12 Of The Worst Generals Of The American Civil War

[@GrungeHQ]

Which of these generals did the worst job?

[@dinahnicest6525]

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.

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

​@@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.

[@kennethbiebighauser7984]

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

[@unbreakable7633]

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.

[@unbreakable7633]

@@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.

[@robertblake9892]

The rapid expansion of both armies required large numbers of officers, and remember the Regular Army in 1861 had a strenght of-16,000 ? Men who had never commanded anything larger that a company in Mexico or against Indians found themselves commanding battalions, regiments, brigades, divisions. Both side had a steep and rough learning curve.

[@freddy8479]

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!!!

[@ChristopherHueskes-kj6dt]

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

[@pastorjerrykliner3162]

How you missed Dan Sickels, who abandoned his position on Little Round Top for the Devil's Den, almost single-handedly costing the Union the Battle of Gettysburg is beyond me. And then he went on to wage a personal war on Meade his one-time commanding officer while re-writing his own story to attempt to make himself the hero...

[@StonewallTitlow]

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

[@lafeelabriel]

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

[@corvanna4438]

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.

[@patrickrogers9689]

@@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.

[@corvanna4438]

@@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.

[@John-pc3cx]

And this folks, is why we strive to keep politics out of military promotions.

[@raylast3873]

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.

[@will-i-am-not]

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

[@Bidenrules]

Tell tubbyville.

[@pandabear1341]

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.

[@raylast3873]

@@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.

[@derjaeger3321]

The right dog for the right fight. Some Generals are better in a staff position and some are better in a battle command position. Can you imagine Patton in a desk job? Ike proved to a far better organizer and leader than a battlefield commander. But his skills in keeping the enormous egos of an unwieldy and sometime fractious multi-national command on task was a marvel of soldiering and administration.

[@Ares99999]

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

[@derjaeger3321]

@@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.

[@mattvanderford4920]

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.

[@LordZontar]

Eisenhower never had a battlefield command in his life, but he was the ideal organisation man who also had to be part politician to maintain comity between American and British generals. And when it really came right down to it, he wasn't afraid to make the hard decisions and take the gamble of D-Day when the weather provided a short-time window to allow the Channel crossing for the invasion force. He was never plagued with indecision, had a good theoretical knowledge of war and a genius for organisation and logistics. That's what made him the right man to head SHAEF.

[@ancientheart2532]

A politician is a fellow who will gladly sacrifice your life for his country.

[@jeffreygao3956]

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

[@williamcurtin5692]

Where's the Bishop, Leonidas K. Polk? Not only a generally uninspired general, but someone who thoughtlessly kept Kentucky in the Union by crossing the state line first and was killed as a direct result of putting his episcopal dignity ahead of staying alive unlike his companions Johnston and Hardee. Which reminds me to point out that Leather Breeches Dilger merits his own video.

[@cheesecrackers3928]

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

[@zanzibart3]

Beauregard deserves a mention.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

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

[@sydhenderson6753]

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.

[@timothywalsh2955]

President Lincoln remarked about General McClellan's endless requests for more reinforcements, that sending General McClellan more reinforcements "was like shoveling flies across a barn."

[@pauldourlet]

Thnat was fleas

[@JohnHallett5846isaPrick]

👍​@@pauldourlet

[@phann860]

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

[@yohannbiimu]

@@phann860 "Quaker Guns" fooled them to no end. They'd also loop-march men in circles to give the impression that there were many more Confederates than there actually were. I think McClellan believed he was outnumbered in every battle he engaged in against the South when his forces always greatly outnumbered theirs.

[@jimcronin2043]

Two terrible generals who did not make the list: Confederacy-Gen. Leonidas Polk, an Episcopalian bishop prior to the war, ended up an incompetent corps commander before being KIA. Union-Gen Dan Sickles, a New York politician before the war who beat a murder charge with an insanity defense, he was the corps commander who made the unauthorized move into the Wheatfield at Gettysburg creating a salient which resulted in his losing a leg and many of his men losing their lives.

[@heridfel]

Yes! Sickles belongs on that list!

[@aaronfleming9426]

Two excellent additions to the list.

[@l.salisbury1253]

1:00 - You could do an entire video on Gen. McClellan alone...!

[@rp7r54]

TRUE

[@corvanna4438]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@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.

[@corvanna4438]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@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.

[@williamkevinmeisner5457]

McClellan might very well be the worst-ever battlefield general, but he did a good job training the troops and preparing them for combat.

[@russellcollins52]

He did a fair job during the Maryland Campaign.

[@corvanna4438]

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

[@russellcollins52]

@@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

[@barbiquearea]

@@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.

[@russellcollins52]

@@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.

[@Janetsfear]

Johnston was replaced by Hood because Davis wanted precisely the kind of aggressiveness Hood delivered. Hood did what he was asked to do. Kind of like blaming the hammer for doing a lousy job of removing lug nuts.

[@unbreakable7633]

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).

[@johnschuh8616]

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

[@curious968]

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.

[@fredrickhall7039]

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.

[@curious968]

@@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.

