who is your favorit civil war general?

Question

mine is Chamberlin

Answer 1

Joshua Chamberlain is a great choice but, mine is John Buford. As the first Union general on the scene at Gettysburg he knew exactly what was needed to win the upcoming battle. He recognized what the main objectives were and made the decision to fight a delaying action with his small cavalry forces until the infantry could arrive. Also Winfield Hancock deserves most of the credit for the union victory at Gettysburg.

Answer 2

Only my favorite because the stories of his actions are so amusing. George Armstrong Custer.
Example, at Gettysburg, He and his troops arrived early on the first morning of the fighting. (As any historian might know, the armies from both sides were going to come together at Vicksburg, but they found each other camping across from each other at Gettysburg.) As general Custer was ridding off a rather drunken previous night, he herd the fighting begin and turned his troops the other way to get to Vicksburg.
This is just one of many amusing stories about the General who finished last in his class at West Point.

Answer 3

I've always liked Chamberlain, but the general that stands out for me is Lew Wallace. The reason the author of Ben-Hur isn't better known for his Civil War exploits comes from some open-to-interpretation conduct between him and Grant at Shiloh. Wallace took a road opposite the one Grant ordered him to; it's debatable whether or not Grant himself knew about it.

The only author to be honored at Statuary Hall, postwar governor of New Mexico Territory, and fighter at the battle of Monocacy never let his disappointment at having his military career tarred get the better of him, as many more famous ones did. Wallace may not stand out at a general, but he stands out as a personal hero.

Answer 4

William Tecumseh Sherman.

Answer 5

William Tecumseh Sherman

I read a couple books about him and found some interesting facts and insights about the man. For instance, during his time in Florida (Ft. Pierce), he was involved in the Second Seminole War. It was here that he learned about total war - not just soldiers, but the entire tribe was involved in the fighting in some manner or point. Fighters were fighters, but noncombatants supplied their fighters with weapons and food, provided distractions and means of escape, etc.; everything but the actual fighting. Sherman saw something similar during his time on the Mississippi, when confederate guerillas attacked civilian steamboats, shooting at and killing women and children . After warning the local confederates to quell their activities (which was for all intensive purposes ignored), he went to the nearest town that housed and supported the guerillas and leveled it to the ground. When confronted by the local confederate leadership about his actions, Sherman reamed them for supporting attacks on civilians not involved in the war. The confederate leadership backed down.

Sherman's March to the Sea was a massive feat that very few in history could have pulled off. Regarding Atlanta, Sherman did not initiate the fires there ... General Hood did (as proven by records on both sides) as a means to prevent the city falling into enemy hands. After Atlanta, Sherman took Savannah and presented it as a Christmas gift to Lincoln. Savannah was not touched.

Sherman made his way to Columbia, SC unabated by splitting his forces and marching them in such a way that confederate forces were divided between protecting Charleston and Charlotte (or another major NC city). By the time the South realized Sherman's true target, there was nothing they could do to stop him.

Columbia's burning was not entirely Sherman's fault. He did bombard part of the city, which was in retaliation for attacks launched after an offer for a peaceful surrender was made by Sherman and quickly denied by the confederate forces. Another major source for the city's damage was internal ... the city's cotton bale supply was moved to the streets and set on fire on orders by the commanding officers in Columbia. After the entire debacle within Columbia subsided years later, an independent English investigation (remember the English were on the side of the confederates) absolved Sherman of any blame for Columbia's burning.

Unlike most other Union leaders, Sherman didn't want the south to undergo harsh reparations since the war took enough of a toll on the region.

Shreman admired Grant for his abstract military thinking and ability to figure out enemy strategies and tactics (something that Lee overlooked in his opponent when they went to West Point together). However, when Grant went into politics, Sherman's respect whithered after seeing his old friend become the one thing he fought against ... a bureaucratic puppet.

A quick snipet for Louisianans that beam with state pride and loathe Sherman ... check this out: he created and ran a military academy that ultimately became LSU (under his authority and direction). This was before the Civil War took place.

I figure that I have spoken enough about William Tecumseh Sherman, so I will wrap it up here. By the way, his birth name was just Tecumseh (William was added when he was adopted by another family since his birth family was extremely poor and unable to raise all of the children as they wish they could).

Answer 6

Definitely Stonewall Jackson, the onion-munching lunatic.

Answer 7

Mine is definatly William T. Sherman, now that's how you stop a war, burn everything from Atlanta to Savanna, salt the ground so it can't be farmed for years, and take everything and anything!

Answer 8

Robert E. Lee

Answer 9

I am a pacifist and i can't believe anyone can tell he likes a war.If someone can tell that then think about all the blood we shared in the past and think of the children dead in wars.Aren't you people bored of fighting.The human race will dezvolt more rapidly without killing ourselves.

Answer 10

General Jeb Stewart, warrior grade true military genius, leader with loyalty of his men.