View single post by ole
 Posted: Sun Jan 28th, 2007 02:39 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

I don't see where revisionist history enters into a discussion of McC. Even his most vehement detractors will admit his extraordinary organization skills. Even those leaders most villified can be found to have had some useful qualities. Take Ben Butler. Always listed among the "worst" generals, Ben had his value. Only when his particular "skill" was no longer necessary did Lincoln permit him to be removed. I'm a bit hard put to find value in Nathaniel Banks, but there must have been something.

Burnside is usually on the "worst" list. He was a solid division and corps commander placed (temporarily) above the level of his competency. You'll note that he wasn't assigned to a frontier post, nor was he sent home subject to a reassignment after his disastrous stint as army commander.

To make a short story longer, there simply weren't enough Grants, Shermans, Thomases, Sheridans, or Lees to fill the positions of responsibility. Everyone had to make do with the tools they had or could develop.



 Close Window