[@Sabrina-d5d]

Despite many of them being West Point training most of them were so inept its amazing the war happened at all

[@jonny15dk]

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.

[@barbiquearea]

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.

[@marknewton6984]

Even the North thought Sickles was nuts.

[@marknewton6984]

Forrest was better than any of them.

[@JuricksEnterprise]

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

[@dbn52]

Remove Picket cause he was following Lee's orders. Add Dan Sickles.

[@bad74maverick1]

Or Ewell!

[@deirdre108]

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

[@danielgrant9213]

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.

[@PatrickHardison-bk4mh]

My favorite story about Braxton Bragg was, when he was given command of the defensives of Wilmington, NC, one of the Richmond papers announced his command of the area ending the headline with GOODBYE WILMINGTON.

[@marvthedog1972]

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.

[@TPTGopher]

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

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

Well McClellan actually DID create and train the Army of the Potomac to be a very capable fighting force. He just wasn't the right person to actually LEAD said Army. But the Average Joe soldiers absolutely loved the guy. In fact several regiments threatened mutiny when he was removed from command.

[@robertblake9892]

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

[@PraiseDog]

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.

[@kerrycutting5195]

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.

[@MorganOtt-ne1qj]

He was relieved from duty in my home county.

[@lafeelabriel]

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.

[@nicholasgriffin1743]

Always remember though, McClellan didn't lose...he merely failed to win!

[@ngauruhoezodiac3143]

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

[@marknewton6984]

He was running for President.

[@JuricksEnterprise]

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

[@jwilburn4712]

I still dont understand how one of the US armies bases is named after Bragg; not because he was a Confederate general but because of his incompetence

[@russelljohnson6267]

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.

[@bloodybones63]

@@russelljohnson6267 Bedford Forrest refused to serve under Bragg.

[@sydhenderson6753]

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.

[@MrDan708]

Quite a few of these men were simply not equipped to do what was asked of them. Pickett in particular was asked to launch an uphill assault against a strong Union position. And as the narrator notes Ambrose Burnside seemed keenly aware he was not up to the task of leading an army.

[@InternetDarkLord]

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

[@sydhenderson6753]

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

[@brianrunyon266]

A well done list, and well researched as well. American Civil War buff, what can I say?

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

To be fair to Burnside, when his plans worked as according to what he had envisioned, he could prove to be an awesome general. For example, his stratagem during the Carolina coastal campaign cost the Confederacy dearly, not only with the loss of an entire 2-3,000-man army and Roanoke Island, which was a key element of the coastal defenses, but it also led to the capture of some prime-rate bases such as Washington, New Bern, and Plymouth. And, when he was in command in East Tennessee of the future Army of the Ohio, he would defeat James Longstreet's vaunted I Corps at Knoxville, which would be the first real step in securing the area and the eventual conquest of Tennessee in its entirety, which withheld from the Confederacy one of its critical sources of manpower, rail connections, raw resources, and information. Two generals who I think should definitely be on the list who are not there are Confederate Lieutenant General Theophilus Holmes and Brigadier General Henry Hopkins Sibley. Holmes and Sibley were both good friends of Jefferson Davis, West Point graduates (Sibley in the cavalry and Holmes in the infantry), veterans of the Seminole Wars and the Mexican War, and would have the distinction of being sent to command armies in the Trans-Mississippi Department, whereby Sibley was given a command because of his friendship and plan to invade New Mexico and Holmes had performed poorly during the Seven Days' Campaign, so was sent to the Trans-Mississippi to take command by Davis as a means of redeeming himself. Sibley, with his 2,800-man Army of New Mexico, launched his campaign to take New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and California so as to give the Confederacy more land for cotton production, access to ports that could overextend the Union blockade, and potentially seize the mineral wealth locked within those states. And though his campaign started out well, with the victory at Valverde, the Union ruined his plans at Glorietta Pass, compelling his army to retreat and be reduced to only fifteen hundred men left to fight. He would then be sent to Louisiana whereby multiple accusations would be made of his cowardice and incompetence, possibly from being a drunk. Holmes on the other hand would have a solid partnership with James Hindman, but after Hindman's dramatic defeat at Prairie Grove, along with criticisms about his previously necessary measures to keep the apartment together, Holmes was left without his trusted lieutenant and would in turn be compelled to take to the field in charge of a small army to capture the key city of Helen, AK. Instead, on July 4, 1863, the engagement proved to be a Union victory, thanks to the Battle of Shiloh hero Major General Benjamin Prentiss being in command of a well-fortified citadel. This led to Holmes' dismissal and to the Arkansas River Valley, one of the South's breadbaskets and resource providers, being open to a successful Union invasion.

[@PraiseDog]

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.

[@williamhalejr.4289]

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.

[@mikebrase5161]

​@@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?

[@USGrant-rr2by]

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

[@mikebrase5161]

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

[@RealityOrganized]

You are off about Butler. In the first month of the war Butler captured Annapolis and Baltimore, thus largely securing Maryland for the Union so the capital wouldn’t be surrounded. He came up with the “contraband” concept, which allowed the freeing of many southern slaves. Along with Farragut, he captured New Orleans, the largest city in the south. He stopped the women of N.O. from attacking Union soldiers w/out having to use force.

