Who Did Theodore Roosevelt Think Was the Best Civil War General?

In 1886, following his sojourn to the West to live the rough and tumble life of a rancher, Theodore Roosevelt headed back East. That same year, his biography of Thomas Hart Benton, the architect of westward expansion know as Manifest Destiny, appeared in print. Buried inside the book is Roosevelt's opinion of "the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples."
"Life on the Civil War Research Trail" is hosted by Ronald S. Coddington, Editor and Publisher of Military Images magazine. Learn more about our mission to showcase, interpret and preserve Civil War portrait photography at militaryimagesmagazine.com and shopmilitaryimages.com.
This episode is brought to you in part by Joshua's Attic, the "collector's and enthusiast's favorite encampment." Visit joshuasattic.com to explore the many relics and other items for sale.
Image: National Portrait Gallery.
This channel is a member of the KZbin Partner Program. Your interest, support, and engagement is key, and I'm grateful for it. Thank you!

[@random-J]

Lee was worshiped "like a demigod" Grant said, his popularity off the field of battle covered over his mistakes during the war, while grant's mistakes were always pointed out by even the northern press , lee's mistakes were swept under the rug and largely ignored for historians like Roosevelt to give an accurate synopsis of his generalship.

[@kentkippes5773]

Lee was asked by a reporter after the war, who was his best commander. He replied "a man i never met Nathan Bedford Forrest ". Read the books written about him. His exploits were phenominal

[@luciusjulius8320]

First of all, Nathan Beford Forrest never served under Lee so there is no way that Forrest could have been Lee's best commander. Forrest served in Tennesse and the western theater and was never in the Army of Northen Virginia. Secondly, that alleged quote has never been authenticated. Third. Lee wouldn't have said that about a man that he probably never even met.

[@kentkippes5773]

​@luciusjulius8320 nobody said he served under Lee. Lee was asked that when he was president of the college he served at. I forgot which university it was. Nevertheless if you are in denial of Forrest's exploits then you need to read his biography. There is more than one.

[@luciusjulius8320]

Read the post again. That's precisely what was said. Try a remedial English class.@@kentkippes5773

[@michaelwilson9986]

YEPPIE.

[@patrickmiano7901]

He was a butcher who murdered unarmed black prisoners. Before the war, he was a slave trader.

[@arailway8809]

Upon the death of his first wife he wrote, "The light has gone out of my life." His mother died 11 hours later. It was a kick in the guts, and he needed time out west to heal.

[@ryanperry8732]

the mother died first and the wife the next day

[@terryp3034]

Dwight Eisenhower also picked Lee as the best of the war, and he certainly understood the pressures a commander faces and the moral courage required to press ahead.

[@r.williamcomm7693]

Yes! Eisenhower had 4 portraits in his office & one of them was Lee. Imagine the woke snowflakes melting with outrage of that happened today. 😂

[@peterbellini6102]

No, he DID not in the context of a field commander. Grant was a much better general.

[@KeepittFrosty]

@@peterbellini6102yes, o agree, from what I’ve read Grant was a much better strategist, much more forward thinking then Lee. Though, in the end, I don’t think it could be argued that Lee was was certainly forward enough thinkling that he knew of he continued to fight, they couldn’t win and didn’t want to unnecessarily waste any more of his men’s lives when he decided to sign the treaty.

[@supererdoc]

@@peterbellini6102 It's easier to be better on the field when you outnumber the enemy 5 to 1, have unlimited resources and replacements, and wage a war of attrition. To paraphrase Jubal Early, the Army of Northern Virginia was not beaten. It was utterly worn down to its final destruction. Lee's Confederates were starving scarecrows with no food and little ammunition, numbering a little over 30,000 at the end. My gg-grandfather John Strebeck, 13th Mississippi Infantry, was one of those starving scarecrows surrendered at Appomattox. Grant was the first industrial-age general fighting an army composed of primarily small-scale farmers.

[@susanschaffner4422]

Roosevelt changed his mind later in his life regarding Grant as the ultimate general. He proposed Washington, Lincoln and Grant to be the best leaders America produced.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

TR not only lost his first wife, but his mother also died on the same day! Quite a blow! It's no wonder he went west to try and clear his head and pull himself together. By the way, Teddy was a little boy during the Civil War and remembered his mother, who came from a prominent Georgia family, sewing a "Stars and Bars" flag and hanging it from one of the windows of their New York City home during the secession crisis! The ensuing near-riot caused his father to be called home from the office to take the flag down! The NYC portion of the Lincoln funeral also went past the Roosevelt home and young Teddy remembered it as well. So, when TR formed his opinions of the Civil War remember it was of recent memory and he grew up surrounded by veterans and eyewitnesses of the same.

[@larrydemaar409]

President Eisenhower liked General Robert E. Lee, also.

[@supererdoc]

Another influence undoubtedly on Roosevelt's choice of Lee and the Southern soldiers was Roosevelt's mother was a Southerner, and he idolized his Confederate uncles. Roosevelt was drawn to fighters, especially underdogs, who risked all in the fight, and this spirit and determination animated the Confederates.

[@davidtvedt7597]

Most interesting perspective! Roosevelt was a no-nonsense individual. In today's medium, he would be considered irrational, a danger to society, and a racist, among other things. In today's world, we are timid, not wanting to offend anyone, or anything, reaching the point where we don't know what we stand for, always having a committee meeting, resulting in idle chatter, never reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Times have changed, alarmingly so!

[@TheLAGopher]

Roosevelt was a New York trust fund baby who actually molded himself into being a man’s man. He backed up his bluster and fought his own. battles. Above all Teddy cated about the working class and fairness for Black people.

[@jayglithero524]

He also won the Nobel Prize for Peace.

[@albertsidneyjohnston5164]

Ah yes, committees. The only known lifeforms with three or more bellies and no brain.

