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


AS Johnston and the Battle of Shiloh - The Battle of Shiloh - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 01:55 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
61st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

izzy-

   Perhaps what you are asking is are there examples of operations where a tactical plan of a dead or incapacitated general were SUCCESSFULLY carried out?

  One example might be at Chancellorsville. Flushed with success early in the battle (02May63), General Thomas J. Jackson wished to press his attack on Hooker the following day.

  Unfortunately, General Jackson chose to recon the terrain that night, and was hit by friendly fire and incapacitated. General A.P. Hill took command but was forced to relinquish it to General J.E.B. Stuart. On 03May, Stuart launched attacks that I believe would have pleased General Jackson. This resulted in the Confederates taking Chancellorsville.

  There might be better examples that others can cite, but that is the first that pops into my mind.

Battle of Chancellorsville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 



 Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 04:29 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
62nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There are two sides to the ASJ motivation and subsequent death.

The brigade he was leading was after a key to the entire battle. It was faltering and in grave danger of breaking up and retreating. Something desperate was required; he was there; he did what he had to do, whatever the consequences.

A field commander has no place in leading a charge. I suspect he knew the risk he was taking, and the payoff would have been huge. In effect, he raised when hindsight dictates a call. I also suspect that, in the same situation, other ranking commanders would have done the same.

ole



 Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 08:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
63rd Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"A field commander has no place in leading a charge. I suspect he knew the risk he was taking, and the payoff would have been huge. In effect, he raised when hindsight dictates a call. I also suspect that, in the same situation, other ranking commanders would have done the same."
Quite right Ole, the mere sight of a commander at the front can have tremendous effect........... Sheridan at Cedar Creek for example



 Posted: Sat Aug 2nd, 2008 11:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
64th Post
izzy
Member
 

Joined: Sun Jun 1st, 2008
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 195
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender, Ole, and Fedreb,

Great answers guys.  That is what I was looking for.



 Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 02:07 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
65th Post
Wrap10
Member


Joined: Sat Jul 28th, 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 97
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I've always liked Johnston and tend to look on him favorably. But Robert is certainly right about his role in the loss of Kentucky. It's really hard to overstate how disastrous that was for the Confederacy, and I don't believe it was inevitable. Johnston wasn't the only one to make mistakes there of course, as there was plenty of blame to go around. But he probably comes in for the lion's share of criticism, or close to it. I think he did better at Shiloh though, despite the mistakes that were also made there.

As for his historical reputation, that's probably intertwined to some extent with the Lost Cause line of thought that emerged after the war. But it sure wasn't the case prior to Shiloh. It's interesting the way his reputation went from potential savior in 1861 to criminally incompetent after the Kentucky disaster, and finally to southern hero. Johnston's death at Shiloh, helping to lead a charge no less, went far toward redeeming him in the eyes of southerners at the time, and the eyes of history later on. In fact, his death in battle just about erased whatever "sins" he may have committed before then. You don't criticize a fallen hero.

Beauregard certainly wasn't shy about criticizing him though. But Beauregard himself came in for criticism as the general who threw away the victory Johnston was about to win. I don't buy that, but it's one of the most persistent storylines of the battle.

As to criticizing Johnston for 'leading from the front,' and acting more like a small unit commander than an army commander, I see the point, but I've never been sure about it one way or the other. I think it depends a lot on whether his actions did, in fact, cause him to lose a grasp on the overall battle. If so, then he was guilty of repeating his Bowling Green mistake, where he became fixated almost exclusivity on what was directly in front of him. But I'm not totally convinced this happened at Shiloh.

Plus, while he was close to the front for much of the day, he generally stayed back somewhat. In fact, for most of the morning he was located in and around the captured camp of the 18th Wisconsin, until he received word of a possible enemy division beyond his right flank. (An exaggerated report, as it turned out of course, but he did not know that.) His actions in leading the charge in which he was shot strike me as a spur-of-the-moment decision, made for the purpose of helping to inspire his men in a charge on the all-important right flank. We can call him reckless or maybe even foolish for doing this and perhaps he was. But other commanders did such things at times. Grant himself came within inches of death at Shiloh, when he too was near the front lines. The bullet or shell fragment that struck his scabbard hit with enough force to break the sword inside. Anything that hits with enough force to break a sword carries enough force to kill a human. So Grant was indeed "lucky" compared to Johnston.

I think Johnston will indeed remain that "what if," or as I call him, a question forever in search of an answer. We just don't know what sort of commander he might have made after Shiloh, win or lose. He showed far more resolve at Shiloh than he had shown in Kentucky, and I think that Charles P. Roland is probably right, that he had the capacity to learn from his mistakes and grow as a commander. (I think this was Roland, although it might have been Johnston's own son.) That's what Grant did. And perhaps the lesson of Robert E. Lee in western Virginia could be instructive here. Lee did not exactly get off to a stellar start in his Civil War career, but he seemed to improve somewhat later on. ;) Maybe Johnston would have done so as well. There's just no way to know.

On the whole, going only by what he actually did in the war, I think the scales balance out on the negative side for Johnston. But they had not settled into a final position by the time he died, and may have started to tilt back in the other direction. So for me at least, he still remains that perpetual question mark.

For whatever it's worth, I think Grant would still have proven to be the better commander. No one was ever able to beat Grant in a campaign. Johnston may have proven to be the exception given time, but it would have been a very tall order. As Johnston and Beauregard learned at Shiloh, Grant was a tough out.

Perry



 Current time is 02:59 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2097 seconds (35% database + 65% PHP). 25 queries executed.