"Generals with unsual inspiring qualities" Topic

Question guys. I think we can agree that it is widely accepted that Lee had an unusual amount of loyalty and devotion from his troops that enabled him to ask them to do what other generals could not. I was wondering though, what other generals, if any, had this same ability to "inspire" there troops above and beyond? I am thinking corps commanders and above. Stonewall also comes to mind possibly.
I know that Grant may seem like an obvious candidate but my understanding is that while he was respected by his men he also had a reputation, especially late in the war for being over willing to order them into harms way, to put it lightly. Sherman, Rosecrans could also be possible. I don't know or was Lee a stand alone in this area during the war? Also tactical competence doesn't always equal love and devotion of the troops under you although it no doubt needs to be there.
So, what say you guys?

Certainly John Reynolds and "Black Jack" Logan. A strong case could be made for McPherson and Sedgwick.

Good point, I did think of Reynolds but not the others. I know several were known to "lead from the front" but don't know if this also was enough or if their was some other charismatic quality that set these leaders apart through history, like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Rommel, etc, not to get off topic of the civil war into a "most charismatic leaders of history" discussion:)

George Thomas was popular with his troops who nick-named him "Pap" (as in father, papa). They knew he would always look out for them but also knew he expected them to perform in an outstanding manner. As far as my opinion counts (which may not be much ) I consider him to probably be the best general on either side as a division, corps, or army commander.

Jim

McClellan was idolized by many of his men – even though his caution prolonged the war and cost many of them their lives.

McClellan was the original civil war charismatic leader. His troops adored him, radical republicans hated him.

Oops, Don beat me to the punch.

I didn't think of Thomas but agree he would be a good candidate. I remember about McClellan but just assumed it was short lived after everyone (including his troops) realized that while he was great at organizing and building an army he didn't really know what to do with it and his shine faded out after a time?
Do any southern leaders besides Lee and Stonewall come to mind? What about Nathan Forrest?

I agree with the good Colonel – "Slow Trot" Thomas was an excellent general who was not slow, only methodical – who took care of his troops and was steady as a rock on the battlefield – I think he is one of the most under-appreciated ACW generals

For the Confederates I think Patrick Cleburne – the "Stonewall of the West" – also was an inspiring and forward thinking general who had the back luck to serve under Hood

Agree with everyone so far, but would like to add Turner Ashby.

McClellan is possibly the only general to compete for the sort of reverence Lee earned. The Devil Forrest was revered by his men, though in quite a different way – same with Morgan.

Frederick, I agree with adding Pat Cleburne.

Jim

Lew Wallace.

"I remember about McClellan but just assumed it was short lived after everyone (including his troops) realized that while he was great at organizing and building an army he didn't really know what to do with it and his shine faded out after a time?"

That may be a late 20th/early 21st century point of view, possibly influenced by the contemporary Republican anti-Democratic Party perspective.

Lee didn't feel that way about his abilities. He felt that McClellan was an excellent engineer and if he was allowed to fight the war as an engineer, the South would surely loose.

The Republicans wanted a "vigorous" conquest and punishment of the South as exemplified by General Pope. McClellan felt that less bloodshed would make for an easier reconciliation.

The above is simplification in the extreme but it highlights a grinding point if friction between the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War and General McClellan and the Democrat minority in Congress.

Just a few of the other generals that found themselves under the close and uncomfortable scrutiny of this Committee were:

Buell – Democrat
Thomas – Virginian
Porter – McClellan supporter
Meade – McClellan supporter
Reynolds – McClellan supporter
Grant – Drunk
Stone – Democrat
Rosecrans – Soft war supporter

I think you have to add Nathan Bedford Forrest. Both sides respected his leadership and tactical skill.

What about Hancock? I have a better handle on the Union commanders in the West, but my impression is that he would qualify.

Very informative, thanks guys I don't know about you all but I am finding this a very interesting thread.

Without question…..Phil Sheridan

Kim

Hopping to the other side of the Mississippi, I would suggest Jo Shelby.

For the first couple of years in the Army of the Potomac it would be hard to argue anyone had a hold over the troops like McClellan. I'm not sure Grant equalled it until the war was coming to an end. Opinions? On the corps level I'd say Hancock.

On the Confederate side there are a number including Lee, Stuart, and Forrest. What about Price out west? Did Cleburne really inspire loyalty and devotion, or was it simply confidence based on his competence. The views on Jackson while he was alive were more mixed.

I think one that is overlooked is McClernand. While a political general (Democrat), he was able to inspire and raise men throughout the Midwest and was generally admired by his troops (13th Corps). As a political general, he was on par with Black Jack Logan (another political general who was actually a much better General than McC) and disliked by Grant and Sherman.

Oh, good point about political generalship. On that note, think of the "ethnic" generals – Sigel had a whole song written about him. A couple of the other German, Irish, etc generals were very personally popular, though usually lower than corps. I think particularly of Spinola.

Did Cleburne really inspire loyalty and devotion, or was it simply confidence based on his competence. The views on Jackson while he was alive were more mixed.

I think those are fair questions. When forming an opinion of this sort, I consider three things; admiration, respect, and trust. By admiration, I mean how much the men personally liked, or even loved the general. Respect means professional respect, a degree of logical confidence that the general knows his business. There are plenty of examples of successful generals who had the respect if not the admiration of their men, but it's hard to think of examples of the reverse.