[@Anthony-rk8cz]

He created Progressivism with the Bull Moose Party

[@dutchray8880]

Teddy Roosevelt is one of my favorites, an intellectual jock. We've really sunk to a new low in our choices of politicians.

[@HotZTrain]

Union General Sherman said Nathan Bedford Forrest was the best on either side. I would put Patrick Cleburne right behind Forrest.

[@briangulley6027]

Lee never won an offensive campaign, most of his battle victories were defensive victories. Grant never lost a campaign, took entire armies off the map, and captured critical objectives, Lee did neither.

[@user-cg6nc5ip8c]

At the begining of the CW, Lincoln knew General Winfield Scott was too old and physically unable to command. He asked Scott to select a General to lead the Union Army. Scott replied, there's only one man for that job...Robert E. Lee! Of course, Lee turned down the offer from Scott and stood with Virginia. All the experts are forgetting probably the most important attribute that Lee possessed and that was the love for him by the soldiers under his command. They would charge into the pits of hell for General Lee and on the 3rd day at Gettysburgh, they did just that.Top three Generals of the CW...Lee, Jackson, Forest. Second three..Grant, Sherman, Johnston. Finally, in closing..If Lee would of had the resources and manpower as did Grant, in my opinion the CW would have been won by the Confederacy in eighteen months. or less. HE IS RISEN!

[@lanemeyer9350]

Am I the only one who says “HEY ALL” out loud before Ron does in every video haha?

[@markkennedy9699]

I love these stories thank you Ron!

[@stevewallace1117]

General Lee said Grant was the best general he faced.

[@VersusARCH]

No, he name George McClellan as the best that he faced.

[@thewrightoknow]

Brilliant ! Thank you.

[@LoneStarLawman]

Abraham Lincoln, wanted Lee to lead the Union troops, and Lee turned it down, because he stated, he could never raise his sword, against his beloved Virginia. Lee was not only a great military leader, he was a great educator. Before the war, he was the Superintendent of West Point. After the war, he became the first President of Washington College, later renamed after him as Washington and Lee. He was the best General of the Civil War. He fought, with less men, and equipment. The South had fewer factories and a much smaller railroad system. The north had more soldiers, more population, more industrial might, and a large railroad system. Lee's leadership, is why the war lasted four years.

[@tombecht926]

Traitor

[@charleshowell7855]

@@tombecht926yee old ‘traitor’ comment. How uneducated of yee.

[@douglasturner6153]

Lee went with his State. Wasn't happy with Secession. His whole life had been serving the united country in often lonely and distant locales. His father Light Horse Harry Lee was one of Washington's more effective Generals. He was proud of that founding legacy. As a General you have to look at the total picture. What he had to work with, how he held things together and what he achieved. People have been trying to pull Lee off his Pedestal for a long time with one argument or another. He's still there to many's consternation.

[@tomjackson4374]

Lee often said he could have done so much more with a professional army. The Confederate Army started out as an armed mob.

[@Sagitariutt-qt8ff]

or his country. The Civil War turned the United States of America into the United State of America, and ushered in big centralized government.

[@63DW89A]

Lee was probably the most supremely competent commanding general in the Civil War. His superb competence at training, equipping, organizing and moving an army is clearly evident in history. Any other general put in Lee's circumstances of "low manpower and meager resources" would likely have failed, even excellent Union generals like Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, Meade or Thomas. However, while Lee was a competent tactician, he was not brilliant. And Lee could only see responses to the circumstances in front of him, had no concept of an overall war plan, and apparently no vision of a "Strategic War Vision" at all. With the brilliant tactician Stonewall Jackson at his side, the supremely competent Lee could orchestrate miracles like Chancellorsville. Minus a Jackson, Lee could only respond in a competent, yeoman manner, matching his enemy move by move. In all fairness to Lee, he never had the spare resources or enough manpower to orchestrate a brilliant "Strategic Vision to end the war in Confederate Victory", even if he had such a plan in mind. "Strategic Vision" is where Grant absolutely shined; he saw best how to move forces, organize resources, and tactically move in order to gradually move toward a Union victory to end the war. Plus Grant had the dogged determination, courage and drive to move his "Strategic Vision" forward, even when circumstances looked dim. Grant was blessed with the overwhelming resources possessed by the Union. But Grant also KNEW how to use those resources wisely, unlike many other Generals of that era, North or South. It is an interesting mental exercise to put Lee in Grant's place and Grant in Lee's place. I don't think Grant would have been successful in Lee's place. And I'm not sure Lee would have had the "Strategic Vision" to end the war as quickly, had Lee been in Grant's place.

[@normsti000]

Good thoughts, but I am going to intrude with some modern thoughts, when fighting a numerically superior and better equipped opponent, the key to victory is to preserve the corpus of your army. There is no doubt Lee knew this intellectually but he was hampered by his experience. Thus, Lee knew the key to a Southern victory lay in the first year, after that, facing a better equipped and larger army, he could only hope to force the North to negotiate. We see this in the South's string of first year victories but also with the diminishing hopes in years three and four. Grant also knew this, and was willing to spend his resources more freely keeping Lee's attention on the Potomac while the March to the Sea cut through the heart of the South. Lee maneuvered while the South burned. All in all, while Lee is my sentimental favorite, I believe Grant was more effective.