[@unbreakable7633]

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.

[@markbeckens]

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

[@toooltyme]

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

[@mjjoe76]

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

[@markbeckens]

@@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?

[@roberthudson1959]

Two things that you seem to have forgotten. First, NO ONE on either side had any experience leading formations the size of a Civil War army. Trial and error was the only way to find out whether or not a general was up to the task. Second, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." Since both sides needed volunteers to serve in a war that was expected to last less than six months, the political popularity of a commander was an important way of making sure that the necessary volunteers were enlisted.

[@heridfel]

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.

[@roberthudson1959]

@@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.

[@barbiquearea]

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.

[@roberthudson1959]

@@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.

[@barbiquearea]

@@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.

[@howardamonick86]

It's important to note, not all Civil War generals had formal military training like Grant and Lee. Some were elevated or appointed to be a General based on political patronage. Benjamin Butler as noted early in the video is one case in point. I suspect there were others of equal or lower rank who made bad battlefield decisions.

[@folgore1]

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...

[@corvanna4438]

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.

[@artwerksDallas]

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

[@corvanna4438]

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

[@artwerksDallas]

@@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.

[@dougwayland8176]

Could you have tried harder to find a more irritating sound track?

[@RonHankins-w9x]

Great! Pls do a part 2. Thx

[@lonnieclemens8028]

Any commander that abandons their troops on the battlefield is the worst.

[@redjirachi1]

One of the funniest facts about the Civil War is that McClellan gets dismissed, he tries to become president instead of Lincoln and lost the election miserably

[@LBF522]

His ego over common sense.

[@johnkeviljr9625]

Good job!! I like your channel.

[@douglasw9624]

I'm a genealogist and had an "uncle" who fought under confederate Gen. Henry H Sibley in the New Mexico Campaign. He wrote a short account of the campaign and claimed that on the way back to TX after their defeat, the soldiers "ran off" general Sibley due to his drunkenness. Btw another uncle fought on the Union side of the same battles - Kit Carson.

[@larrygrant-hy8sk]

Great little summary

[@SuperMutant2099]

Things were so bad for Lincoln they had to bring McClellan back after reliving him of command. Yeah he was relieve of command twice during war. Then decide to run for president against Lincoln.

[@robertblake9892]

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.

[@MorganOtt-ne1qj]

The little Napoleon lost the race for Prez, too

[@justincooper3075]

This list really left off Maj. Gen. Joseph P. Hooker, the Union commander of the Army of the Potomac in May 1863? The same general who at Chancellorsville left his right flank "in the air" to be crushed on that side by Lieut. Gen. T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson and lost more men in the battle of Chancellorsville than Burnside at Fredericksburg? That catastrophic defeat caused Lincoln to exclaim in understandable agony, "My God! My God! What will the country say? What will the country say?"

[@freddy8479]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

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.

[@frankmiller95]

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.

[@kevind7396]

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.

[@shimmel-x7h]

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

[@lesliearblaster2711]

McClellan was an absolute disaster as a battle commander. He was pretty good at building a decent Army, but using it was beyond his abilities, it seemed.

[@robertblake9892]

McClellan secured West Virginia for the Union in an almost bloodless campaign, he wrote to his wife that he intended to make it a war of marches rather than battles. Vew few battles were that decisive despite high casualty rates.

[@fordfocusonme1458]

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.

[@aaronfleming9426]

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.

[@ricksamericana749]

John Bell Hood's performance before his horrible injuries was far superior to his actions after his wounds. Some historians suspect laudanum use may have affected his judgement.

[@williamcurtin5692]

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

[@ricksamericana749]

@@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.

[@williamcurtin5692]

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.

[@karlheinzvonkroemann2217]

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

[@CaptainColdyron222]

Bragg was the worst. After Chickamauga one of his soldiers was brought to him and reported that the Union army was in retreat. Bragg snapped and asked him how he would know what a retreat looked like. The soldier replied “I should know. I’ve been in your army for almost two years.”

[@jumpingjacks5558]

What about General George Armstrong Custer. His recklessness, arrogance, and abuse of his troops, were a down fall for his court martial. After being reinstated as general for the American Army, his attributes were a down fall that led to his calvary being wiped out and his death at Little Bighorn

[@paulgiarmo3628]

@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.

[@ngauruhoezodiac3143]

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

[@tonyjordan2557]

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

[@jumpingjacks5558]

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

[@jumpingjacks5558]

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

[@carlriden5284]

You forgot the political General Daniel Sickles whose ineptitude almost cost the Union the Battle of Gettysburg and who, lost a leg there to a cannonball and whom visited his leg annually for years while it was on display at a museum.

