Some thoughts about Generals on the US Civil War

Because of my Internet pages on Generals of the Civil War, I get a few e-mails each month asking questions - whether about a great grandfather who doesn't appear in the index or wanting to know where to find a photo of a particular General or some other query. A recent request was different, and set me to thinking more about the nature of generalship and the people involved at this level in the War.

This question came from a home-schooling mother and was in two parts: what was the difference between the Union and Confederate Generals and what did they have in common. I provided her with a brief response, but it then struck me that many people would possibly be interested in a more detailed exploration of these issues.

Who were the Generals?

Civil War Generals cover a very wide range of people and personalities - from megastars like Grant, Lee, Sherman and Jackson, to the ones most people have never heard of, like William Edward Starke and Speed Smith Fry. They were career Army officers, they were politicians, they came from all occupations and trades and from many countries and most states and territories of the (then) United States. Some came with great fanfare and were soon found wanting and shipped off to frontier outposts or sent home in disgrace; others presented themselves with an air of diffidence, were discovered for the brilliant fighters that they were and went on to the highest offices in the land.

Pity the political leaders at the start of the War, who mostly had no idea of what they were about (but had unbounded confidence in their abilities) and who were presented with the need to establish armies quickly - very quickly indeed - with no idea of how long the War would last, and how many lives would ultimately be expended. It's not surprising that the first choice for military leaders would be those who had shone in the pre-War Army (Robert E Lee was courted by both sides) but the performance of some would be found unsuitable as the War progressed - people like Albert Sidney Johnston, P G T Beauregard and George B McClellan.

In the beginning, the public clamoured for their heroes - such as explorers and politicians - to be given the star, and the leaders agreed. Sometimes it worked well - John A Logan proved to be a fine soldier, as did Wade Hampton - others such as John L Fremont were a flash in the pan. In time though, those with the necessary mix of military skill, judgement and daring proved themselves well suited to the role.

It's not surprising that states' rights - in the North and the South - proved to be a powerful factor in appointments. In the South, Jefferson Davis needed to placate the state governors to keep the Confederacy going. In the North it was slightly different, but Lincoln and the Congress still needed to balance the claims of the various states, especially in the US Volunteers force. This was the opportunity for many politicians and state notables to be appointed to General grades to lead the units from their states.

Once the Generals were appointed to their grade, the great challenge was to find them suitable positions. In the early days of the War this was not a problem, but as the senior leaders grew into their roles they were able to exert much more influence in choosing their subordinates. Thus, Robert E Lee was able to relegate the outspoken but aggressive D H Hill to lesser roles in favour of arguably less competent Generals, usually from Virginia.

So what were the differences between Confederate and Union Generals?

The most significant difference (as I pointed out to the home-schooler) is that one group of leaders fought for the preservation of the Union and (equally importantly, in my opinion) the downfall of slavery. The others fought mainly for the preservation of their way of life and their right to secede to achieve this. You can argue forever about why people fought - and you'd end up with a whole raft of reasons, but I think those I've outlined just about sum it up.

Beyond the reasons why they fought, I'd suggest that there are not too many significant differences between the two groups. I've looked at details of pre-War employment provided in various sources, primarily Ezra Warner's Generals in Gray and Generals in Blue. He gives comprehensive information on place of birth and some general pointers to the occupations of General Officers before the War. Some of these had a single occupation (especially those who had been officers in the US Army) but others tried various trades and types of employment. The table below shows the differences in their backgrounds.

Main Occupations of General Officers before the War

There is some difference in the amount of prior military experience. 55.3% of Confederate Generals had some sort of exposure to military activities before the War - either having attended a military academy, served in the state militia or actually fought in the Mexican War or one of the Indian wars. Compare this to the Union figure of 63.7%, with this higher figure probably a reflection of so many officers in the antebellum Army choosing to stay with the colours and being consequently rewarded with the General's star.

This table summarises the numbers of Generals from both sides who had attended West Point.

One lesser area of difference is place of birth: 95.8% of Confederate Generals were born in US states or territories, compared to 92.5% for the Union. This reflects that many more immigrants to the USA settled in the Northern states than in the South in the pre-War years. A look at the 1860 census shows that in the core Southern states the percentage of foreign-born white males was around 5%, while in the North the figure was 19% (this comparison ignores the population of border states and territories).

There's one further interesting aspect about the foreign-born Generals - their number doesn't refect the overall population of immigrants. The reason for this is that many well-qualified Europeans lacked the political support to be appointed early in the War. There were exceptions (Franz Sigel was one) but without a large constituency, they had to wait their turn.

What were the similarities?

One interesting similarity is the way in which certain Generals on both sides were distrusted because of where they came from or their political party. Confederate General John Pemberton was subject to extra criticism after he surrendered Vicksburg - because of his Northern roots. Similarly, George Thomas was always under some suspicion despite spectacular success in the Union armies because he came from Virginia - where his family had in fact disowned him.

Discrimination of a different sort was suffered by Union General Alphaeus Williams, a Democrat who was appointed Brigadier General in May 1861, but went the whole length of the War without another promotion despite a very good service record.

How were they led?

The two great military leaders, Grant and Lee, could be said to personify the difference between Southern and Northern Generals, but I'd argue that is an overly romantic view of the broad range of General officers. It's tempting to see Lee as the proud Cavalier and Grant as the more egalitarian self-made man, but they aren't by any means typical of their groups; many Northern Generals came from highly respectable families and many from the Confederacy would not have been welcome in the grand homes of the Old South.

There were clearly two main battlegrounds in the War - the East and the West - and it's often been said that the Union fielded their First Team in the West and the Confederacy did so in the East, and vice versa. This is a compelling argument and is illustrated by the situation in mid 1863 where the War in the West had virtually been won, while that in the East was best regarded as a stalemate. When Grant moved East to lead the Army of the Potomac, with hindsight we can see that militarily victory was just a matter of time. The massive war machine of the Union was at last led by a General who was prepared to fling it at the enemy.

Lee, on the other hand, can be seen as a doomed figure. He was supremely inspirational, and his men would have done anything for him, but even that was not enough. I have some trouble with Lee - I just don't get him. In many ways, he was unimaginative (what was he thinking of in those three days at Gettysburg?) and disorganised. How else can you explain his meagre staff, but at the same time you must give them credit for the brilliant movement of his army from Virginia to Gettysburg in little over a week, leaving the Army of the Potomac flat-footed and floundering?

So, in conclusion, there were some differences between the Northern and Southern Generals, but I believe their similarities are much more interesting.

I don't expect everyone to agree with what I've written here. If you have something to say, please contact me

Last Updated 6 November 2007