View single post by Johan Steele
 Posted: Mon Nov 17th, 2008 02:47 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352

Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065

  back to top

Iron Duke if the South had the better soldiers why didn't they win the war? :)

It's one of those questions that can't be answered at all simply because there are so many more questions that would have to be asked. Such as when, where, under whose leadership etc. If I had my druthers I would consider Cleburne's men at Chaickamauga the best of either side during the war but they got smacked around pretty good on other occasions. But the whole darned AoT US would be up there as well. Some instantly say the Stonewall Brigade... yet they had a higher desertion rate than Cleburnes Division through the whole war.

It's subjective at best and grounds for useless growling at worst.

In the east 61-63 the CS certainly had a superior officer corps more highly motivated troops and superior cav, after that the AoP starts to overtake. Why? The quality of replacements takes a steady nose dive. And all through the War the CS did a beter job supplying replacements than the US. But as losses mounted the CS paid a butchers bill they could not afford. Those replacements fed into the old units were resented and often poorly treated by the old hands simply because they were the new blood that hadn't been there.

Scores of factors that make what anyone would think a simple question very complex. "Best" or "better" comes down to which hole the author is in at the time. In short a man in Cleburne's Division will say his was and probably end up coming to blows w/ a man from Hood's Texas Brigade.

IMO Better... were the men that came home to rebuild the US. Best were those that had the courage of the convictions.

 Close Window