[@nco_gets_it]

McLellan would have been a great chief of staff in DC running the administrative side of an army. Burnside was an adequate battalion commander at best and promotion beyond that is a great example of being promoted beyond one's capabilities. In fairness to Hood, it is very likely that after Gettysburg he was completely incapacitated by PTSD. Sigel was likely too influenced by Prussian education. Bragg was never competent at any point. His position in the CSA was entirely a testament to his place in the cavalier class in the south. Pickett and Pope are great examples of men who should never have been considered qualified for anything more than brigade command. Floyd may be seen as the Fredendall of the CSA. Ledlie may have simply understood that he had no business being in command of a latrine detail, let alone a brigade or division. Frankly, the quality of generals in the war of southern sedition on both sides was a political problem. Unfortunately, in the modern age we are no better at selecting people for senior commands.

[@docdoscojazz]

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.

[@raymondlee3414]

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

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

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

[@docdoscojazz]

@@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...

[@pauldourlet]

@@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 .

Lincoln said about McClellan, " he has a case of the slows ". Lincoln just could not get McClellan to MOVE.

[@Narsuitus]

Watched this video just to see if Burnside made the list. We did and I was happy.

[@tehonlyFreeman]

From every angle of Butler I just can't help but think "god damn what ugly man" 😂

[@barbiquearea]

One thing I want to point out about McClellan is that he was pretty young when he became a general. He was promoted to major general at the age of 34 and was given command of the Army of the Potomac by President Abraham Lincoln. At only 34, he outranked everyone in the Union Army except for General Winfield Scott. Meanwhile his opponent Robert E Lee was twenty years McClellan's senior and had already served in the United States Army for nearly McClellan's entire lifetime. For George McClellan, it must have been quite an undertaking for him to be at such a dizzying height at such a young age. Not only that, but he was also squaring off against a man who began his military career when McClellan was only three years old, had served with distinction and was highly respected by the military brass of both sides. I can only imagine how intimidated that must have made him, which may explain why fought Lee with such ridiculous caution and timidness.

[@Bernie8330]

Wasn't Grant only 3 years older than McClellan?

[@jkherold63]

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.

[@thehowlingmisogynist9871]

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

[@TheMrSuge]

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

[@TheMrSuge]

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

[@williambuttermark5250]

Devens of XIth Corps at Chancellorsville drunk and ignored warnings but a well connected Boston Brahman.Dan Sickles. Fancis Barlow pulled a Sickles at Gettysburg on 7/1 before Sickels did the same. Over extended his line without enough troops on poor ground to sieze Stephens Knoll. Braxton Bragg.... the man who could continuously snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[@belamoure]

Amazing how West Point produces so may inept commanders, but political nominations were a great source of idiots too.

[@stflaw]

Pemberton voluntarily bottled his troops up in Vicksburg, leading to the surrender of his entire army. He was Pillow on steroids.

[@Galcian1995]

What about Dan Sickles?

[@brunozeigerts6379]

Apparently, Lincoln once asked McCllelan, 'Since you're not using the Army of the Potomac, may I borrow it for a while?'

[@Kevbing9825]

I disagree with Burnsides placing. Not only did he not accept the commission as commander of the Army of the Potomac he was forced into it. His defeat at Fredericksburg was probably from his corps and divisions commanders who did not support Meade when he made a breakthrough. At the crater it was because Meade told Burnside to put in a non black division just hours before the attack who were less experienced. The division he put in instead was led by a inept person who did not plan the attack with his troops and was drunk in his headquarters during the battle.

[@dinahnicest6525]

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.

[@Kevbing9825]

⁠@@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.

[@dinahnicest6525]

@@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.

[@Kevbing9825]

@@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.

[@dinahnicest6525]

@@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.

[@trajan231]

Burnside was actually just out of his depth as an army commander. As a corps commander, he was one of the best. Same for General Hooker

[@heridfel]

"Famous military strategists of all time" - that is a tall claim. Lee failed in two crucial battles, Antietam and Gettysburg, disastrously so in the latter, which removes him from that list. I would indeed put U.S. Grant on the list, for his ability to see the war as a whole, Western and Eastern theatre in conjunction, and for his focus and tenacity. Other than Grant, I don't see anyone in the league of Alexander, Caesar, Gaius Marius, Napoleon, Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan etc.

[@trickyfoxx6941]

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

[@trickyfoxx6941]

As evidence I present cold harbor

[@marknewton6984]

Grant had 3 to 1 odds. Big deal.

[@frankmiller95]

@@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.

[@sydhenderson6753]

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

[@MrElliotc02]

I think Hood should be at the top of the list. He absolutely destroyed the Army of the Tennessee...no where were their more needless deaths than in his campaigns in 1864. He was the butcher at Franklin. A terrible leader.

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

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

[@freddy8479]

@@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.

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

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.

[@freddy8479]

@@jasonwilliamson8416 I definitely see your point.

[@TheMrSuge]

@@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

[@Skipper.17]

Their problem is that they were promoted beyond their abilities. Most of them were mid ranked officers prior to the war, West Point graduates or not.

[@ngauruhoezodiac3143]

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.

[@joangratzer2101]

MCLELLAN: "TELL PRESIDENT LINCOLN MY ARMY IS UNABLE TO PURSUE THE ENEMY BECAUSE WE HAVE A RIVER IN FRONT OF US AND WE DON"T KNOW HOW DEEP IT IS." "GENERAL; IT'S THIS DEEP!"" LT. GEORGE CUSTER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIVER ON HIS HORSE; 4 FEET DEEP. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

[@raymondlee3414]

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

[@pauldourlet]

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.

[@bigk8210]

If Lincoln had it to do over I am sure that right after the rebel attack on Ft. Sumter he would have called in McClellan and Grant and said, "McClellan you train them; Grant you lead them." Oh how quickly it could have ended.

[@b.chaline4394]

I always found it interesting that Robert E. Lee thought of McClellan as the best Union general he ever faced - even though he did beat him left and right, unlike Grant who got the final word. Was there a bit of bad faith and bitterness on Lee's part, having been defeated by an alleged drunkard and failed businessman, who barely graduated from WP, whereas McClellan was pretty much Lee's apparent heir? Kinda reminds me how Napoleon said Archduke Charles was his best opponent and remained dismissive of Wellington and Kutusov, men who actually got the better of him for more than a simple battle. Or maybe there was some brilliance in McClellan's command of the army of the Potomac that we fail to understand.

[@heridfel]

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?

[@lafeelabriel]

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.

[@sofly7634]

Similar to how Dems praise rinos

[@pauldourlet]

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

[@guyosborn615]

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

[@ChristopherHueskes-kj6dt]

Ahh General Bragg. One of if not the only man to have lost almost every battle he commanded, and the only one to be widely despised by both his own commanders, his own men, and the enemy. Also the only General to be utterly defeated by the enemy he was laying siege to, despite having the high ground. Once, when he attempted to rally his retreating troops, he said “Here is your General!” They said “Here is your mule!”

[@josephluscavage8162]

McClellan genius was organization, much like Eisenhower was more adept at military politics than say a Patton. He just could not employ what he built. But no McClellan, no Army of the Potomac. The Texan Hood was a fighter and a great division commander under Lee (he was wounded at Gettysburg leading an assault, artillery air burst damaged an arm), upon his recovery he was sent to the Army of the Tennesse. Lee upon hearing of Hood's promotion to commander of the Army of Tennessee, and being a southern gentleman, not saying anything bad about a fellow solider said, "That General Hood was all the Lion and none the fox." (It is possible that Lee did not say this as it was never written down, but it does fit). Braxton Bragg was a favorite of Jefferson Davis (and Davis if not anything was loyal to those loyal to him). He was another General good at organization but really not cut out for field command. He according to John Wyeth's book "Life of Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest" had a "dust up." with Forrest. Wyeth wrote Forrest, who was a consummate "southerner," easy to slight but very effective cavalry commander, said, “I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to….You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man, I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it. You may as well not issue any more orders to me, for I will not obey them, and I will hold you personally responsible for any further indignities you endeavor to inflict upon me….If you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path it will be at the peril of your life.” Forrest was the kind of person who would call out a person for a duel.

[@harisblackwood9331]

I appreciate the video, as I do most Grunge vids. I do not appreciate the background music. Way too busy.

[@johnsandy3982]

McClellan's biggest problem was he was a Democrat and a West Point graduate. The Radical Republicans in Congress wanted Anti Slavery Republican generals who would attack the Confederacy regardless of the training, supply, or weather conditions at the time. Had Lincoln and Stanton supported McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign, the war might have ended in the summer of 1862, instead they withheld 40,000 men Mac needed to protect his lines of communication and supply. Lincoln was afraid Stonewall Jackson and his 17,000-man force in the Shenandoah Valley would capture Washington D.C., the most fortified city in the world at that time. U.S. Grant took 7 months to capture Vicksburg, Mississippi, and had 90,000 men in his command against a Confederate force of less than 50,000. During the Overland Campaign in May of 1864, Grant lost more than 60,000 men in six weeks of fighting to arrive at City Point, Virginia. McClellan lost 20,000 men to arrive at Harrison Landing, roughly the same location By any measure, the difference was Grant was not concerned about losing men. McClellan would not fight unless his army was supplied and well-trained and the only exception was Antietam, where he had a rag-tag army of untrained new recruits and badly beaten regiments from Pope's Army of Virginia after Second Bull Run, under his command. After defeating the seasoned veteran Army of Northern Virginia under R.E Lee at Antietam,, Mac refused to move until his army was resupplied and he had time to train his 30,000 new recruits. That was why he was removed from command. The Radical Republicans trashed McClellan during the Congressional Hearings on the Conduct of the War and wrote pamphlets, and newspaper articles criticizing McClellan. He was actually one of the Best Generals in the Union Army, loved by his men, and maligned by political enemies in Congress.

[@fredrickhall7039]

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.

[@aaronfleming9426]

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.

[@davidkimmel4216]

Thanks

[@toobsokable]

I’m surprised McLellan is only #9.

[@Sharky137-s9p]

Yet some got their names on military forts anyway?

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

​​@@Sharky137-s9pThe 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.

