Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lentulusgracchus

‘I’ve seen A. S. Johnston’s ability disputed, I don’t know with how much truth and fairness. But had he not been shot, his critical task was to carry the last line of defense and drive Grant’s troops off Pittsburg Landing by the close of daylight, which the Confederates failed to do in part because of the delay created by Prentiss, then the delay caused by the fighting for the Hornet’s Nest, and also the further delay caused by the command reorganization entailed in Johnston’s death.

Johnston’s and Beauregard’s troops just had a long, long way to go to carry their objective. I’ve often thought that if they could have stolen a march by advancing through the woods by the river bluff and thus stayed out of sight while they flanked Prentiss to the east, they might not have had so far to go......but I’m sure there are arguments why that would have been a very bad thing to do — it would have exposed them to the gunboats on the river, for one thing, and to flanking for another.’

All very good points. Prentiss did save the day for Grant and company, no denying it.

I’ve seen some criticism directed towards A S Johnston myself. I think its telling it doesn’t seem to be related to anyone that knew him, or faced him...and I think its revealing the criticism doesn’t stem from his Union counterparts.

The South lost Albert Sidney, the North lost John Reynolds at Gettysburg, both hurt, but AS hurt the south more for the obvious reason there wasn’t anyone to replace him.


760 posted on 05/25/2007 8:58:56 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies ]


To: Badeye
The South lost Albert Sidney, the North lost John Reynolds at Gettysburg, both hurt, but AS hurt the south more for the obvious reason there wasn't anyone to replace him.

Well, too, with men like John Buford and George Meade on the field, the North's loss of the good Reynolds hurt a lot less. The loss of A. S. Johnston (pace his critics) cost the South their only really competent generaling west of the Appalachians. They had to wait until Pat Cleburne came along, to discover another man of that quality, until Longstreet came down to Chattanooga.

The South, it has been often noticed, suffered from bad generaling at the army level (except for Lee and a few of his reports). Longstreet IMHO would have been better at the conceptual level, advising Davis -- or quartermastering in lieu of whatever miserable packrat they had running the Confederate commissary, who deprived both Confederate armies and Yankee prisoners of sustenance (he should have been hanged next to Wirz, or even instead of him, for Andersonville). Longstreet needed supervision and shepherding as a corps and army commander. Hood was a great brigadier and division commander, but failed with an army command. Braxton Bragg should have been made an ambassador or delegate or something -- which is what you are supposed to do, I think, with obstructive, deleterious people who don't actually deserve to be imprisoned or shot. Polk was more bishop than general. Anybody else? Kirby Smith I don't know enough about to make a judgment, except to say that a little more Confederacy and a little bit less Kirby Smithdom west of the Mississippi might have been helpful.

829 posted on 05/26/2007 4:15:34 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 760 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson