certainly contest that point). The tragedy at Little Big Horn was a combination of bad intelligence, being outnumbered almost 10 to 1, and outgunned in many cases by rifles that outranged those of the blue troopers. So just because you may personally dislike his personality or his aggressive style of warfare does not give you the right to maliciously attack his otherwise stellar military service record. Come after me, leftist. You'll lose the debate.

Custer was brave indeed but reckless. His promotion to high rank without experience may have cost many lives unnecessarily.

Custer was not a general in the US Army. He was a general in the US Volunteers which means he was selected to lead the Michigan Brigade because he was from Michigan. So the USV was like the national guard being nationalized. Thus, Custer was like Teddy Roosevelt in that Roosevelt was not a colonel in the US Army but the US Volunteers. So myth aside Custer was not the youngest general ever in the US Army. By the way his battle against Stuart cost him four troops of cavalry. His losses greatly outnumbered Stuart's whose troopers fought dismounted with carbines and small horse drawn canon. Custer did not rout Stuart who withdrew his troops from the field. At the battle of Yellow Tavern Stuart's forces routed Custer's Michigan Cavalry and Stuart was killed in the pursuit of the fleeing union forces. As for the Little Big Horn, Custer decisions beforehand cost him his life and that of most of the 7th Cavalry.@@paulgiarmo3628

I agree with you. He finished last in his graduation from West Point. @@ngauruhoezodiac3143

Stop with the childish rants. I grew up where Custer lived, I've seen his house and quarters for the soldiers. I have read many periodicals about Custer. I have never said I "hated" Custer. Those are your words.@@paulgiarmo3628

Did not that order tell McClellan that Lee had divided his forces ?

Yes. But they were orders concerning his order of march, not "battle plans". McClellan followed slowly enough that Lee was able to reunite his army and fight on a field of his own choosing. The discovery of Order 191 may be one of the biggest non-events of the war. What might have been if McClellan had pursued with more vigor and attacked before Lee was able to regroup? That's certainly and interesting question, but also moot.@@TheMrSuge

@@aaronfleming9426 He could have attacked 1/2 of Lee's army with the full force of his own army, thereby overwhelming and annihilating it. It was an opportunity to end the war much earlier than 1865, and he blew it, no ?

Essentially, yes. But he dawdled, as usual, and blew it as you say. Which is what makes the capture of Order 191 such a non-event.@@TheMrSuge

@@aaronfleming9426 The capture of Order 191 is only a non-event because McClellan chose to make it a non-event. It could've been huge, but for his timidity.

Lincoln said he had the slows

Lee is only considered good because he won most of his battle but I say he was only good because the other guys were 10 times more incompetent as for Grant he was also a bad general who only won through sheer manpower and if any of these trash generals had faced any of their contemporaries from Europe they would have been smashed. Grant got the nickname butcher for a reason and was your basic mount and blade player f1 f3 if you are unfamiliar with mount and blade it means his whole strategy just revolved around yelling charge to everyone

As evidence I present cold harbor

Grant had 3 to 1 odds. Big deal.

@@trickyfoxx6941 Not true. The victories in the West under Grant were examples excellent generalship. Despite some horrific losses of men, Grant often inflicted equally horrific losses on Lee. Those losses of manpower were ones the South could not afford, while the North could. Grant's worst tactical blunder was Cold Harbor, while Lee's was Gettysburg. Many of Lee's greatest victories were due to incompetent Union generals rather his own brilliance, with Fredericksburg Chancellorsville being perfect examples. Despite his victory at Chancellorsville, Lee sustained irreplaceable losses in men and the skill of Jackson. Lee was overrated both as a general and a person.

@@frankmiller95 Grant's Vicksburg campaign is a masterpiece.

Yet some got their names on military forts anyway?

​​@@phillipmoore3822The federal government allowed the states to name the forts. Fort Lee and Fort Pickett are both in Virginia, Generals Stewart and Benning were both from Georgia, and even though Hood was from Kentucky he became famous as commander of the Texas Brigade. Oh and Braxton Bragg was from North Carolina. I spent many years at the fort named after him.

And indecisive!

He wrote Ben Hur that’s pretty impressive

@@jamesmack3314 Grant was caught with his pants down and used Wallace as an excuse.

@@sydhenderson6753 yea but he wrote Ben hur!…so I forgive him😜

Maybe they should have conducted themselves in a more respectful manner instead of dumping their waste on soldiers.

I wouldn't be surprised to read reports of those SO-CALLED VIRTUOUS SOUTHERN BELLES on their Plantations SETTING UP their Black Male Slaves TO BE BRUTALIZED.

Goldfinger!

The blame is with Robert E Lee and yet somehow he maintains his reputation despite making the costliest mistakes (plural) in the most decisive battle of the entire war.

Pickett wasn't at fault at Gettysburg, but he screwed up quite a bit at other battles. Always the flamboyant dandy, a careful analysis shows that Pickett was an excellent Brigadier (Brigade Commander), but he wasn't up the task of Major General (Division Commander). Like many of the officers featured here, he was promoted beyond his abilities. His actions at Five Forks demonstrated his failings. His second wife Sallie, much like Custer's widow, went to considerable efforts to try to portray Pickett as the epitome of the Southern Gentleman General. Largely overlooking his brutal treatment of captured Union Soldiers he executed for desertion, because the men were originally from the Carolinas. No Court Martial was done, the accused were executed simply because he believed them deserters conveniently forgetting a not insignificant number of men from North and South Carolina went North to join the Union when the War began. They never served in the Confederate Army. Pickett fled to Canada after the War, because of the controversy around these executions. Had it not been for Grant's intervention in preventing/stopping an investigation, Pickett would have been tried and condemned in absentia of War Crimes. There's still a controversy over whether Pickett was relieved of duty after the disaster of Five Forks. One side says the orders were written relieving him of duty and placing him under watch, the other side says it never received the orders. The written orders themselves, were never recovered. The courier, disappeared, whereabout's unknown and presumed dead. Not knocking the Confederacy, I'm a CSA descendant. But as a Historian, amateur, with a keen interest in the War between the States, I have read and reread every book I could get my hands on. Pickett was a good Brigade Commander He wasn't a good Division Commander.

@@ClarenceCochran-ne7du thank you for this can always use more knowledge 😊

⁠@@ClarenceCochran-ne7duand before the war there was his part of The Pig War 😂

@@bhaskarsinha5016 Lee should not have given battle when the Union occupied the high ground. I don't know if Lee bought in to his own legend or was just tired and wanted a decisive battle, no matter the outcome.

Bragg was the worst. McClellan wasn't far behind.

Some would bring up the Raid at Holly Springs, Mississippi.

@@freddy8479Indeed. Holly Springs might be one of the most underrated achievements of the war.

@@aaronfleming9426 Van Dorn was an awful army commander but an excellent cavalry commander.

@@kevind7396 Definitely a guy promoted above his abilities.

Fighting Joe Hooker? I agree…not good

@@jamesmack3314 Hooker was probably the best Corp commander the North had. He also reformed the cavalry to where it could compete with the South. He proved as good as an organizer as McClellan and actually devised and initially excuted a brilliant plan only to lose confidence when Lee didn't respond as expected. He was later failed by O.O. Howard (who should be on this list) who ignored Hookers warnings to prepare for a flank attack.

@@maxdavid84 hmmm…well ok,but wasn’t he the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the debacle at ….was it Chancellorsville or? I can’t recall exactly

McClellan "beat" Lee when Lee had a puny force in a far-flung corner of western Virginia. McClellan got bad intel from Pinkerton because he trusted a railroad detective to do his intelligence gathering instead of giving that job to his cavalry - the branch of the army specifically tasked with intelligence gathering. Even then, McClellan should have known Pinkerton's numbers were absurd, but he frequently inflated the already-inflated numbers Pinkerton gave him. Antietam is 100% on McClellan, not Burnside. Besides approaching at a snail's pace, McClellan held no council of war and gave his corps commanders no clue as to how to support one another. His orders to Burnside were vague: was he to demonstrate? Attack? What? Ultimately, Burnside was the only Union corps commander of the day to achieve his objectives, and for his trouble he was completely unsupported by McClellan who - as previously noted - did nothing to help his corps commanders support one another. Not only did McClellan fail to send in the veteran V corps on the day of the battle, when there was plenty of daylight to have done so, he sat idle the entire next day as well.

