- This topic has 3 voices and 1 reply.
-
Posts
-
At the start of the war Albert Sidney Johnson was considered the best general in either army. What would have happened if he had lived?Johnson is often criticized for the fall of both Fort Henry and Fort Donaldson. Both for selecting Tilghman and Floyd to command and for not overseeing the construction of the forts, which were sub-par. Grant's taking of these forts was a major blow to his overall strategy.Johnson succeeded in surprising Grant at Shiloh. Grant, of course, rallied his troops and won a costly victory the second day?following Johnson's death. There were indications that on the first day of Shiloh Johnson was losing control of his men. They were fighting as individual units, not as part of an organized army. Grant was able to reorganize his troops and counter attack the second day. On the second day of Shiloh had Johnson lived would he have destroyed Grant? Had Johnson lived what would we now say of his abilities as a commanding general?
I have been to Fort Donelson and Shiloh. What caused Donelson to fall was not poor construction but a lack of will on the part of the defenders to actually defend it. At Shiloh, he wasn't losing control of his army, he had already lost control when he was killed. His death just capped the defeat and made it a virtual rout. Had he lived it is probable that he could have restored a semblance of control to his army but he could not have won the battle. He had done a good job of losing it by his overly complicated plan. Shiloh simply highlighted Grant's superior generalship.
The Battle for Tennessee was doomed from the get go because Eastern Tennessee was heavily pro Union, and the Confederates botched their moves in the Kentucky campaign and were scurrying back in disarray. Also, as was mentioned above, the defenders of Donelson and Henry were faint-hearted and incompetent. Grant didn't do anything spectacular, he just had more men and fortitude. As for Johnston, he was a glory dog pure and simple. He had to ride in the front ranks and be the "hero." He was well schooled, but in military tactics from a bygone era (much like Winfield Scott). He was a Mexican War hero who did not understand that the technology had changed enough that he had to change with it. Joe Johnston was the better of the two Johnstons in my humble opinion because he understood field tactics that would keep his army intact.Shiloh, by the way, was basically an inconclusive draw that cost both sides dearly. The fact that the South retreated was basically for logistics rather than not being able to carry the field. They simply had nothing left to fight for and slipped away in the night.....Grant wasn't in a position to follow up anyway. The fighting in the Hornet's Nest was so brutal neither army wanted anymore to do with the other for awhile at least. Many lessons were learned at Shiloh. It's biggest claim to fame was it was the first of the really large and complex field battles of the Western Theater.
