Most Underrated Civil War General?

I don't think this thread needs much in the way of explaination....
I think the most underrated is probably George Thomas. He was the Rock of Chickamauga, in which he saved the Army of the Cumberland with his brillant defense, allowing the rest of the army to escape, he drove the Rebel Army of of Missionary Ridge, which dealt a critical blow to the Rebels, and, his crowning achievement, He crushed Hood's army at the Battle of Nashville, virtually annihilating the Army of Tennesee. This battle is one that helped ensure Lincolns reelection.

Not really the most underrated, but Longstreet.

I think he definitely deserves more credit then he has gotten.

Yeah I agree. He's very overshadowed by Lee, although one could argue he was a more talented defender than Lee.

I think Lee was better overall, but Longstreet's suggestions, which were right most of the time, were often ignored, and these sometimes led to disaster, like Gettysburg for example, where Longstreet begged Lee not to make Pickett's Charge, which, as we all know, was a bloodbath.

I was reading something, and it suggested that Longstreet might have purposely delayed his own forces attacks at Gettysburg, because he knew they wouldnt work. Not sure about it though.

Which attack? The one where he hit Devil's Den and the Round Tops, or Pickett's Charge?

I wish they taught us some American history in Canadian school. It's so much more interesting then Canadian history. Basically every time we had a problem it was always between the english and the french and we always solved it by having a 4 month long meeting that all the politicians were drunk the entire time for.

Not Pickett's Charge. I believe it was Devil's Den.

Canadian history sucks like that.

Well it's at least more interesting than the post viking age Norwegian history and wars. I mean the war against Sweden was pathetic and actually pretty lame as neither side could properly equipt their soldiers. We still won though but only cause Sweden realized that the shithole witch was Norway at the time wasn't worth fighting for.

Ah, yes. He wanted to at least wait until Pickett got up, and actually argued against any attack at all, if I remember correctly. He wanted to go farther to the right, around to get between Meade and Washington, to assume a defensive posture, as Meade would then have little choice then to attack. This was the right move, and one that Meade feared.

A few other underrated generals are Winfield Scott Hancock, John B. Gordon, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Philip Sheridan. As for the original post on George Thomas, while I agree that he is underrated, and far better than Hooker (Joseph Hooker for clarification), I believe you are giving him to much credit. At least with smashing Hood's army at Nashville, in which he took about forever to accomplish. But I still agree he was underrated. On Longstreet, I feel that he was the counterbalance to Jackson, a more aggressive commander, as Longstreet was defensive.

But by putting themselves in such a position, they might end up being worse off. Possible scenarios: garrison or several divisions from other fronts arrive at DC and smash the Confederates in the rear (or just the DC garrison); Lee gets cut off from Potomac, and thus must stay in North which leads to possible destruction of AofNV. I will agree that Gettysburg was kind of a shit battle for the Confederates though, one they should not have gotten into. Engaging the AofP as aggressors was silly (Fredericksburg anyone), and having less troops than the Union, but having to take a longer line to attack was silly.

Correction: Longstreet despised any invasion of the North.

Indeed he did. He wanted to send reinforcements to Vicksburg, to try to relieve it.

Yeah, Hancock was probably the best commander, other then John Reynolds, on the Northern side in the East.

True, but he did destroy Hood's army, and his attack was perfectly timed and executed. That's what counts. Kind of like Longstreets attack at 2nd Bull Run. Delayed, but still very effective. But about the Rebels going around, I think it at the very least they would have had a better chance of winning then they did at Gettysburg. Gettysburg was kind of a worst-case for the Rebels, in that they were outnumbered and outgunned, which was normal for them, but they were also attacking a fortified position (never a good idea), and, in my opinion, they were also out-generaled, which is rare in the Eastern theater, when a Union general out-performs Lee.

True, true.

Yeah. If the Confederates just ignored the Union position altogether and went around it and threatened Washington, then the Union would be forced to withdrawal off of their position and attack them. And if they attacked them, the confederates would almost surely win.

The Rebels won almost every defensive battle they fought in the east.

Mainly because the leaders of the Union armies (not the corps commanders though) were incompetent.

Yeah. I have almost no doubt they would have won if Lee had listened to Longstreet. If I am not mistaken. Longstreet did not want to invade in the first place, and was only convinced when Lee assured him that they would be fighting defensive battles...