​@@aaronfleming9426McClellan entered Western Virginia with 20,000 men. Necessary detachments to secure McClellan's lines of supply lowered that number. By the time of Cheat Mountain in W. Virginia, the opposing forces each had 15,000 men. McClellan outmaneuvered his opponents and was able to forestall Lee's attempts to force him back. In the end, Lee left the area having not achieved any real gains and McClellan's force held what is now W. Virginia. Lee is overrated.

Curtiss did abolution manifest in Arkansas. Too early according to Lincoln (Lincoln wanted to hold the slave system border states in the Unio as Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware) so one of the best general as Curtiss lost possibility to develpop his reputation. It may Curtiss could have been better leader as Pope in the Eastern theater. Pope could have remained in Arkansas to help Grant Vicksburg campaign.

A polite appointment and egoist!

Sickles was a joke, even to the North!

Had not heard of him before . . . that is . . . pretty bad!

I don't know you seem to really be making light of his huge strategic failures. Everyone agrees that he did a great job reorganizing the Army of the Potomac after first Bull Run but that was all he was really good for. His peninsula Campiagn was not sound by any stretch of the imagination. Everytime he won a battle he treated it like a huge defeat and retreated. He could have laid siege to Richmond in 1862 instead he retreated after crawling up the peninsula like slug despite outnumbering the confederates 10 to 1. At Antietam he had had multiple chances to destroy the army of Northern Virginia and failed each time to simply act. He deliberately withheld reinforcements from his commanders after promising to send them in. He had no less than three chances to END THE WAR in 1862 and out of incompetence that bordered on outright treason allowed the confederacy to escape and fight on for 3 more years of bloodshed. He is alot like like Captain Sobel from Band of Brothers great at training troops but has no idea how to use them in combat.

@@Eskimo615 Oh , but I beg to differ : His ' Peninsula ' campaign made a lot of sense. He pushed towards Richmond steadily , and had a large siege train , that when placed , would have pummeled the Army of Northern Virginia out of existence. Lee , realized this perfectly , and before McClellan could finish his preparations struck at Fitz John Porter's Corps. The result was the ' Seven days' battles ', that pushed the Federal Army back to its staging points. At ' Malvern Hill ' , which was the last battle , the Union guns won the day , breaking every Confederate attack to pieces. This campaign , by the way , showed ' Stonewall ' Jackson at his worst. Then comes the ' Second Bull Run ' Campaign , where General John Pope and General Irvin McDowell were badly mauled by Lee & Jackson. It was with enormous reluctance that Lincoln and Halleck restored McClellan to command , but the whole Army of the Potomac was delighted. It is then that Lee , launches his invasion to Maryland , and the Federal Army follows closely. DH Hill made a good stand , when faced by the Federal Army's vanguard , but withdrew orderly. It is here , that Lee's overall campaign plan was captured , and was immediately forwarded to McClellan , who uttered the famous phrase : " If I cannot whip Bobby Lee , I'll be willing to go home ". Antietam : Fierce but uncoordinated Federal attacks , begun by Hooker , and finished by Burnside - where the attack went through the bridge , and no one , it seems , wondered just how deep the waters were . McClellan had Porter's Corps at his disposal to finish the Army of Northern Virginia off. However , Fitz John urged caution : " General , my Corps is the last one of the Republic ". The war's bloodiest day finished in a standstill. Lee slipped away . DC was furious , and McClellan dragged his heels , asking for further reinforcments and material. Understandably , Lincoln , pushed by his cabinet , and public opinion , had had enough. Here is where we have to check McClellan's pros and cons : - He made the Army of the Potomac , into the war machine , which would eventually win the war. - He was an extremely able military engineer , among the top of his West Point class , and a very successful pre - war railroad president. - He had an enormous contempt for all politicians , and was convinced that the war had been caused by them. - He tried to find a peaceful solution , even when he was on the move in the Peninsula. - He could never let go of Allan Pinkerton's dubious information , on the real size of the Confederate armies. - In spite of his dislike of politicians , it was thanks to them , that he was promoted above other senior commanders , to command the Union's main army , having only his West Virginia campaign as a background to show for. As the war entered in its second year , and especially , after Antietam , it was clear that the war would have to be fought to the finish , where one of the contenders would have to push the other one to the corner , and punch him to death. By these standards , Grant , Sherman , and Sheridan were the caliber of men to do just that kind of job.