[@63DW89A]

@@normsti000 Grant had overwhelming resources behind that effectiveness, while Lee's resources were not really adequate. Swap places with Lee and Grant, and Grant would have lost to Lee, and Grant may not have been even able to last up to April, 1865 as Lee did. Not taking sides, but looking at the Civil War as a purely tactical exercise, the South lost in 1861 with the decision to fight a conventional war. Without a large Navy and with meager Industrial capability, the South could not win a conventional war. Had the South practiced unconventional war, using fast moving mounted "Dragoon" units similar to those commanded by John Singleton Mosby, Nathan Bedford Forest, William Clark Quantrill, etc. the South may have had a chance at winning. But such tactics would have been brutal, as hundreds or thousands of Southern Dragoon units would have had to invade the North to rapidly destroy the Federal and State political structures, killing Lincoln and his cabinet, State Governors and advisors in their, offices, the Congress, State Legislatures, the Federal and State Judicial officers. Such tactics would have made the hundreds or thousands of roving Southern Dragoon Units, effectively roving outlaw gangs of murder and destruction. The sole mission of these Southern Dragoons would have been to decapitate the Northern Political Structure, Federal, State, Local as rapidly and as brutally as possible, then move to destruction of transportation, communication and resources. Kill the farmers in their burning fields, the sheriff in his office, the policeman on the street. Burn the towns. Ride in behind the Army in the field and kill the command staff in their tents. Decapitate the Northern society, and destroy their ability to produce and have them starving in the first 18 months of the war, would have been the South's only method to victory. Such brutal tactics would have prevented the North and South from ever reconciling, as the hatred would have transcended generations. So I'm glad no one in the South ever considered such a plan.

[@TomKirkman1]

Lee knew the south would lose the war and said as much early on. He was intelligent enough to know that the south could not win the war of attrition that the north would ultimately fight. His only hope was a victory on northern soil (Gettysburg) that might shift northern attitudes and cause them to sue for peace.

[@rolotomassi9806]

Good posts here. I believe Grant’s overall plan in the west was spot on after reading and visiting the battlefields there. When Tennessee fell the Confederacy lost imho.

[@donaldjones3580]

I was hoping you were going to say Nathan Bedford Forrest. I'm an alumnus of N.B. Forrest HS in Jacksonville Fla 1968.

[@BGBG617]

I'm taking Stonewall Jackson first round.

[@OldMusicFan83]

File him with George Patton in a later era. But great fighters

[@samiam619]

I was a Civil War re-enactor for 11 years. Around our campfires on Saturday night, both Rebs and us Yanks would gather for camaraderie and to discuss the War in general. It was the consensus of both sides that if Lee had taken Lincoln’s offer of command of Federal troops, he would have been just as timid in command as other Federal Generals. More worried about losing than winning.

[@tomheffron2896]

I’m going with Stonewall Jackson’s.

[@davesskillet9235]

I thought it might be a union general as well but Lee was in the back of my thoughts so it was Lee as his favorite interesting choice.

[@leemarlin9415]

Best can be debated. But that’s not what interest me in the statement that was read. He spoke of the southern soldier and Lee not as if they were foreigners but as if they were Americans. We often forget every person that served in the American Civil War was an American. We were at war with ourselves. Think about that when your dehumanize a fellow American with a different opinion.

[@johnstezelecki8157]

In my opinion Lee was the best defensive general during the civil war but unfortunately his offensive campaigns with numerous errors ended in his defeats,

[@tomjackson4374]

Yea, that's right, it wasn't Gen. Lee at Chancellorsville, or Manassas. That must have been somebody else. But Gen. Lee often said there were many things he could have done with a professional army that he simply could not do with the Confederate Army as it existed. His orders many times were failed to be carried out.

[@kennethhamby9811]

The civil war was the war that changed warfare. The tactics taught at Westpoint were outdated. The generals that recognized that weapons had advanced beyond tactics .

[@eddarby469]

The only two "Offensive" losses I recall for Lee were Sharpsburg and Gettysburg. At Sharpsburg, Lee's order of battle was compromised and because of the intel failure he was doomed. He was possibly lucky to get out of there at about an even decision. The Union "won" Sharpsburg because Lee left, not because he was wiped out. Gettysburg was a combination of things, particularly the absence of General Thomas Jackson. But I can very well understand Lee's decision process. The war had been very long and tough on the South, on Lee and on his troops. The South needed a victory such as the opportunity in Gettysburg would provide, after they had the victory. Lee's resources were dwindling. It took a great many bits of fortune for Lee to be in Pennsylvania, and it was unlikely to happen again for a year or more. I suppose Lee may have figured he wouldn't get this chance again and he gambled it all on a victory at Gettysburg at the end. Since the South was going to lose, it was better for them to lose there and then suffer the steady decline to the end rather than a more prolonged decline over four or five more years of war. It is good that slavery ended, and in many ways it ended at Gettysburg.

[@johnstezelecki8157]

Sharpsburg aka Antietam and Gettysburg were Lee's only major moves towards the north and both ended up as major failures.@@eddarby469

[@jefpell]

George Thomas at Chickamauga. "The Rock"

[@steveferris663]

Four words! The Rock of Chickamauga!

[@aaronfleming9426]

You got it! There is simply no other major general with his capacity for training, logistics, strategy, operations, innovation, intelligence, and combat. And there is no other important general with a record completely free of major blunders.

[@asuperstraightpureblood]

Ol pap.

[@j.b.4340]

Teddy Roosevelt gave us back our flags. I’ll always e grateful for that act of kindness.

[@paulbarron9745]

I thought Cleveland did.

[@cliffordbowman6777]

Did some wrong, but so much rite.

[@paulnejtek6588]

Gave back what flags?

[@Razorbacks1]

George Thomas and Patrick Cleburne may have been the best generals who never got their due.

[@headspaceandtiming2114]

GHT. The Rock!

[@everettbass8659]

My G Grandpa was in Cuba with TR,he got his job on Jeykll island as head caretaker through him.I admired TR even before I was made aware of this.😊

[@williamashbless7904]

George Thomas. He wrecked a rebel army at Mill Springs, anchored the Union army at Stones River, saved that army at Chickamauga, drove the rebel army from Missionary Ridge at Chattanooga, and then wrecked the rebel army at Nashville. Oh, he was also a Southerner.

[@tomjackson4374]

Thomas was fighting Braxton Bragg, a most incompetent, and hated, general. So if Thomas had been fighting Lee the result might have been different. Bragg threw away many opportunities with his subordinates begging him to move.

