Rating P.G.T. Beauregard

[Nytram01]

Pierre Gustav Toutant Beauregard would have had everyone believe that he was unfairly sent out to rot in a military back-water of the Civil War. Yes, you could argue that Charleston was an important political position but the war was not going to be decided in that region, it would be decided in the massive struggles in Virginia and in Tennessee and Mississippi.

After taking sick leave in the aftermath of the fall of Corinth he wanted to be restored to command in a Western theater. Ideally he wanted to be restored to command of the premier Western Army but Bragg had command of that so he would have settled for command of the new Army of Mississippi which Pemberton commanded at the time.

But Davis believed Beauregard had abandonned his duty as Army Commander and had gone absent without leave so he refused to give Beauregard command of a major army and instead sent him to garrison duty at Charleston Harbor.

Beauregard's record is a hit and miss affair. He was the hero of Fort Sumter - one of the most one-sided battles in American history - and had claimed the glory of 1st Manassas/Bull Run depite Joe Johnston doing most of the actual work, he had been the coordinator of the Army of Mississippi at the Battle of Shiloh while A.S. Johnston ran about the front line and he had given up Corinth with little risistance, he would successfully fend off Federal invasion attempts of the Carolinas throughout 1863 and would achieve he greatest victory in the Bermuda Hundred Campaign before falling out with Lee and Davis and then be reassigned to command the Western Theater where Hood ignored him and he barely put up token resistance to Sherman, failing to concentrate force against the Federals and falling for all of Sherman's faints.

So how do you rate him?

 

[dgharis]

An average leader who was often in situations requiring better than average performance, which he could not consistently deliver, hence the spotty record. Would have made a decent corps commander for Lee or Johnston if matters had turned out differently, but not really suited to command of larger forces.

 

[Nytram01]

Fourteen votes and only one comment.

 

[hairysamarian]

Fourteen votes and only one comment.

One hundred and fifty years later and STILL no one can get worked up enough to bad-mouth the man. That might the worst thing of all; he wasn't even memorably awful.

 

[Elfwine]

One hundred and fifty years later and STILL no one can get worked up enough to bad-mouth the man. That might the worst thing of all; he wasn't even memorably awful.

Something like this.

Beauregard to his credit did have some good moments, but Davis was right on his value to the Confederacy.

 

[Nytram01]

I was kind of hoping to draw Snake Featerston into this thread because he's expressed a very positive opinion of Beauregard before so I was hopeful that his contribute might spark some kind of debate. Despite making the thread I must admit that Beauregard only evokes apethy from me.

 

[Elfwine]

Is he still kicked?

 

[Nytram01]

I'm sure I saw him online the day I posted the thread and his user page said he was online within the last 24 hours.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Conceptually? Brilliant.

In practice? He successfully defended Charleston in the most protracted set of engagements in the war and saved the CSA from Robert E. Lee's being totally outgeneraled by Grant for a span of time into 1865. He admittedly wasn't always the *best* field general, but given he actually fought instead of finding excuse after excuse not to do so.......

 

[Snake Featherston]

I was kind of hoping to draw Snake Featerston into this thread because he's expressed a very positive opinion of Beauregard before so I was hopeful that his contribute might spark some kind of debate. Despite making the thread I must admit that Beauregard only evokes apethy from me.

I admit some sectional bias here, but my positive opinion derives primarily from Beauregard at Charleston and Petersburg. I wouldn't rate him on the greatest tactical list in the US Civil War above the lower end of the Top 15, but the man single-handedly saved the CSA into 1865. Beauregard was, however, prone to over-optimistic plans that were a wee bit lax on the prospect of actually achieving them with the CS Army's logistical and manpower edge, which is his major negative. His second major negative is how much time he spent in the war fighting Jefferson Davis, not the Union Army.

 

[KG "Cagey"]

!On to Pittsburgh or Philly or the Ohio River or... !

Posted by Nytram01 ...had claimed the glory of 1st Manassas/Bull Run depite Joe Johnston doing most of the actual work

Joe and his men were the sine qua non of CSA win at Manassas but to say JoeJ did "most of the actual work.." I think overstates Joe's command role and workload prior to the battle. By the end of this battle however it was firmly Joe Johnston's Army until he was WIA at Seven Pines.

Snake Featherston wrote Beauregard was, however, prone to over-optimistic plans that were a wee bit lax on the prospect of actually achieving them with the CS Army's logistical and manpower edge, which is his major negative. His second major negative is how much time he spent in the war fighting Jefferson Davis, not the Union Army.