Except stealing to pad his own pockets...

Beast Butler

Hooker was knocked silly. Out for the count. Concussions never help one's brain function. He should have relinquished command, but the stigma of doing so because his brain wasn't functioning properly would have haunted him for life. Better to have been considered unfit for command than unfit for anything.

@@dinahnicest6525 Hooker actually redeemed himself as A Corps Commander at "The Battle of Lookout Mountain" during "The Chattanooga Campaign."

As far as Gettysburg goes, Pickett cannot be blamed, he followed orders. As to the rest of his time I cannot comment.

so Hood was basically hung out to dry by Longstreet?

​@@semiretired86 I am no historian, and my understanding follows the version in Michael Shaara's book Killer Angels. The video clip of Hood is of a movie version of that book (Gettysburg [1993]). The wikipedia articles on the book and the movie give more detail of the account, but essentially it is that Longstreet thought that not just Picket's and Hood's assault, but the entire idea of fighting the Union at Gettysburg was a grave error. Martin Sheen portrays a Lee driven by pride and unreasonable optimism about the abilities of his men to defeat union forces on the high ground who enjoyed superiority in number, arms and fortifications. Shaara's Longstreet can't even mouth the order to Picket to attack- he only nods. It is important to note that Shaara is up front about embellishing, in order to bring the history to life. I am skeptical the historical record has many such details such as the emotions of Hood's anguished obedience to follow an order he firmly believes is foolhardy. So no. Longstreet didn't hang Hood out to dry. Lee's biographer paints Longstreet as footdragging- a theme popular in "Lost Cause" mythologizing of the Civil War. The Shaara version has Longstreet arguing with Lee that they should instead force the Union to attack on the ground of their choosing, suggesting that Longstreet would have not fought at Gettysburg at all. Most accounts agree Longstreet wanted to fight, but instead wanted to flank the Union's left, thereby moving into the Union rear. The book has Hood not Longstreet arguing for this plan. Historians are skeptical it would have fared much better than Lee's approach of attacking the center, because unbeknownst to Longstreet / Hood, Union VI corps under Sedgewick were in positoin to block this move. So in the aftermath, two of Longstreet's staff officers write that Lee expressed his regret to them that he had not taken Longstreet's advice. Would it have mattered? Who knows. The South was doomed barring some stroke of luck, such as McClellan defeating Lincoln in 1864, which would have been a little more likely had Lee decided not to fight at Gettysburg. McClellan wanted to preserve the union and would have kept fighting, but he would have allowed the South to continue to use slavery as a valid economic tool. His party was disunited and weak with the loss of southern democrats, so even if there were no Gettysburg or Longstreet/Hood were successful, Lincoln would have won re election.

As a 21 year Army veteran, the names of the various forts were the result of the Federal government allowing the states in which they were located to name them. Yes Hood was a Kentuckian but he rose to fame as the commander of the Texas Brigade. And it should be mentioned that by the time he took command of the Army of Tennessee he had a crippled arm and was missing a leg and actually had to be TIED to the saddle of his horse by his staff. He was strung out on laudanum on a daily basis due to pain.

I understand that. They were subordinate officers, not in command of strattegy or tactics.

Forrest led his command out of there before the idiots in charge surrendered.

My great great grandfather's regiment, 36th Virginia Infantry, broke out as well. It always chaffed Jefferson Davis that the Tennessee and Virginia troops bailed and left his fellow Kentuckian holding the bag. At one point he even considered blocking the promotion of any officers from the two states, until one of them turned out to be Robert E Lee.