[@michaelgallagher2663]

Your Opinion Is Mine! When Thomas Was In Command, He Never Lost. He Was The Consummate Professional Soldier.

[@williamashbless7904]

@@tomjackson4374 fair enough. Lee certainly was pitted against world class military geniuses with the likes of McClellen, Burnside, Hooker, etc.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@williamashbless7904 Did you kind of leave out Grant? You missed him in the mix? McClellan could see the watch towers of Richmond when Lee took command, yet Lee forced him back. Name me another general who could have done that. The only way Grant could beat Lee was a war of attrition. Lee was the underdog in every battle yet he almost won. So spare me the irony.

[@williamashbless7904]

@@tomjackson4374 McClellen was a fine strategic thinker. He had no taste for combat. Lee was forced to do something to defend Richmond. His ‘all out’ assaults drove Mac off. It cost Lee nearly 30,000 men. Pretty much anybody who attacked Mac would find easy goings. Lincoln sacked him for cause. Why he was rehired for the Antietam Campaign is a head scratcher. He stopped Lee in that campaign, but had Lee’s strategic plans and should have utterly destroyed him. He didn’t. I didn’t mention Grant because Lee never beat Grant. Lee almost won? Seriously? He invaded the North twice. Both attempts wrecked his army and he crawled South with his tail between his legs. Lee won defensive battles on home soil. That’s not how you win wars. Grant won his war of attrition because Lee would not face him in open battle during the Petersburg Campaign. Lee was fortified to defend Richmond and drag out the war until the election where he hoped McClellen would defeat Lincoln and sue for peace. Grant was a brilliant strategist and only fair tactician. He also was not afraid to fight. Lee’s strategic abilities bordered on incompetence. He was a very capable tactician and a gambler. Gambling against lackluster opponents is likely to be rewarding.

[@paulenterline3107]

The comparison to Marlborough is interesting. The greatest General you've probably never heard of.

[@tomjackson4374]

Wasn't he related to Churchill?

[@jeffrey7938]

Yes, Winston was related to him.

[@williamcurtin5692]

The Brits are always thought of as being sea fighters, which draws attention away from Marlborough and Wellington, who are inner circle greats. Not to mention all those fighting Kings.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@williamcurtin5692 Their entire colonial empire was created and sustained by the army.

[@jessjessup2361]

Interesting that Roosevelt, following this theme, was instrumental in starting the National Rifle Matches. As to Lee, wasn't his home, inherited from Washington's family, in a DC suburb?

[@asuperstraightpureblood]

Yep, his wife Mary was a grand daughter of Washington's. Arlington house, now the national cemetery.

[@daver8521]

John A. Logan - a real fighting general. Saved the Union army at Atlanta. He was too good. The West Pointers hated him because he was not one of them But the troops loved him.

[@TomKirkman1]

Winston Churchill had a similar view of Lee. Regardless, I don't think Roosevelt "sympathized" with the southern soldiers, he simply believed they and their officers were better soldiers.

[@brianmoore1164]

No need to explain it or qualify it. It was recent and thoroughly studied history to TR and he chose correctly. TR wasn't woke, or politically correct, he didn't feel any need to soften the factual truth. In other words, he was an actual adult man. The world would be better off if we had more of them.

[@donaldkwasnicki9554]

Thanks

[@jonrolfson1686]

It is thought provoking that Roosevelt, then just under thirty years old, identified R.E. Lee as the American Civil War’s Best General. It would be quite interesting if we were able to access Roosevelt’s thoughts on the matter thirty-odd years later, by which time Roosevelt had himself fought vigorously in a dangerous battle as a field-grade officer, been President of the United States, and had lost a son in Great War combat. It is possible that Roosevelt would have expressed the same opinion in 1919. If he had it would have been an evaluation which persisted through hard experience.

[@marilynmurphyd.c.366]

Great stuff! Also, his mother was a Southern belle from GA. His father, a New Yorker, who hired a man to fight in his place because of his wife’s leanings. A picture of Ulysses S Grant hangs in his Sagamore Hill library to this day.

[@constantinebodien1887]

Grant? Yes, this may reflect the thoughts of Roosevelt, hands down the greatest general of the American Civil War was General Sherman.

[@marilynmurphyd.c.366]

To be fair, there are also pictures of Washington & Lincoln in the library so maybe they were favorite presidents.

[@lyntwo]

Grant. He learned how to use what the Union had and what the Union came to have to secure the defeat of the Seccessionists and thus restoration of the United States.

[@melissaallen6914]

And never lost a battle

[@mikemorales4855]

Here is a president who gave us the federal income tax that was to be a few percentage points only……

[@tcod3137]

Give lee the army of the Potomac and all it’s resources, and pit lee against Grant with the same resources, Then that would be a fair fight!

[@tcarroll3954]

Robert E. Lee was a fine man.

[@user-zb2st6zi6j]

The efficiency of the modern weapons favored the defense in the civil war. This accounts for a lot of Lee's success. Lee didn't do any better than most of the Northern generals when on the offensive. The one exception was Grant. He understood modern war. He was the only general in the war who won consistently on the offensive. This made Grant far and away the finest general in the Civil War.

[@davidanthony4845]

" It was typical TR conduct, combining penetrating thought, forthright action, and extremes of banality." - Barbara Tuchman

[@eugeneelar2231]

Each side had lower commanders better than top guys.Bedford Forrest,stonewall Jackson for the south north grant

[@michaeldouglas1243]

And John B. Gordon.

[@jeffrey7938]

Hancock

[@thomasgunne8730]

Absolutely spot on and the proof was in the field and the admiration of their men, leaders are in front, politicians stay on the hill watching through field glasses!!

[@PalofGrrr]

Fact is the South was outnumbered by other Americans. Grant realized that and used it to win.

[@johnprendergast1338]

Lee was the best and proved it the 1st 2/3s of the War ..The North over powered the South with more men and resources in the end ...

