Better than you think

After reading Two Great Rebel Armies I was totally astounded by the defencies given to the Army of Tennessee. The author states that the Army of Tennessee had less capable commanders and did not posses as many experienced leaders as the Army of Northern Virginia. I am not refuting that statement because it is mostly true.

However, the Army that was soon to be known as the Army of Tennessee had, at the time officers of promise who could have went on to better things. In early 1862, General Albert Sidney Johnston had several distinguished brigadiers who were fully capable of successfully commanding soldiers.

Here are the men that Johnston had under his command in early 1862:

1. William Hardee--A West Pointe, author of Rifle and Light Inantry Tactic, formerly an Academy text and now the offical drill manual of both armies.

2. George Crittenden--Another West Point graduate and a regular army man.

3. Lloyd Tilghman-Another West Pointer and veteran of the Mexican War.

4. John Hunt Morgan--no military training but he had fought in the
Mexican War and commanded a militia company in his hometown.

5. Nathan Bedford Forrest--Little or no schooling of any kind but we all know the kind of leader he turned out to be.

Now the geography of Johnston defense didn't offer him the best chance for a postive defense. This is a solid group of generals but the performance of Crittenden caused the Johnston's defeat and forced him to abondon his Kentucky defensive line.

This is Blog #100 and I want to thank everybody for reading and their support. My next two blogs will be revisits to my Forgotten Generals Series and my Forgotten Battles of the Civil War Series. Stay tuned!

Eight Full Confederate Generals

During the short history of the Confederate States Army there were only seven full generals. Here is a list of them.

Samuel Cooper
Albert Sidney Johnston
P.G.T. Beauregard
Joseph E. Johnston
Robert E. Lee
John Bell Hood
Braxton Bragg
Kirby Smith

Thomas J. Jackson and James Longstreet were not full generals even though the average Civil War buff will tell you that. The Confederate Congress and Jefferson Davis only appoved eight full general commissions during the course of the war. Cooper never took the field, Johnston was killed in 1862, Beauregard/Johnston had checkered histories as field officers, Hood was a failure, Smith bitched a lot but did nothing. Only Lee was successful. Braxton Bragg, like Johnston and Beauregard struggled as a field commander.

Shiloh versus Ken Burns

There are times when I can still hear David McCullough narrate Ken Burns The Civil War in my head. I almost know the series by heart because I listened to it on cassette tape as a kid. Yes I was a nerd. However, during the film McCullough states that the Battle of Shiloh had more deaths and all previous American Wars combined. This blog will go inside the numbers and see if Burns and his writers are correct in their assumptions. First lets take a look at the Battle of Shiloh and the casuality lists then I'll list the casualites of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Mexican war.According to the pbs.org website

"On the morning of April 6, 1862, Confederates commanded by Albert Sidney Johnston roared into Grant's encampment around Pittsburg Landing, beginning the bloodiest battle of the war. It would be remembered by the name of the little whitewashed church around which some of the fiercest early fighting swirled - Shiloh, a Hebrew word meaning "place of peace.""

According to the national park service the casulties at Shiloh were very high. The site lists 23,746 total casualities for both sides at Shiloh(US 13,047; CS 10,699). Total forces engaged Army of the Tennessee and Army of the Ohio (65,085) [USA]; Army of the Mississippi (44,968) [CSA].

Lets look at the three previous wars that the United States fought in.The Revolutionary War had 10,623 total casualties, the War of 1812 had 6,765, The Mexican War had 5,885. If you add those three together your grand total over three wars is 23,273. If you take Shiloh's total and the pervious was totals and subtract them The Battle of Shiloh had 473 more men fall. Not a staggering total but Burns and his researchers were accurate in their assessment. This backs up the historical argument that warfare had changed and the old tactics caused horrundes amounts of casualities.

It should be noted that the Battle of Shiloh lasted two days, The Revolutionary War lasted seven years, The War of 1812 lasted two years and the Mexican War lasted two years. So 746 more men fell in two days of combat versus eleven years of combat. Astonishing isn't it?Moreover, in the three previous wars a grand total of 8,428 men died while serving in combat. At Shiloh or Pittsburg Landing a grand total of 3,477 men died in just two days of combat. Thats a difference of 4,951 men which isn't alot when you think that the previous wars had over eleven years of time to build a big lead. These numbers just jump out at me and its hard to grasp but it is there and the rest is left to history.

CRS Report to Congress on American War deaths/wounds is here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The page devoted to Shiloh, along with the map is on the PBS page:

http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/map4.html

The nps webpage on Shiloh is here:

http://www.nps.gov/shil/