I agree "G.T." Beauregard was a good Corp commander on the operational level, but his mischief at the tactical [see Shiloh plan of march and plan of attack ] and at the strategic levels was harmful.
!Oh yes GT had grand plans! Every new season of the war he had a "give me XX,000 more men, President Davis and I'll win the war by marching to Philly, WashingtonDC, St Louis, Chicago and my personal favorite that "G.T." Beauregard advocated... !Pittsburgh/Erie PA! [cutting the Union in half isn't this a great plan Mr. Davis!]

 

[Johnrankins]

Joe and his men were the sine qua non of CSA win at Manassas but to say JoeJ did "most of the actual work.." I think overstates Joe's command role and workload prior to the battle. By the end of this battle however it was firmly Joe Johnston's Army until he was WIA at Seven Pines.



I agree "G.T." Beauregard was a good Corp commander on the operational level, but his mischief at the tactical [see Shiloh plan of march and plan of attack ] and at the strategic levels was harmful.
!Oh yes GT had grand plans! Every new season of the war he had a "give me XX,000 more men, President Davis and I'll win the war by marching to Philly, WashingtonDC, St Louis, Chicago and my personal favorite that "G.T." Beauregard advocated... !Pittsburgh/Erie PA! [cutting the Union in half isn't this a great plan Mr. Davis!]

Shiloh wasn't Beauregard's fault but AS Johnston as Beauregard didn't even want to fight there. The most you can blame him for is being overly optimistic at the end of the first day. I do agree his grand plans were ridiculous compared to what the CSA could reasonably do. Any CSA trying to get to Pittsburgh would be cut off and cut to pieces LONG before it got there!

 

[KG "Cagey"]

Posted by Johnrankins Shiloh wasn't Beauregard's fault but AS Johnston as Beauregard didn't even want to fight there. The most you can blame him for is being overly optimistic at the end of the first day. I do agree his grand plans were ridiculous compared to what the CSA could reasonably do. Any CSA trying to get to Pittsburgh would be cut off and cut to pieces LONG before it got there!

Shiloh: My first charge of indictment of Beauregard. Approach March
AS Johnston delegated the marching orders to Beauregard. Thinking that as the most battle experienced general under his command, Johnston would be shocked at the overly-complex cross-paths cluster-BLEEP of a marching plan that Beauregard thrust upon Bragg, Hardee, Polk, and Breckinrdge. The march became so entangled that that Battle of Shiloh was fought 1 [or 2] days later than planned and Don Carlos Buell and his Army of Ohio was able to save Grant's Army of Tenn.

Shiloh: My second charge of indictment of Beauregard. Plan of attack.
AS Johnston wanted an attack led by the CSA right. ASJ wanted Hardee troops to be that "right hook." Beauregard wanted to cancel the attack since the element of surprise must have been lost but if the Rebs attack Beauregard wanted a Left Hook. I believe ASJ ought to have been more active in making his plans/ orders become reality, but Beauregard. is the one you actually failed to make his orders from above into reality.

This is a mirror of Lee and Jackson at the start of Beaver Dam Creek (Mechanicsville) and Gaines's Mill. Lee / AS Johnston were leading an army into a large multi-Corps battle for the first time in their lives. They gave reasonable approach orders to their most battle tested subordinates. Jackson / Beauregard either failed get their troops to the start positions or fouled up their approach march. After the initial failure by their subordinate, the senior commanders Lee / AS Johnston had a chance to be more active over their junior officer and see that the plan gets done right [for Lee that is Gaines's Mill for ASJ it is judging the debacle of the march and making sure Beauregard does not ignore the right hook plan with "Hardee on right, Bragg center and Polk on left." Beauregard deployed all four Rebel Corps in the center en echelon.

I'll pause here for any response.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Shiloh wasn't Beauregard's fault but AS Johnston as Beauregard didn't even want to fight there. The most you can blame him for is being overly optimistic at the end of the first day. I do agree his grand plans were ridiculous compared to what the CSA could reasonably do. Any CSA trying to get to Pittsburgh would be cut off and cut to pieces LONG before it got there!

Actually Shiloh *was* Beauregard's fault for the simple reason that he was the only general acting like an army commander in the battle. Johnston completely forgot his role in terms of what he was supposed to do and that ended as well as you'd expect it to in that time. That the CSA came as close to winning as it did was because it was Grant's nadir as a tactician. I mean when your brilliant idea is stealing NAPOLEON'S plan from WATERLOO.....

 

[Johnrankins]

Actually Shiloh *was* Beauregard's fault for the simple reason that he was the only general acting like an army commander in the battle. Johnston completely forgot his role in terms of what he was supposed to do and that ended as well as you'd expect it to in that time. That the CSA came as close to winning as it did was because it was Grant's nadir as a tactician. I mean when your brilliant idea is stealing NAPOLEON'S plan from WATERLOO.....

I guess that is one way of looking at it. However, AS Johnston was the commanding general of the operation and should have acted like one instead of a regimental commander. In that sense it was his fault. Of course Johnston's record is one of pure failure. How Jeff Davis saw him as the South's #1 field soldier is beyond me.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I guess that is one way of looking at it. However, AS Johnston was the commanding general of the operation and should have acted like one instead of a regimental commander. In that sense it was his fault. Of course Johnston's record is one of pure failure. How Jeff Davis saw him as the South's #1 field soldier is beyond me.

I chalk it up to hero-worship and like all hero-worshipers a deliberate blindness to Sidney Johnston's human faults.

 

[KG "Cagey"]

AS Johnston was NOT a "pure failure."

Originally Posted by Johnrankins I guess that is one way of looking at it. However, AS Johnston was the commanding general of the operation and should have acted like one instead of a regimental commander. In that sense it was his fault. Of course Johnston's record is one of pure failure. How Jeff Davis saw him as the South's #1 field soldier is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Snake FeatherstonI chalk it up to hero-worship and like all hero-worshipers a deliberate blindness to Sidney Johnston's human faults.

I am not a hero worshiper of ASJ BUT if I look at AS Johnston through a lens of Grant and Lee then I find AS Johnston was NOT a "pure failure."
Why does all blame for the CSA between the Ms. River and the Cumberland Gap get blamed on ASJohnson?

ASJohnston followed his President's orders to defend the whole Tenn/Ky line. Polk's idiocy of trampling across into KY hurt ASJ and CSA badly and was NOT a ASJ "failure." ASJ was in Richmond and just being appointed to command.
If the drunken Crittenden and the tactical stupidity of Brig. Gen. Felix Zollicoffer at Battle of Mill Springs are the distant AS Johnston's fault then it was Grant's fault as overall Western commander that Rosecrans' lost at Battle of Chickamauga!

Grant was not at fault for having John A McClernand foisted by politics into his command.
ASJohnston not at fault for having Gideon Pillow AND John B. Floyd, foisted by politics into his command.

If Lee dies in West Va....Lee's "record is one of pure failure."
If Lee dies in trying to get Stonewall's Valley troops into the fight to help APHill...Lee's "record is one of pure failure."
If Grant dies at Belmont....Grant's "record is one of pure failure."
If Grant dies at Shiloh April6th ....Grant's record is one of pure awesomeness at Fort H and D but then declared a idiot at Shiloh and critics decry "how could he have been trusted with...."

I think we ought to avoid being too critical of AS Johnston as "Army commander." He was bravely if stupidly KIA before his time as a commander matured. Bragg, Burnside, and Hood on the other hand got plenty of time to prove they were not fit as above Corps level and should never have been made "Army commander."

ASJ was leading a charge that ought to have been left to a brigader or div. but no won says James B MacPherson or Phil Kearny was bad as a Army/Corps leader by stumbling into enemy fire.

Grant could take heat for Sherman's STUPID deployment before Shiloh but Grant trusted the a veteran subordinate to do their job. AS Johnston could take heat for P. G. T. Beauregard's STUPID deployment before Shiloh but AS Johnston trusted a veteran subordinate to do their job. Sherman had made no defensive precautions. Sherman had no sizable pickets / observation posts out and ignored what few pickets warnings that came from Peabody under Gen. Prentis. Grant was ill-served by Sherman before the battle. Lee was ill served by Jackson before the first two fights of the 7 Days. AND AS Johnston was ill served by P. G. T. Beauregard prior to Shiloh.
Our collective judgement does not damn Grant for not firing Sherman or fixing his defenses pre-battle. We do not blame Lee for Jackson's failures at the seven days. Again had Lee been KIA trying more actively to get Jackson men to APHill then Lee is declared a failure by all here. When the fault rested [or slept] with Jackson.

AS Johnston had the strategic judgement to concentrate and attack Grant before Buell. P. G. T. Beauregard failed him as much as Jackson failed Lee at 7Days.

Had he lived, AS Johnston goes down as a superior commander than Halleck despite "losing" post-Shiloh / Corinth to Halleck's largest trio of armies on the continent.