[@aaronfleming9426]

The north did have obvious manpower and materiel advantages, but they prevailed because they had strategic thinkers who understood the war and acted accordingly. The south - starting with Jefferson Davis but certainly including Davis' most important general, Robert E. Lee - never had a coherent strategy that suited their war aims.

[@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg]

Crazy Days. My Nephew Is Serving With The Irish, UNIFIL in Southern Lebanon. I served there in '84, and nothing much has changed.

[@romanclay1913]

In 1899, Teddy Roosevelt wanted to be the VP candidate, but President William McKinley's first term VP, Garret Hobart, refused to step aside, but then Hobart died in Nov. 1899, age 55. TR and McKinley were elected to office November, 1900. McKinley was assassinated September 1901 and TR became president. McKinley’s campaign manager, Sen. Mark Hanna, wanted to challenge TR in the 1904 GOP presidential primary. Hanna died in February 1904. TR was reelected in November 1904.

[@ConstanceHaga-cz1tl]

T.R.'s father did not fight in the Civil War. He loved his father and that makes the first part of this reading remarkable. His father's efforts in the war could be considered pacifist duty.

[@lazysob2328]

I’ll go with Grant! He anticipates Lees every move, successfully bottling him up while Sherman marched toward the sea. This was something no other general could do. Even McClellan, who proclaimed himself Napoleon, couldn’t match wits with Lee, even with Lees plans in his hands. One of the best things a general can do is, know what you have and know what to do with it. Grant certainly knew that!

[@TomKirkman1]

Grant simply realized he didn't have to win any battles with Lee - he only had to keep fighting and win the war through attrition. Stalin did the same thing with Germany.

[@mikekenney1947]

Stonewall was the best tactician, instinctive. Grant was the best strategist, understanding his army’s systemic superiority. He was able to engineer the unconditional surrender of three entire armies. Lee was second in both categories and best overall

[@paulbarron9745]

I’d like to see Lee with a numerically even army. He could never exploit breakthroughs as well as possible since he was always outnumbered

[@johnstezelecki8157]

Its very rare in military history to see two armies numerically even. In the great battle in PA the armies were very close in size with each other.

[@trajan75]

Lee did have an advantage. He fought on friendly ground and relied on counter attacks. Both of his invasions in the North were failures. Grant asVicksburg waged the greatest offensive campaign of the war

[@aaronfleming9426]

Lee had a significant numerical advantage at Gaines Mill. He suffered heavy casualties and was unable to rout Porter, who withdrew at nightfall. Porter continued to beat Lee over the course of the Seven Days, ultimately whipping him at Malvern Hill.

[@exposethenwo6491]

The Union side with Lee, Jackson, Longstreet and Stuart as their commanders would have won the war by Christmas 1862

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@exposethenwo6491Not if they were facing Thomas, Grant, Curtis, and Grierson. Lee, Jackson, and Stuart were all romantics, very capable in certain capacities, but none of them with the strategic vision and organizational capacity to prosecute an offensive war. Longstreet was the only clear-eyed realist of the bunch.

[@maryshanley329]

My husband was a blood relative Of Theodore Roosevelt.

[@exposethenwo6491]

My pick is Stonewall Jackson

[@bevinboulder5039]

Not surprising. I sincerely all the recent changes in attitude to the Civil war haven't prevented the study of Lee and other excellent Southern generals' actions during the war.

[@aaronfleming9426]

You've got it backwards. It's the study of Lee that's changing attitudes toward him. People are finally looking beyond the Lost Cause hype.

[@bevinboulder5039]

@@aaronfleming9426 Sounds like you're looking beyond his military exploits. Those have _nothing_ to do with the Lost Cause myth. You're attitude is exactly what I'm concerned about. His excellence as general on the battlefield needs to continue to be studied by people training to be officers in the military today.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@bevinboulder5039The Lost Cause myth absolutely does color the traditional view of Lee's generalship. The Lost Cause needed saints, and Lee was the greatest of them all. That meant that criticism of him was taboo. But you can't study a man as a military figure if you can't look at him honestly and critique as well as praise. The fact is the Lee had a number of excellent traits as a general. There's no denying his brilliance as an engineer, his ability to motivate fighting men, or his excellence as a "past-master" of operations, as JFC Fuller called him. And I cite Fuller and his outstanding book "Grant and Lee: A study in personality and generalship" particularly because 1. he was a Brit who had no particular interest in American politics and 2. he wrote well before the more recent movement to dismantle the Lost Cause. Besides Lee's obvious strengths, Fuller also points out Lee's weaknesses - and they are considerable. He failed to develop an effective staff, for example. He did not continue to develop a cadre of rising officers. His orders were often vague or even self-contradictory. Once battle was joined he actually tended to stop writing orders, partly out of his pious notion that God would decide the course of the battle and Lee's work was complete simply by getting his army to the battlefield. He never had a clear strategic conception of the war, causing him to launch one bloody battle after another for little to no strategic purpose other than a vague hope of achieving an Austerlitz or Cannae. Antietam - perhaps his greatest blunder - he seems to have fought for no reason other than personal pride: he went to Maryland seeking battle and did not intend to leave until he had one. You'll note that none of that has anything to do with him being a slave owner, or the legal questions of secession, or anything else political. It's just pure factual historical military analysis. So you see that the recent changes in attitude toward the Civil War are actually enabling a more accurate study of Lee's generalship. At the same time, the receding of the Lost Cause mythology is creating a wholesome reevaluation of generals like Longstreet and Bragg and Johnston, who were targets of the wrath of Lost Causers. We have far more to learn from them now that they're not cartoon-character Lost Cause bad guys. On the Union side, there's also been a rethinking about generals like Grant and Thomas. Thomas of course had languished as an evil Virginian who fought for the Yankees. Grant was nothing but a butcher. But when we put aside the Lost Cause biases we get a much more accurate analysis of their military capabilities. NOW we just need to get the Righteous Causers to de-saint Sherman so we can realize what a pathetic battlefield general he was and de-mythologize the supposed awesomeness of his march to the sea.

[@jimashley8405]

Roosevelt's mother was a Southerner. That might have influenced his thinking a little.

[@petervanderveen2340]

A good general would adjust his tactics if he is outnumbered so that he doesn't lose. The democrats could have won the war if they hadn't tried to force a victory but fought a more defensive campaign and waited for the northern people to get tired of losing their sons. That is basically how the US lost the vietnam war. Sam Houston used a stratagy like that in his battle against Santana.

[@ikesteroma]

TR was wrong, but he's entitled to his opinion.

[@jody6851]

The generalization he made comparing Northern to Southern troops was nonsense. It may be true, that some of the Northern troops were from pampered backgrounds, especially the officers at first, but he is forgetting the tough farmers and fishermen of New England, and certainly the tough outdoors farmers of the Midwest who made up most of Grant's and Sherman's troops in the Western theater of the Civil War. These are the men who took Vicksburg, Nashville, Chickamauga, Missionary Ridge, and Atlanta. Although the Confederacy seems to have had better generals in the Eastern theater of the war in the beginning, the Union proved to have much better generals in the West starting with Grant and Sherman, along with Richard "The Rock of Chickamauga" Thomas (a pro-Union Virginian), and others.

[@boomerreb4997]

Lee was the best general in American history. It's not fashionable to say that at this point in time, but an objective view of his record, especially given the odds, speaks for itself.

[@aaronfleming9426]

An objective view of his record indicates that he was a romantic who didn't understand the war he was fighting and consequently committed several major blunders that contributed to the loss of the war. Though he clearly faced significant disadvantages, he also had several significant factors in his favor, which he failed to leverage. Also, Lee was not an American general any more than Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna was an American general.

[@eddarby469]

I'm not sure Stonewall wasn't the best of the war of 1861. Lee's success dropped precipitously once Stonewall was no longer with him.

[@daviddougan6961]

MacArthur gets my vote. He won!

[@eddarby469]

@@daviddougan6961 Poor attempt at being a droll troll

[@albertoswald8461]

I think that George Thomas greatly needs a serious reassessment. His emphasis on scouting meant he was never surprised like Grant at Shiloh. His defensive skills are obvious, i.e. Chickamauga. But can you name another General who completely shattered an enemy army in the field? I'll wait but won't hold my breath!!!!😁

[@blueartist1000]

Lee is not even mentioned by the google search of the worlds greatest generals, Grant is 7th.

[@dddpvt]

Pray tell Sir, what Excatly was Civil about that war?

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

President and General Dwight Eisenhower held General Robert E. Lee, in an equally high regard. General Winfield Scott held high regard for Lee, which is why he encouraged Lincoln to give Lee command of the Union Army as war seemed more and more imminent.

[@erikschultz7166]

Winfield Scott is the most underrated of American Generals. His campaign in Mexico has to hold him as one of histories greatest.

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

@erikschultz7166 From a historical standpoint, Winfield Scott just simply gets overshadowed by the generation of officers that fought the Civil War on both sides unfortunately. The very generation that comprised the junior officer's corps when Winfield Scott was the man. Perhaps that is part of his greatest legacy? Look how many of his subordinates went on to become some of the greatest names in American military history? But arguably Winfield Scott's greatest contribution to American military history was what he did pretty much quietly and from behind the scenes during the Civil War counseling Lincoln and devising the over all strategy that would ultimately win the Civil War for the North?

[@erikschultz7166]

@@FuzzyWuzzy75 The Anaconda plan.

[@FuzzyWuzzy75]

@erikschultz7166 I believe Operation Anaconda was the brainchild of Winfield Scott but it was devised long before 1861. The War Department had similar plans laid out for every region of the country because they knew secession was inevitable in one part or another of the country. They also knew that potentially the western territories may revolt and try to form independent nations. There were contingency plans drawn up for nearly every possible scenario there long before 1861. Even the over all war strategy that was used to fight the Japanese in WWII had been drawn up as far back as the 1880s, obviously with some adjustments being made as technological changes updates to warfare would require.

[@johntillman6068]

His mom was a Georgian belle. Teddy had two CSA veteran uncles (one a half uncle). Lee was not the best general of that war, or even the best CSA general. I'd go with Stonewall, despite his funky moments, although not opposed to other contenders on both sides, including Thomas, a Southerner fighting for the Union. If the best general has to be the best Army commander or commander in chief, then I guess Grant, with "mad" Sherman and psychopathic Sheridan in the running for the USA. Hood was a brilliant brigadier and even division CO, but a bust at corps and especially army command. Lee himself cited Forrest, whom he had never met, as the most remarkable man produced by the war on either side. Gordon also stands out as a prewar civilian who reached high command. Then there's British Army vet, Irishman Cleburne. Many from whom to choose.

[@conradnelson5283]

I agree with you completely

[@tomjackson4374]

