Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Joseph Johnston-A Great Civil War General? - The People of the Civil War - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Jul 18th, 2009 12:28 pm
  PMQuoteReply
1st Post
Naim Peress
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jun 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I read in the Civil War Interactive a description of Johnston as a great Civil War general.  I think the facts do not bear up to this characterization.  It took Lee to fix the mess during McClellan's Peninsular campaign.  I also think the fall of Vicksburg was largely due to Johnston's unwillingness to relieve Pemberton.  What do you think? 

Back To Top


 Posted: Sat Jul 18th, 2009 11:03 pm
  PMQuoteReply
2nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2003
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I wouldn't say he was the worst, but he will do until that one comes along.

Ole

Back To Top


 Posted: Sun Jul 19th, 2009 04:03 pm
  PMQuoteReply
3rd Post
Naim Peress
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jun 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, I would say Ambrose Burnside competed for that title.

Back To Top


 Posted: Mon Jul 20th, 2009 06:25 am
  PMQuoteReply
4th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 983
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
He was the best CS commanding general in the West and frankly he was the best the CS had after Lee. Look at his peers in the CS, the reality IMO is that only Lee beats him out. That said I don't think the CS had a big pool of good commanding generals to choose from.

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 11:48 am
  PMQuoteReply
5th Post
Naim Peress
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jun 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If you mean senior commanders, then perhaps you're right. However, there were AP Hill, Stonewall, Albert Sidney Johnston. Perhaps those guys could have been promoted before they died. These are what-ifs, of course.

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 12:39 pm
  PMQuoteReply
6th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1537
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"....AP Hill, Stonewall, Albert Sidney Johnston. Perhaps those guys could have been promoted before they died."

What is it that ASJ did that would have earned him a promotion? Demotion I could understand, but promotion...not in my opinion.

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 02:47 pm
  PMQuoteReply
7th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 110
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Plus, Albert S. Johnston was already a full general.  He couldn't really have been promoted any further. :P

That being said, I think Joseph Johnston was quite good. 

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 09:04 pm
  PMQuoteReply
8th Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 249
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I hate "what ifs". I have a hard enough time keeping track of facts. The infinite possibilities caused from one action would fill up too much of what limited brain space I have.

However, contrary to what I just said, I often wonder what would have been at Shiloh and beyond had AS Johnston not taken that (possibly friendly) shot to the back of the knee. I have the feeling that he would have tightened up his role and become the general Davis thought he could be. I can only guess that he would see that the way he delegated wasn't working and taken more control of situations. Of course, I'll never know, and therefore should concentrate my thoughts on what actually happened.

Sorry to take this thread from one Johnston to another.

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 11:22 pm
  PMQuoteReply
9th Post
Naim Peress
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jun 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I'd be curious to know why you feel that way.  He carried out P.T. Beauregard's orders rather competantly at Shiloh and showed great personal courage when he led that charge that led to his death. 

Back To Top


 Posted: Tue Jul 21st, 2009 11:24 pm
  PMQuoteReply
10th Post
Naim Peress
Member
 

Joined: Wed Jun 17th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Why do you think he was good?  I'm interested to know. 

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 12:39 am
  PMQuoteReply
11th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1537
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
ASJ was not supposed to be carrying out PGB's orders. Johnston was superior - it was supposed to be the other way around. ASJ was a weak commander, more content to hand off his responsibilities to others.

Back To Top


 Posted: Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 12:51 am
  PMQuoteReply
12th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 110
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
A.S. Johnston was the commanding general at Shiloh, and for most of the Confederate west. While we can argue as to who was actually directing the campaign, it was Johnston who was technically in charge.

Javal is correct, though.  I think ASJ let Beauregard overpower him.  Much of ASJ's fame comes from him being fortunate enough to die in battle, while the day was still going fairly swimmingly for the Confederates.  Hence the "If Johnston had lived" school of thought as to the end of the first day at Shiloh.

As for Joe Johnston, I honestly haven't studies him much. Longstreet thought he was superb, however, and that's good enough for me. :)

Last edited on Wed Jul 22nd, 2009 12:54 am by barrydancer

Back To Top



 Current time is 02:13 am

Top



UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2674 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 25 queries executed.