Winfield Scott's place in history

[Nytram01]

For a period between approximately 1812 and 1861 General Winfield Scott was the US Army. A celebrated battle commander who was responsible for regulating and organizing the professional army in peacetime, laying many of the foundations of what became US Army traditions. Probably the most well read military man in North America prior to the 1850's. An Indian fighter who reached international acclaim for his Campaign in Mexico and, arguably, the man who laid the basic blueprint for the Federal victory in the American Civil War.

So what is General Winfield Scott's place in world history?

Wikipedia's bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott

 

[Elfwine]

I'm leaning towards the third meaning the fourth. Scott did some great stuff, but he never had to face a master of war that I can think of.

Without that, there's no way to show how he stands in that rarefied atmosphere.

The World Greats all had to make their name against more than what Scott ever had to face.

This is not to slight the British army of the War of 1812 - quite the opposite. But Scott never faced it at its best.

Nevertheless, one of the better American generals in the 19th century, and probably comparable to some of our best in the 20th (the 18th just doesn't have much to boast about)..

 

[AtriumCarceris]

I accidental put down the first option, when I meant to put down the third. So uh, whoops?

 

[Snake Featherston]

Arguably the greatest Antebellum US general of them all. The thing that makes Scott different from later US generals is that he operated in a very different political-military culture. We owe the rise of the professional US military in no small part to Old Fuss and Feathers, and his Mexico City campaign truly was one of the all-time brilliant campaigns of the war. Scott's leadership of the US Army led to the victorious cadre of generals like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Miles, and others who helped lead the post-ACW US Army into one suited for a superpower.

It's arguable that in terms of the military rise of the United States that Winfield Scott is the horseshoe nail whose absence might alter the whole thing so much that it could never be recognized.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I'm leaning towards the third meaning the fourth. Scott did some great stuff, but he never had to face a master of war that I can think of.

Without that, there's no way to show how he stands in that rarefied atmosphere.

The World Greats all had to make their name against more than what Scott ever had to face.

This is not to slight the British army of the War of 1812 - quite the opposite. But Scott never faced it at its best.

Nevertheless, one of the better American generals in the 19th century, and probably comparable to some of our best in the 20th (the 18th just doesn't have much to boast about)..

I suppose you could ask whether or not the Confederacy qualified for first rate, which IMHO it very much did not given its many structural, civil, and political weaknesses. That, however, would get into the subjective question of what a first rank opponent is. I think we would all agree, however, that however one defines first rank the name "Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" will never appear except in the lower rank of a Top 100 list.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Ever since reading Conroy's 1861, and then an actual biography or two, I certainly agree that Winfield Scott is one of the greatest generals this country has ever produced. I wish he was better remembered.

 

[Elfwine]

I suppose you could ask whether or not the Confederacy qualified for first rate, which IMHO it very much did not given its many structural, civil, and political weaknesses. That, however, would get into the subjective question of what a first rank opponent is. I think we would all agree, however, that however one defines first rank the name "Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" will never appear except in the lower rank of a Top 100 list.

For purposes of this, the usual list will do - Napoleon, Alexander, Wellington, Marlburough, Prince Eugene . . .

But yes, Santa Anna was the kind of opponent a Burnside or Bragg could beat.

Actually, that would be a fun fight to set up if one could find a way to represent it - Bragg and his army as of Stone's River versus an equivalently sized Mexican army as of Santa Anna's failure to beat Scott.

My money's on the North Carolinian/Louisianian, but it would be worth much talk.

In some other thread, though.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

Why don't you let people say "bad" in the forum. Me? I think he was OK: His "Anaconda Plan" made a lot of sense, and he apparently had successes in Mexico, but you should give people the full range of possible options.

 

[Nytram01]

Why don't you let people say "bad" in the forum. Me? I think he was OK: His "Anaconda Plan" made a lot of sense, and he apparently had successes in Mexico, but you should give people the full range of possible options.

Because Scott wasn't bad. By no definition of the term could he be called a "bad general". I did not see the point in adding that option.

 

[oudi14]

It would have been interesting to see the result, if Scott had been a few years younger, and in better shape; and he, not Mcdowell had led Union forces at First Manassas.

 

[Elfwine]

It would have been interesting to see the result, if Scott had been a few years younger, and in better shape; and he, not Mcdowell had led Union forces at First Manassas.

A poor way to end his career. McDowell had a good plan, but his men were green, his officers were not much better, and it was a hot day.

 

[oudi14]

A poor way to end his career. McDowell had a good plan, but his men were green, his officers were not much better, and it was a hot day.

The confederates were green, too; one can argue that their officers were better, but the heat affected both sides.

 

[Elfwine]

The confederates were green, too; one can argue that their officers were better, but the heat affected both sides.

But they're facing a vastly easier situation. They just need to beat off the regiment-by-regiment attacks. McDowell (or in this case Scott) and his subordinates have to coordinate a bunch of not-even-half-trained men so as to effectively direct the movements of one of the largest American armies to date, and ensure that they're following the plan.

Meanwhile, the heat is harder on those who have to advance.

Beauregard in the position of attacker would fare just as badly.

 

[Stolengood]

It's quite telling that even Scott knew the Trail of Tears was wrong... but he had no other choice in the matter.

 

[Color-Copycat]

Have to respect the dude who came up with the Anaconda Plan.

 

[William_Dellinger]

He served under every President from Jefferson to Lincoln, a total of fourteen administrations, and was a general for thirteen of them.

He was Commanding General of the U.S. Army for so long, that when he took the post, his successor (McClellan) wasn't even in the military yet.

Played mentor to the best generals on either side of the ACW.

IIRC, Wellington called Scott "the greatest living general" after Scott took Mexico City.

While true that he didn't face off against a Napoleon or an Alexander, Scott did great things while in command, and I feel sure that he would have been up to the task if had faced off against another "great" general.

 

[Fiver]

Scott did some great stuff, but he never had to face a master of war that I can think of.

Without that, there's no way to show how he stands in that rarefied atmosphere.

Based on that definition we have no way of rating Alexander the Great, either.

 

[The Historian]

If Scott came up with the Anaconda plan, a mostly defensive option, wouldn't he also act defensively on the field? Perhaps bait the Confederates into an assault that costs them plenty of men, and then use his weight of numbers to finally drive them off?

 

[Elfwine]

Based on that definition we have no way of rating Alexander the Great, either.

Since I regard Alexander as the most overlionized man in Western civilization, I can live with that.

The problem as it relates to Scott is that Scott never played in that league - Mexico is a good sign, but it was against incompetent enemy leadership and with the weight of resources on his side.

 

[Hierophant]

I suppose you could ask whether or not the Confederacy qualified for first rate, which IMHO it very much did not given its many structural, civil, and political weaknesses. That, however, would get into the subjective question of what a first rank opponent is. I think we would all agree, however, that however one defines first rank the name "Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna" will never appear except in the lower rank of a Top 100 list.

the lower part of a list of the worst military/political leaders of all time.