Author: William F.B. Vodrey – The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable

The Great Debate of 2023: Opening Remarks

Who was the best political general of the Civil War?

By William F.B. Vodrey – debate moderator
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2023, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: The subject of the annual Dick Crews Memorial Debate at the February 2023 Roundtable meeting was: “Who was the best political general of the Civil War?” Four members made presentations on the topic; the article below was the opening remarks made by the moderator of the debate.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome!

We’re here tonight for the annual Dick Crews Memorial Cleveland Civil War Roundtable Debate, named after my longtime predecessor as moderator. Dick once told me that the debate got its start as a Roundtable tradition because of the difficulty of finding speakers who were willing to travel to Cleveland in January. In moderating again tonight, I stand on the shoulders of giants, including Dick.

The Great Debate of 2023

Who was the best political general of the Civil War?

The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2023, All Rights Reserved

According to available information, fewer than half of all the generals in the Union army during the Civil War were graduates of West Point. Because of a shortage of men to serve as generals, a number of men who lacked military training were given the rank of general. These generals are referred to as political generals, because they often received their rank due to political connections. Quite a few of these political generals, not surprisingly, proved to be inadequate – or worse. However, some of the political generals were effective and did well for the army in which they served.

The 2023 Dick Crews Memorial Debate posed the question: “Who was the best political general of the Civil War?” Four debaters presented arguments in favor of a political general whom each debater considered the best. The four political generals for whom arguments were presented are Edward Ferrero, John A. Logan, John C. Breckinridge, and Benjamin F. Butler. Below are the texts of those four arguments, along with moderator William Vodrey’s opening remarks.

The Great Debate of 2022: Opening Remarks

Apart from Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, which Civil War officer was the least deserving of being relieved of command?

By William F.B. Vodrey – debate moderator
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2022, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: The subject of the annual Dick Crews Debate at the January 2022 Roundtable meeting was: “Apart from Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, which Civil War officer was the least deserving of being relieved of command?” Four members made presentations on the topic; the article below was the opening remarks made by the moderator of the debate.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome.

We’re here tonight for the annual Dick Crews Cleveland Civil War Roundtable Debate, named after my longtime predecessor as moderator. He recruited me for a debate on the most important battle of the Civil War not long after I joined the Roundtable, and I’m still grateful to him. (I chose the 1862 Battle of New Orleans.)

The Great Debate of 2022

Apart from Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, which Civil War officer was the least deserving of being relieved of command?

The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2022, All Rights Reserved

General and flag officers, both Union and Confederate, were often relieved of their duties or commands, subjected to courts-martial and/or boards of inquiry, or otherwise the subjects of adverse disciplinary proceedings for their conduct on, and sometimes off, the battlefield.

The 2022 Dick Crews Debate posed the question: Apart from Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman, which Civil War officer was the least deserving of the discipline he received from superiors? Four debaters presented on the topic of which Civil War officer was least deserving of being relieved of command. Below are the texts of those four arguments, along with moderator William Vodrey’s opening remarks.

A Review of April 1865: The Month That Saved America by Jay Winik

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2004, 2007, All Rights Reserved

Every once in awhile, a Civil War book makes it to the bestseller lists, appealing to a broader audience than history fans. Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind was one such book, in its day. So was Shelby Foote’s magnificent trilogy, The Civil War. And so, too, is Jay Winik’s April 1865: The Month That Saved America. Winik’s book was on The New York Times bestseller list for quite awhile, and President Bush was seen with it tucked under his arm not long after 9-11.

However, I come not to praise Winik, but to bury him. April 1865 just isn’t a very good book. The author has neither the writing skills nor the commitment to historical accuracy, unfortunately, to craft a good book about that momentous month.

A Review of Tarnished Eagles: The Courts-Martial of Fifty Union Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels by Thomas P. Lowry

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 1999, 2008, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: This review was originally published in The Charger in the Fall of 1999.

It comes as no surprise to anyone who reads about the Civil War that not every regimental colonel was as heroic, wise, or noble as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. For that matter, not even Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain always was, although he came pretty close. When the war broke out in 1861, armies were raised in a hurry on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line, and commanding officers were appointed with sometimes only the most meager qualifications. Many were political appointees in state-raised units, more skilled at maneuvering in smoke-filled back rooms than on the field of battle. In command of troops, some did well, most did adequately, but many failed.

A Review of How Few Remain: A Novel of the Second War Between the States by Harry Turtledove

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 1999, 2010. All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in The Charger in 1999.

I enjoy Civil War alternative history, or “what-if,” books. At their best, these books challenge our perceptions of the war in intriguing ways, but remain historically plausible. These books show us how things might have gone, for want of this nail or that bullet. At their best, such books give us a good plot, solid characterization, and a few nifty twists on history as we know it.

A Review of The Court-Martial of George Armstrong Custer by Douglas C. Jones

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 1999, 2010. All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in The Charger in 1999.

George Armstrong Custer seems to have an unbreakable hold on the American imagination.

He was a gallant cavalier during the Civil War, the northern counterpart to J.E.B. Stuart’s elan and bravado, and he became a seasoned frontier warrior and nemesis of the Sioux after the Civil War. He was headstrong, impatient, sometimes arrogant, always ambitious. Some historians think that Custer had his eye on the presidency when he and a contingent of his beloved 7th Cavalry were overwhelmed by Indians near the Little Bighorn and, on June 25, 1876, killed to the last man.

A Review of The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War by Thomas B. Buell

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2001, 2008, All Rights Reserved

Editor’s note: This review was originally published in The Charger in the winter of 2002.

When I was in the Roundtable contingent which visited Richmond in 2000, I noticed Dan Zeiser reading a thick book with one of Julian Scott’s fine old Civil War paintings on the cover. When Dan finished the book, he lent it to me, and I’m glad he did.

A Review of Justice in Blue and Gray by Stephen C. Neff

By William F.B. Vodrey
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2013, All Rights Reserved

Every now and then I get into arguments with people about the law of war.

“There’s no such thing as the law of war,” they say (or words to that effect). “War is hell. Anything goes. The only thing that matters is winning.”

“Oh, really?” I reply. “So you’d have no problem with, say, an officer ordering his men to kill all the unarmed civilians in a foreign town they occupy after it surrenders? Or, as a matter of policy, to always shoot prisoners after they surrender? Or work them to death in a concentration camp? Or torture or rape them? That’d all be fine, right, because there’s no law of war?”

“Uh…no,” they reply.