I'd rate AS Johnston as "Army commander" above Burnside, Pope, Halleck, Butler, Bragg, Hood, and JC Pemberton and maybe more.

 

[Johnrankins]

I am not a hero worshiper of ASJ BUT if I look at AS Johnston through a lens of Grant and Lee then I find AS Johnston was NOT a "pure failure."
Why does all blame for the CSA between the Ms. River and the Cumberland Gap get blamed on ASJohnson?

ASJohnston followed his President's orders to defend the whole Tenn/Ky line. Polk's idiocy of trampling across into KY hurt ASJ and CSA badly and was NOT a ASJ "failure." ASJ was in Richmond and just being appointed to command.
If the drunken Crittenden and the tactical stupidity of Brig. Gen. Felix Zollicoffer at Battle of Mill Springs are the distant AS Johnston's fault then it was Grant's fault as overall Western commander that Rosecrans' lost at Battle of Chickamauga!

Grant was not at fault for having John A McClernand foisted by politics into his command.
ASJohnston not at fault for having Gideon Pillow AND John B. Floyd, foisted by politics into his command.

If Lee dies in West Va....Lee's "record is one of pure failure."
If Lee dies in trying to get Stonewall's Valley troops into the fight to help APHill...Lee's "record is one of pure failure."
If Grant dies at Belmont....Grant's "record is one of pure failure."
If Grant dies at Shiloh April6th ....Grant's record is one of pure awesomeness at Fort H and D but then declared a idiot at Shiloh and critics decry "how could he have been trusted with...."

I think we ought to avoid being too critical of AS Johnston as "Army commander." He was bravely if stupidly KIA before his time as a commander matured. Bragg, Burnside, and Hood on the other hand got plenty of time to prove they were not fit as above Corps level and should never have been made "Army commander."

ASJ was leading a charge that ought to have been left to a brigader or div. but no won says James B MacPherson or Phil Kearny was bad as a Army/Corps leader by stumbling into enemy fire.

Grant could take heat for Sherman's STUPID deployment before Shiloh but Grant trusted the a veteran subordinate to do their job. AS Johnston could take heat for P. G. T. Beauregard's STUPID deployment before Shiloh but AS Johnston trusted a veteran subordinate to do their job. Sherman had made no defensive precautions. Sherman had no sizable pickets / observation posts out and ignored what few pickets warnings that came from Peabody under Gen. Prentis. Grant was ill-served by Sherman before the battle. Lee was ill served by Jackson before the first two fights of the 7 Days. AND AS Johnston was ill served by P. G. T. Beauregard prior to Shiloh.
Our collective judgement does not damn Grant for not firing Sherman or fixing his defenses pre-battle. We do not blame Lee for Jackson's failures at the seven days. Again had Lee been KIA trying more actively to get Jackson men to APHill then Lee is declared a failure by all here. When the fault rested [or slept] with Jackson.

AS Johnston had the strategic judgement to concentrate and attack Grant before Buell. P. G. T. Beauregard failed him as much as Jackson failed Lee at 7Days.

Had he lived, AS Johnston goes down as a superior commander than Halleck despite "losing" post-Shiloh / Corinth to Halleck's largest trio of armies on the continent.

I'd rate AS Johnston as "Army commander" above Burnside, Pope, Halleck, Butler, Bragg, Hood, and JC Pemberton and maybe more.

Why? He did nothing to deserve it. All we know for sure is that he didn't succeed in anything he attempted. Would he have done better if he had lived? Maybe but maybe not.

 

[hairysamarian]

I'd rate AS Johnston as "Army commander" above Burnside, Pope, Halleck, Butler, Bragg, Hood, and JC Pemberton and maybe more.

That's not exactly high praise.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A.S. Johnston gets the blame because he ultimately had the responsibility to do the impossible, took it, and did even worse than necessarily he could have done. The Henry-Donelson campaign is my classic example of this. It's the great example of Grant's early victories like all of Lee's profiting from the mistakes of his enemies. Instead of concentrating his army and actually attempting to entrap Lee as was actually feasible given the way the campaign was developing, Johnston did the worst of all worlds by dividing an already horribly outnumbered army, doing so in panic mode, ensuring poor command structures on the CS side, and serving thereby to give Grant 17,000 prisoners on a silver platter.

I'm a Grant partisan, but intellectual honesty does require the admission that Donelson owed itself chiefly to A.S. Johnston's total lack of strategic and operational vision and Grant's gleefully exploiting this. Johnston had a real potential to contain that damage and completely, utterly, totally, and deservedly failed at it.