@@conradnelson5283 I don't. Lee fought for four years a war that should have lasted six months. Lee is one of the best generals that ever lived. And Thomas fought in the West. He fought Bragg, an idiot. If A. S. Johnston hadn't been killed at Shiloh Thomas would not have been able to take a pea patch.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@tomjackson4374We have absolutely no evidence that AS Johnston was a good general. On the contrary, his one battle was a chaotic mess, and he was killed while acting like a brigade commander instead of doing his job, which was army commander. The evidence we have is that he did not understand his role and was unprepared to lead an army. Thomas' first battle, however, was quite different. Outnumber 6:4 at Mill Springs, he defeated the rebel army and drove it so hard and so fast that it was forced to abandon every single piece of artillery, all its transport, most of its baggage, and even small arms. The rebel army essentially dissolved and ceased to exist, giving Thomas what was arguably the most complete victory of the war.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@aaronfleming9426 AS Johnson was part of the professional army and had a long career of qualified service before the war. He died when he sent his surgeon to tend a wounded Federal and bled out from a leg wound. And at Mill's Springs, not only did the Confederate General, Zollicoffer, moved his army into a vulnerable position but Thomas was aided by a flank attack by Gen Albin Schoepf. Kentucky was lost but the real battles were in Tennessee and northern Mississippi, where Bragg performed poorly. But compared to Gen. Forrest at Brice's Crossroads, Thomas couldn't pull that off on his best day. That battle is still studied at West Point.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@tomjackson4374When evaluating AS Johnston it is important to remember that before the war he - like almost every other active duty officer - actually had very limited combat experience. The largest formation he had led in battle was a small division at Monterrey, a battle in which the whole American army was a mere 6,000. He led the 2nd Cavalry on frontier duty, and commanded the Department of Texas, but again that entailed frontier duty and limited action against Comanche fighters. It is a far cry from leading those sorts of small formations to leading an army of 40,000+. Over and over we see in the Civil War that skillful leadership at one level did not necessarily indicate potential in larger commands. John Bell Hood is probably the most obvious example of a general who was a fantastic brigade and even division leader, but who was in far over his head commanding an army. So, while AS Johnston enjoyed a phenomenal reputation from his pre-war service, there is nothing in his actual Civil War service to justify the high hopes held for him. Meanwhile, Ulysses Grant was a disaster in the peacetime army and had no reputation at all. He turned out to be an outstanding strategist, was highly skilled in operations, had a tremendous organizational capacity, made other officers flourish under him, and could coordinate not only a full-sized army but could coordinate armies across theaters like no one else in the war.

[@TheLAGopher]

Teddy carried a lot of guilt over his own father paying a substitute to serve in the Civil War. His commentary about northeastern men is a rebuke of the class he was born into. In a way the Confederate soldiers were romanticized by their conquerors in a similar fashion as the American Indians as symbols of a warrior spirit that was lost in mainstream culture.

[@michaelplunkett8059]

2 thoughts. 1. His father had a business to run and a big family reliant on him. 2. Teddy's southern belle mother was terrified that if he went, her husband might kill her beloved brothers who fought for GA.

[@nonamesplease6288]

Bully!

[@gordoncooper3822]

thomas johnathan stonewall jackson, by far !!!!!!!!!

[@aaronfleming9426]

lol

[@saustin151]

JEB Stuart or John Bell Hood have got my vote.

[@jagsdomain203]

I am surprised at his pick a read his book about the War of 1812 that I wouldn't have guessed he would have

[@johnkeviljr9625]

Aye Yi Yi. I’m surprised, and a bit disappointed in TR’s choice.

[@jamesclarksowers7060]

Grant, hands down.

[@wbriggs111]

He went to west and lost everything when mother nature gave him one of the worst winter that killed his dreams. If he would have waited a year we would not have had one of our greatest President.

[@cheesecrackers3928]

Himself!

[@conradnelson5283]

I think George Thomas was probably the best general overall. He was consistent from start to finish. Had they given him greater freedom of action he probably would’ve done a lot more.

[@tomjackson4374]

No, he was fighting Braxton Bragg, an expert at pulling defeat out of victory. Longstreet would have beaten him like a rented mule.

[@johnstezelecki8157]

Yes George was indeed a very good General but we would never know how great he could have become because he turned down many promotions which would have given him command of larger armies and battles

[@aaronfleming9426]

​@@tomjackson4374Bragg's victory at Chickamauga came far closer to destroying a Union army than Lee ever got. Lee always had more men, more supplies, more guns, more ammunition than Bragg ever had.

[@tomjackson4374]

@@aaronfleming9426 When the Union army was in full retreat, vulnerable to destruction, Forrest begged Bragg to attack and Bragg sat on his hands. I think that is when Forrest threatened to "slap his jaws" he was so disgusted. Whatever Lee had he never had as much as the Union.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@tomjackson4374 You've really bought hard into the Lost Cause denigration of Bragg. The man certainly had serious flaws as a commander, but the bit about pursuing Thomas after Chickamauga is revisionist nonsense. It's understandable that Forrest felt what he felt in the heat of the moment, but the facts are that Thomas' retreat from Horseshoe Ridge was relatively orderly, and he prepared firm defensive lines at Rossville. If Forrest had flung himself full-tilt after Thomas, he would have gotten his own jaws slapped. You need to stop and consider how hard Thomas kicked the rebels' butts at Chickamauga. He whipped the hell out of the right wing of Bragg's army all morning, and then in the afternoon when the right wing under Rosecrans disintegrated, Thomas cobbled together a scratch force on Horseshoe Ridge that kicked the hell out of Longstreet all afternoon - and Longstreet commanded the full left wing of the Army of Tennessee, including some of the absolutely best divisions Lee had. In essence, Thomas' 30,000 man wing of the Army of the Cumberland took the full brunt of Bragg's 65,000 man army, beat it to a standstill, and finally retreated in good order to a strong line at Rossville, then to Chattanooga, where he kept the army together until reinforced by Grant.

[@OldMusicFan83]

I’m a Winfield Scott Hancock man, myself.

[@mikebrase5161]

Hancock the Superb.

[@user-wo4qn7ic1h]

Bedford Forrest

[@Rebellpanzer]

Nathan Bedford Forrest……..no contest

[@robertstewart6956]

👍🏻👍🏻❤️

[@ericcorse]

Was there any other choice.