[@lomax343]

General Lew Wallace should at least be considered. His division spent the first day of the Battle of Shiloh marching in one direction, then ponderously turning round and marching back, pretty much without firing a shot. In his partial defence, some of the blame belongs to Grant, who assumed Wallace was marching down one road when he was actually marching down another. Wallace went on to write Ben Hur.

[@jamesmack3314]

He wrote Ben Hur that’s pretty impressive

[@sydhenderson6753]

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

[@jamesmack3314]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

McClellan was timid and slow, but he did not find Lee's "battle plans". Order 191 was a plan of march that had almost nothing at all to do with the actual conduct of the battle of Antietam.

[@TheMrSuge]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

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

[@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 ?

[@aaronfleming9426]

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

[@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.

[@MorganOtt-ne1qj]

Spoons Butler ( he reportedly stole silverware) , and Commissary Banks that provided Jackson's men with wagon loads of supplies have to be the top two failures!

[@Focalpoint223]

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

[@Tony-pk6ql]

Boy, did you miss the boat on General Butler and his treatment of Southern women. Perhaps you should revisit that issue after doing some background reading as to what triggered his General Order 28.

[@paulmoser1968]

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

[@freddy8479]

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.

[@marknewton6984]

Goldfinger!

[@brianrajala7671]

How did General Sickels escape your evaluation? IMO he had to be the absolute worst! He nearly cost the Union Army the Battle of Gettysburg, and then ultimately the war. If not for General Hancock seeing the breach, and ordering the First Minnesota to stop the assault (at great sacrifice), there may have been an entirely different war outcome.

[@Lowertoaster55]

Picket wasn’t a bad general he was given an impossible task and tries to carry it out

[@bhaskarsinha5016]

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.

[@ClarenceCochran-ne7du]

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.

[@Lowertoaster55]

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

[@bobkatfan2013]

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

[@tsdobbi]

@@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.

[@marklaplante8675]

I'm surprised you didn't qualify General Pope with Robert E. Lee's comment about his leadership style. Assuming command of the Army of the Potomac, General Pope stated that his headquarters "would be in the saddle." When Robert E. Lee heard of this, he stated, "His headquarters is where his hindquarters should be." Talk about having your head up your rear!!

[@kevind7396]

And yet Pope did well at Island No. 10, Corinth, and put down the largest Native American uprising in U.S. history. Grant trusted him enough to give him the Department of the Missouri in 1864. Pope was obnoxious but there were far worse commanders in the war. He was an early advocate of hard war and wanted to take the war to those who profited off human bondage.

[@DoctorX101]

Lee did not say that. That quote is attributed to Pope's men.

[@williamkirk1156]

Little Mac was one of the worst generals in history. He had "stuff". So much "stuff" they could waste it. Yet he sat transfixed by an enemy he greatly over estimated in "stuff" and manpower. I wonder about his intelligence gathering and the skill to understand what that intelligence means.

[@skyborne80]

5:37 A guy who can't get along with people is the last person who should be commanding troops...

[@stvandy1]

Benjamin Butler put an end to the women abusing his soldiers that if they continued to trying to pour chamberpots on the soldiers heads that he would treat them as whores. The women stopped that behavior.

[@marknewton6984]

They did other things haha!

[@thehistoryexpert82]

John Bell Hood was actually an excellent brigade and division commander, he just was not suited to army command and did not have an accurate assessment of the situation in 1864 when he took command of the Army of Tennessee

[@paul-we2gf]

Gen.Pickett followed Gen. Lee's orders to charge at Gettysburg . Don't see him as a bad general rsther as someone who followed orders

[@brianwelch-qq3ti]

You missed General Haddock, who did similar actions to McClellan

[@michaelglueckert7662]

McClellan was absolutely horrible general!

[@JohnIorii]

Lincoln said he had the slows

[@mikemuth7267]

I'm surprised Joe Hooker is not in this list. OTOH, I think you do McClellan wrong. He beat Lee in what is now West Virginia, making the creation of that state possible. He took the battered remnants of McDowell's army and turned it into a fighting machine. Part of his caution is explained by the bad intel Pinkerton was giving him. Because of that, he always thought he was outnumbered and dawdled at Yorktown.. His biggest failing was that he cared too much for his men and was reluctant to feed them into the meat grinder of battle. At Sharpsburg, he failed to commit the V Corps (which would have broken Lee's army) because of the horrifying bloodletting in and around the cornfield. Burnside did him no favors in the battle - he insisted on sending his men across a heavily defended bridge when Antietam Creek was easily fordable in several places. When he finally did use those fords, he pushed back the confederate defenders, but it was too late in the day and AP Hill's division was arriving. Without a viable cavalry force, his pursuit after the battle was lacking and he missed opportunities to punish the Army of Northern Virginia. These missed opportunities got him relieved. His replacement was a bull-headed general lacking in tactical finesse who sent waves of troops to attack Marye's Heights.

[@jamesmack3314]

Fighting Joe Hooker? I agree…not good

[@maxdavid84]

@@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.

[@jamesmack3314]

@@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

[@aaronfleming9426]

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.