Trust is that rarest of qualities. More than respect, it's faith, something that can be drawn on despite (and sometimes because of) doubts: Lee splitting his forces at Chancellorsville, Grant abandoning his logistical tether in the Vicksburg Campaign, etc.

Richard Taylor was supposedly well loved by his troops

Don't sell Grant short. He reinvigorated the Army after Chicamagua. When he directed the Army South after the Wilderness he was cheered. Others would certainly include Sheridan, look what his presence did at Cedar Creek. Hancock should count as well.

For the South it may actually be dicier. Certainly in the East, Lee. Jackson at times but as Shelby Foote pointed out his men never loved him like the civilians did. JEB Stuart was a leader. AP Hill, when he commanded a division. Hood, when he commanded the Texas Brigade and his division, but like Hill that went away when the got Corps. In the west? Cleburn I guess, maybe Forrest but Forrest always operated on a very small scale. If you served under Joe Johnston you were going to retreat a lot.

I would submit that being loved by your men and inspiring them to fight are two very different things.

I agree with the postings above, I think it would be hard to surpass the inspirational impact of General McClellan on Union troops. For Union Corps Commanders, in the AOP at least, I don't think Hancock can be equaled in that regard. Thanks, John Miller

George Custer was adored by his command and he won pretty much every battle he was in during the Civil War. He led from the front, loved his men and had a great HQ band : ) Unfortunately for him and his men, he never could figure out how to translate his successful leadership formula during the Civil War to the post war army

Sedgwick was popular with his men,much like General Hill in the Napoleonic War because he saw to their welfare.

Hancock & Reynolds were certainly inspirational t

It's too bad that Phil Kearny and Isaac Stevens were killed so early in the War. Both of them were inspirational and would, no doubt, have made great Corps commanders.

Oh, and one more vote for "Hancock the Superb."

A controversial one here, but as popularity with his troops goes as opposed to actual skill, I'd have to advance Leonidas Polk?

Cheatham, Cleburne, Hardee and Forrest?

Jo Shelby, John G. Walker, Tom Green and (again controversially) Sterling Price?

Not sure about Rosecrans, his nervous tendency to snap angrily at subordinates may have curbed his popularity?

Franz Sigel proves the adage 'popular doesn't mean any good'.

Hancock seemed an inspirational figure, though the Eastern theatre in general and the Army of the Army of the Potomac in particular are not may area of expertise?

GOR,

I think Polk received mixed opinions. Funnily enough, through 62 and early 63 Bragg was perfectly popular with the rank and file (it has to be the nadir of both Buckner and Harvey Hill's careers that they took part in possibly the ugliest gossip and insubordination of the war against Bragg).

Price was definitely popular. So, in his way, was Magruder.

I know of no other leader in the Civil War that did what Phil Sheridan did at the battle of Cedar Creek

He would have to top any list of inspiring leaders

Well, if we're just talking an outstanding battlefield performance, than A.S. Johnston at Shiloh almost-singlehandedly gave Grant the biggest whipping old US ever got. (Round 2 was a different affair, however…) People criticize Johnston for being at the front but the contemporary opinion was generally that he was pivotal to his raw army's success, galloping between brigades, positioning guns, chivvying up reinforcements.

Agreed, Johnston's performance at Shiloh was well judged when one considers the lack of training, experience and cohesion that plagued his army!

Polk had the bearing and stature of a great commander, sadly he possessed little else.

Oh Price was certainly popular, though again his skill at winning battles deny him much more than a claim to popularity.

Bragg's misfortune was a top down affair, his senior subordinates fell out with Bragg and their views seeped down through the ranks.

Thanks again for the input, very good info, some of it I agree and know of but much I have not thought of. I was asking because I and my group is play testing a strategic level ACW game and leaders and giving them special traits plays a big part of it.
Any one or group interested in giving it a play test let me know here or send me an email at gamer3213000@yahoo.com. It has had five play test and the mechanics and game balance are working pretty good. Just have to print out the map, counters, etc. BW1959, tell me how you posted that pic. I was wanting to post the map for folks to see incase they are interested?
I really wish this sit had an updated copy-paste option like other sites, ow well. Thanks again for the input guys!!!!!

Dan Sickles. He was a competent commander, and an inspirational leader. Regardless of all the nasty things the pro-Meade/Hancock camp comes up with, Sickles' men adored him and after the war he was always warmly greeted by them.

Howard was also well-liked as a Corps Commander. In the west, after Gettysburg, he was looked on with some suspicion by his troops due to the wild rumours spread about him by newspapers trolling for readers. However, his men, especially when he became Army commander of the Army of the Tennessee, greatly liked him because it was obvious how professional he was in his care for "his" boys. He did everything possible to ensure they were well clothed, armed and fed, that medical services were as well qualified and available as he could ensure, and that he would not needlessly expose them to battle like some previous commanders had.

As to Stonewall Jackson, although his Virginians, for the most part, admired him, and the newspapers and central government idolized him, other state's troops, especially the North Carolinians, despised him. The tarheels hated his guts because of his strict discipline and the fact he had, in their opinion, unjustly executed a couple of them.

It was long rumoured during the latter half of the war, and for decades afterward, heck, even up to today, that those North Carolina troops who fired on him at Chancellorsville knew EXACTLY who they were shooting add. It was payback as they saw it, and few shed any tears over his removal from command and eventual demise.