[@tyjameson7404]

Sherman the great!!👍🏼🙏🏽🙌🏾🔥🐐

[@deezynar]

Roosevelt, a Republican, named Lee to pander for votes from Southerners. Roosevelt did almost everything in his adult life to create an image that he thought would appeal to voters and get him elected to the presidency. He knew that Republicans would vote for a Republican in the general election, so offending some of them was calculated to be worth it. He needed to get a few Democrats to vote for him, and it would be very hard for White Southerners to vote for a man who belonged to the same party that caused them to lose their slaves. Praising their God, Robert E. Lee, was the best thing a Republican could say to try to get White Southern votes. An aside about Teddy, look at his life before the presidency. It's right out of a dime novel, it's like he grew up chain reading them and used his family fortune to buy the adventures he had read about. And when you think about George Washington, and Andrew Jackson, earlier presidents who had adventurous pasts before being elected, you can see how Roosevelt may have calculated the he could get votes by putting his stewed up past into the public eye. But he was not the first guy to take that path. History has loads of men who lived their lives with the idea that they could appeal to the voting public if they spent their earlier years chasing adventure. A daring life, they believed, could put them into their country's highest office. General George Custer believed that, his untimely, but well-deserved death ended his pursuit of the white house. John Kerry tried to claim that his Vietnam experiences paralleled JFK's military service. He has ended up looking like a man with small ideas but a booming, laughable, voice. And even the half British, half American, Winston Churchill ran around in his younger years acting like a character from a dime novel. The strategy worked for him just like it had worked for Roosevelt.

[@psansoucy]

TR was a snob. He would dub Lee the ultimate Civil War general because Lee was a gentleman of the first rank tracing his lineage back to colonial planters and his father Light Horse Harry Lee. TR also felt shame that his father bought a substitute for himself to avoid army service. Much of his subsequent bravado must be ascribed to his father’s action.

[@jmdec20]

I could say I don't know why I don't like Roosevelt (Teddy). I think the splinter is that he felt he should have received The Medal of Honor, which requires a lack of self seeking, humility. He had a "trump" carnie's desire to be in front.

[@paulpeterson4216]

Lee being Roosevelt's favorite general is...unsurprising. It is a very rote take. TR expressing that opinion may have helped to cement that mythologization. Essentially though, the best general of the Civil War was the one that was on the defensive. If I had to take a general from the south for an offensive operation, it would probably be Longstreet.

[@michaelwilson9986]

TR was Most correct.

[@Wilson49100]

I am sorry to say I don't agree with his opinion as a matter of fact in recent years Lee's behavior is what cost the Confederates the war. His desire to attack the north and cost not only alot of mens lives, it also weaken the army of Virginia. To say he was the best I feel is going to far, in the end the south got what it deserve and Sherman brought hell to them I feel he was better than Lee

[@spinecat]

oh screw

[@SouthernStorm_61]

The Confederate soldier-always outnumbered; rarely outfought. A son of a Confederate soldier.

[@jacobwalsh1888]

Lee is so vastly overrated. Grant is by far the best General of the Civil War, and the person in the comments who called Sherman overrated is an idiot.

[@gyanprakashraj4062]

Invalid

[@Muddybagclean]

Jesus Loves You

[@petehealy9819]

Interesting. So if I understand your citations correctly, TR was about 30yo when he wrote that. It's very easy to imagine, from his age at the time, his personal interests and insecurities, and the rise of the "Lost Cause" narrative around that time, that Teddy Roosevelt would be seduced and entranced by this perception of R.E. Lee as a general - with no understanding whatsoever that Grant and Sherman understood far better than Lee the most effective ways to wage war in a changing world. It sounds like TR was too enthralled by the silly romantic narrative of Lee's generalship. Thirty years later, when Roosevelt was that much older and was witnessing the true nature of industrial warfare in WW1, he may have had a greater appreciation of Grant and Sherman.

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

Yes, that's correct. I like your perspective. Would be interesting who he might have selected later in life. Would his choice still be Lee? Or perhaps someone else?

[@Zer0fuks]

The Confederacy did not have a large supply of arms or ammunition and hoped to import the necessary tools of war from Europe. Most Confederate soldiers brought their own guns to war. The South also lacked factories for producing clothing or shoes, and by the middle of the war, soldiers were in desperate need of both. Given the circumstances, it's truly an amazing feat that Lee kept the Confederate Army alive and kicking for so long, even in the face defeat. He was definitely no stupid man, just horribly unequipped and still managed to put up a formidable fight. It's easy to see why so many see Lee as one of the best Generals the U.S has ever had. Just imagine if he had accepted Lincoln's offer of commanding the Union Army with an endless supply of equipment at his disposal, would've been one Hell of a quick war.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@Zer0fuksLee was never a U.S. general.

[@CoeThomas]

who cares what the Rosenfeld family thinks about anything virtuous?

[@Johnnycdrums]

He was a British toady. And as such Theodore Roosevelt is exceptionally well hated, as was Woodrow Wilson, of course, both being obvious and overt, rabid Anglophiles. William Mckinley was tha MAN whom the British hated wicked badly. The job was was done and America became a vasal state of the British Empire, unfortunately. I cry for Argentina and America too.

[@Anthony-ot8vl]

Grant. By a landslide.

[@vincentbugalia3858]

I was thinking of Phil Sheridan.

[@mrp55net]

Not surprising. His mother's name is Martha Bulloch Roosevelt of the Georgia Bullochs, a wealthy planter family. Martha was an ardent Confederate sympathizer. Her brothers, Irvine and James, were officers in the CSA Navy, with Irvine serving aboard the CSS Alabama and his brother James was the CSA's naval agent in Great Britain. James Bulloch was in charge of purchasing rams from Laird. While living in NYC with her husband Theodore Sr., her mother and a sister also were part of the household during the war. Quite a familial environment for young Theodore, Jr. Funny thing was that TR was a strong US nationalist, while RE Lee broke his oath and served in the Confederacy. Apparently, TR gave the North's western troops short-shrift although the westerners like the 1st MN and the Iron Brigade were arguably the best troops in the AOP.

[@jpavlvs]

You have to be kidding. US Grant never lost a campaign. I'm kind of stunned. BUT Roosevelt was NY Elite and Lee was an FFV. That might have colored his glasses.