[@mikemuth7267]

​@@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.

[@thewonderer4808]

Burnside certainly was not the best Union general, but he did not delay in attacking the bridge at Antietam. McClellan gave him orders to prepare to take the bridge around 7am then times at 9:10 orders came to attack and take the bridge. Burnside and his second in command Jacob Cox time the arrival at 10:00. His attempts to take the bridge is another can of worms…

[@thewonderer4808]

Looks like the comment section thing though I meant times in the video. The times in my first comment just meant the time of day during the battle

[@aaronfleming9426]

It's also worth noting that Burnside was the only Union general to achieve his objective at Antietam, and he was driven back because McClellan failed to support Burnside's success...not surprising, given that McClellan did very little to coordinate his corps all day long and was miles away from the fighting.

[@thewonderer4808]

@@aaronfleming9426 Yes, and Mac even said he would support him in the orders. The Union army at that point was not the well-oiled machine, and the reserves Mac had on hand were tired and some inexperienced, but the battle probably would have ended with the destruction of Lee's army if they went in with the 9th corp. Parts of the 6th corps and the 5th, even though an entire division of the 5th was a new division for example. It is interesting to think of what could have happened.

[@reggiefurlow1]

Lee was seriously overrated

[@aaronfleming9426]

True, but certainly not among the 12 worst.

[@marknewton6984]

Lee was still darn good.

[@tcs2h1]

Hood does not belong on this list. He was a superb brigade and division commander through most of the war, and an okay corps commander during the Atlanta campaign. He was given the thankless task of holding Atlanta against Sherman, who outnumbered him 2-1, with orders to drive the Union forces away from the city. He only performed badly during the last four or five months of his tenure, when he was suffering from earlier wounds and was vastly outnumbered and outgunned. A better choice a CSA poor general would be A.P. Hill, who had his moments as a division commander but was a disaster as a corps commander.

[@waltrogers9770]

Two words...Dan Sickles

[@marknewton6984]

A polite appointment and egoist!

[@WilliamCurry-bh3dk]

whats up with the hand in side the top ?

[@DoctorX101]

Way back, it cost more to have a portrait painted with hands shown, since hands are difficult to paint. So it became a "thing" to hide hands. You see this in a famous painting of a young Washington. This carried on into the Civil War Era.

[@michelmendoza1769]

McClellan let’s see… paranoid insubordinate, and disrespectful

[@marknewton6984]

And indecisive!

[@HooDatDonDar]

“Where's the Bishop, Leonidas K. Polk? Not only a generally uninspired general, but someone who thoughtlessly kept Kentucky in the Union by crossing the state line first and was killed as a direct result of putting his episcopal dignity ahead of staying alive unlike his companions Johnston and Hardee” Yes. I trained at Fork Polk, and learned his story. He did a great job - for the Union. Fort Polk was recently renamed Fort Johnson. And having a bishop as a general is just weird. Ps, I think the clergyman in twains ‘jumping frog’, rev leonidas w. Smiley, had a name inspired by bishop Polk.

[@alexanderyacht6483]

Earl Van Dorn was a pretty lousy Confederate general. Especially at Pea Ridge.

[@freddy8479]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

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

[@kevind7396]

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

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@kevind7396 Definitely a guy promoted above his abilities.

[@mikewoodman7700]

A lot of the generals here were thrust into a position of command that was way past their abilities, mainly due to attrition or failure.

[@marknewton6984]

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

[@fundamentos3439]

Gen. George B. McClellan created the ' Army of the Potomac '. His early victories in the State of Virginia , resulted in the creation of the State of West Virginia , a place where an enormous pro - union sentiment existed. He was revered by his soldiers , for he truly cared about them , and disliked costly frontal attacks. His Peninsula & Antietam campaigns were sound , and placed the Army of Northern Virginia in a perilous position. He made two major gaffees: - Listening to Allan Pinkerton , head of the Union intelligence , who would always exaggerate the size of the Confederate army. - Having captured Lee's battle plan before action began at Antietam , and not attacking simultaneously that day. Although a tactical draw , from the military point of view , it became a strategic Union victory : On the one hand , Lee had to withdraw from Maryland , and on the other hand , it led to President Lincoln's ' Emancipation Act ' proclamation. Perhaps it was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant , victor of the final Eastern Campaign that ended at Appomatox , - himself a soldier who had to order costly frontal attacks , which earned him the nickname of ' Butcher ' among the troops' rank and file - who gave the best veredict on Gen. McClellan : " The Great Enigma of the War ".

[@Eskimo615]

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.

[@fundamentos3439]

@@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.

[@JohnHallett5846isaPrick]

Lee was next to useless, he had west to east rivers as defensive parameters which allowed him to win his most of his battles, the two times he went on the offensive he had his ass handed to him.

[@mvrosa8704]

Butler got a bad reputation because the southern historians hated him, because of his successful capture and administration of New Orleans. He had some very successful actions in the early war. True, some his leadership was mediocre, but none of it was atrocious or dishonorable.

[@MorganOtt-ne1qj]

Except stealing to pad his own pockets...

[@marknewton6984]

Beast Butler

[@Focalpoint223]

3:16 all of Pickett's charge was Lee's fault, he was warned multiple times that he was an idiot but still went through with it. Lee was a overrated general

[@BlueandButternut]

It was actually Longstreet's fault.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@BlueandButternutlol. Longstreet was the guy warning Lee not to do it. Turns out Longstreet was right.

[@BlueandButternut]

@@aaronfleming9426 Actually Longstreet spent most of his time complaining and whining, while Lee was trying to plan for the assault.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@BlueandButternutIf by "complaining and whining" you mean "talking good sense to your commander when he's obviously dead wrong" I guess maybe you're right.

[@marknewton6984]

Longstreet was slow.

[@kenbash2951]

HUGE omission- Daniel Sickles- he should have been first on your list or at least remove Pickett and replace him with Sickles. Pickett's men took Cemetery Ridge- the ONLY Confederates to do so at Gettysburg- he SHOULD NOT be on this list.

[@marknewton6984]

Sickles was a joke, even to the North!

[@mikebrown1926]

I recall reading an article in a news magazine in the 1990's, Time, or perhaps Newsweek, and the author was outraged that there were almost as many generals and admirals in the US military as there were during WW Two. The writer failed to understand that when a large war breaks out, such as the Civil War, World War One or World War Two, having enough experienced, or at least well trained flag officers at hand is just as important as having enough ships, planes, tanks and artillery. In each of those wars too many inexperienced or unqualified officers cost too many lost battles and lost lives. Being able to enlist or call up hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors requires having the right men to command them. In WW One and WW Two no state governors were able to appoint generals, but the US military was so small both times, that when thousands of new recruits began pouring in, mid level and junior officers were often promoted beyond their abilities. Young lieutenants found themselves commanding battalions and majors might be commanding regiments.

[@SwarmerBees]

Gotcha. Hood was one of the worst? Maybe BS check what you are saying and wonder why the US Army named Fort Hood after him. Not saying he was a stellar general, but thses examples are lame. Blaming Hood for following Lee's orders at the battle of Gettysburg to execute the right wing of picket's charge? Horse manure. The actor playing Hood is giving his protest to Longstreet who in fact thought Lee's plan to assault entrenched positions on the high ground against superior forces was folly. Hood wanted to flank the heights, but many historians are skeptical this would have been successful. It is true that during the conflict Hood was foolhardy in favoring frontal attacks on positions well defended by artillery and rapid firing guns. But this as much as Lee's sin as it was that of most World War I generals on both sides.

[@semiretired86]

so Hood was basically hung out to dry by Longstreet?

[@SwarmerBees]

​@@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.

[@jasonwilliamson8416]

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.

[@marvthedog1972]

my great great grandfather was captured during the battle of Sabine Crossroads as a part of the Red River campaign. thankfully he survived and i'm here today.. he was with the 19th Kentucky Volunteer Infantry.

[@SnyderEMarx5]

Not sure Pickett deserves to be on the list. you could add "Fighting" Joe Hooker in his place.

[@dinahnicest6525]

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.

[@freddy8479]

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

[@fredrickhall7039]

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

[@charleshendrix232]

The recent biography of Lee by Guelzo sheds a different light on MCclellen’s overall strategy. Generally Grant came to pursue MCclellans general strategy and moved away from his own earlier proclivities.

[@virginiagrundman4012]

Requirements for being an officer in the Civil War were extremely loose. Usually all you had to be was a college graduate. Or son of a rich man. Or bribed the Board. So......anyone could achieve a captaincy.

[@chrisvickers7928]

Pope once said he kept is headquarters in the saddle. Some wag suggested he kept his headquarters where his hindquarters should have been.

[@FerretJohn]

McClellan was a masterful organizer with a talent for maintaining troop morale, but he was a poor tactician, at least in application, often overestimating the enemies abilities, out-thinking his own tactics, and failing to commit his troops. He was also no friend of Lincoln's, being openly insubordinate and dismissive of the Commander in Chief and refusing to inform him of his exact plans and strategies. At one point Lincoln called on McClellan at his home, the General left the President sitting in his parlor for nearly two hours then sent his wife in to inform Lincoln that he had retired to bed, Lincoln was of course furious. Lincoln got so frustrated by him that he wrote to McClellan "If you are not using the Army of the Potomac at the moment do you mind if we borrow them for awhile?" Bragg was notoriously argumentative, there was a story (probably false, but still entertaining) about Bragg as a young Company Commander as well as the forts acting Quartermaster. As Company Commander he filled out a requisition for certain equipment and submitted it to the Quartermaster (himself), as Quartermaster he reviewed the request and declined it, stating his reasons on the back which he then sent back to the Company Commander, Bragg then sent a strongly worded response to the Quartermaster stating he had every right to that equipment, and when the Quartermaster again declined it he went to the Base Commander. The Base Commander listened to the argument with awe then told Bragg "My God, you've argued with every officer here and now you're arguing with yourself!: