The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War

by Thomas B. Buell

master historian gives readers a fresh new picture of the Civil War as it really was. Buell examines three pairs of commanders from the North and South, who met each other in battle. Following each pair through the entire war, the author reveals the human dimensions of the drama and brings the battles to life. 38 b&w photos.

Genres: Civil War, History, Military History, Nonfiction, American Civil War, Military Fiction, Biography

528 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

A 1958 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Thomas Buell served as a destroyerman throughout much of his career in the Navy. Buell taught in the history department of the Military Academy at West Point from 1975 until 1979, and, following his retirement from naval service in 1979, worked in the defense industry for the Honeywell Corporation and Rosemont Company in Minnesota.

Reviews

[Theo Logos · Rating 5 out of 5]

First, a caveat: If you say, "War of Northern Aggression", hold dear the Lost Cause, and celebrate Massa Robert Lee's birthday as a high holy day, you should avoid this book. It dares to depart from hagiographic treatment of Lee, suggesting that some of his actions were less than genius. It goes so far alas to suggest that he made some brutal mistakes. Trust me, if you consider this sacrilege, please avoid this book.

As for everyone else, this is an outstanding book - the freshest take on the Civil War that I have read in years. Buell ignores received wisdom on such giants as Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, and Jackson, and goes back to original sources to reconstruct the actual men behind the legends. His take on these generals is sometimes controversial, usually enlightening, and always interesting.

Buell focuses on three pairs of generals - Grant and Lee, Thomas and Hood, and Barlow and Gordon. This devise allows him to examine each major phase of the war in both the eastern and western theaters. By including the lesser known Barlow and Gordon, Buell is also able to contrast the West Point trained professionals to volunteer generals who made up such a large segment of those who served in the Civil War.

Grant and Lee, in particular, come in for reassessment in Buell's work, and both suffer somewhat from it. This, however, is not character assassination, but a valid reexamination of undeniably great men, assessing them by their actions rather than the legends that have grown around them. You might not totally agree with all of Buell's conclusions, but they may make you reassess what you think you already know.

One of the high points of the book is the treatment of General George Thomas. One of the greatest generals of the war, Thomas is often overlooked for many reasons — he was a Southerner mistrusted by the North, he did not get along well with Grant, and he died shortly after the war leaving no memoirs. What you read here will leave you hungry for more information on the great forgotten man of the Civil War.

Buell writes well, his prose moves swiftly, and though he covers the general's actions in many battles, he never gets bogged down in the details that are more appropriately left to books that cover a particular campaign.

Warrior Generals delivers something almost as rare as a Burnside victory — a Civil War book with fresh ideas.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an intriguing book, although not without some controversy. The method is to examine three pairs of generals, one each from the Union and Confederate armies--East and West--at different levels of command. The two top generals at the end of the Civil War, Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee are one pair. Two generals of armies in the West--George Thomas with the Union and John Bell Hood with the Confederates--are profiled and compared. Finally, two generals in the East--Francis Barlow and John B. Gordon--are compared, each at Division or Corps command level.

The end result is illuminating. Certainly, Robert E. Lee is not treated kindly. Grant comes in for some hits, as well. Nonetheless the criticisms are handled pretty well and the author does credit each for their strengths.

At the lowest level of command, Barlow and Gordon, we get an interesting tratment of two commanders who may not be as well chronicled as others. Nonetheless, each served with distinction and both were certainly interesting character studies.

Finally, and maybe most controversial, is the juxtaposition of Thomas (Southern born, despised by his family and mistrusted by some in the North) and Hood. The latter is a perfect example of the "Peter Principle," where one gets promoted above one's level of competence. A terrific division commander, Hood was overmatched as an army (and probably even as a corps) commander. Buell's treatment of Thomas is almost over laudatory. To be sure, the record is clear that Thomas was a stalwart, at whatever level of command he held; he excelled from the start of the Civil War, with his crushing of Zellicoffer's army at Mill Springs to his smashing victory over Hood at Nashville. Nonetheless, the treatment of Thomas is perhaps a bit "over the top," despite his genuine accomplishments and the shabby treatment that he received from Grant and Sherman toward the end of the war.

In the end, a very interesting book, marred mainly by the overenthusiastic treatment of Thomas (even though, I would argue, Thomas deserves much more credit as a general than he is often given).

[Jerry Mrizek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hmmm, what to say. First let me start by stating that I really liked this book. It was well written, informative and researched. The basic premise is that it compares the leadership qualities of six Civil War generals. These are Grant (U), Lee (C), Thomas (U), Hood (C), Gordon (C) and Barlow (U). Although the book is good the entire premise is a hoax. This book is really a tribute to General Thomas and nothing more. Grant, Lee and Hood are studied mainly to make Thomas look good and although he is not a subject of the book Sherman is critiqued as well. All get thrown under the bus. Of Lee and Hood I recall nothing favorable being written and there is one bone thrown to Grant during the Vicksburg campaign. One. That's it, seriously one. Reading of these three generals one gets the impression that they belong in a Three Stooges film, they succeed despite their incompetence (and Hood doesn't even do that). Thomas on the other hand does everything right and is unfairly criticized by the jealous Grant and Sherman and the only mistake he makes according to the book is really stated to make his ultimate triumph more impressive. Now I believe Thomas was a fine general and his Army of the Cumberland an impressive fighting machine but I was soon put off by the mud slung at everyone else and the dismissive attitude towards the Army of the Tennessee which, in my opinion, was the premier army on either side of the entire war. The author gives the impression that it was inferior to the AotC but got the glory because it was associated with Grant and Sherman. Hogwash. That was an army that went anywhere its commanders led it, cutting across the South and never losing.
An interesting addition to the book was the study of Barlow and Gordon. Both received favorable treatment and I can only suspect that they were included so that the Thomas bias wouldn't be so obvious. However, neither really has any business being included in a study of the first four generals. While both had admirable successes and are worthy of study, neither rose beyond the command of a division while the first four all commanded armies (or more) at some point during the war. The job of a division commander was drastically different from that of army commander (there's also a corps commander between them) and success at the lower level was by no means indicative of success at the higher level (look at Hood as an example). I think a good analogy would be that if commanding a division is like driving a pick up truck then commanding an army is like driving a fully loaded semi.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I met General George Thomas in this book. Haven't been the same since.

[James Kenney · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is so much I want to say about this book. But, in brief, this book was amazing.

Buell used an amazing wealth of primary sources in writing this book, exorcising many of the long-held myths about the civil war. In his study, he wrote about six specific icons - three American (Grant, Thomas, Barlow) and three Confederate (Lee, Hood, Gordon)- and used their stories to paint a more accurate, engaging, and worthwhile portrait of the events in question.

General Thomas was an amazing general, and I greatly respect his ahead-of-his-time generalship. Some of the stories of him are painted in contrast with Sherman and Grant, wherein the defects implied with Sherman can perhaps be explained by a difference in strategy rather than of competence.

Barlow is someone I came to greatly admire as well, while Grant is, and shall ever be, a deeply flawed, yet strategically brilliant hero of whom we all owe so much.

Bobby Lee is, rightly (and enjoyably), put in his place as fully human. As Buell writes, “The phenomenon of his reputation is that a general could lose so many campaigns, suffer casualties of such staggering proportions, and yet still be admired as both folk hero and military genius.” The fact is, Lee was politically and strategically incompetent throughout the war, that many of his so-called victories were, instead, unwarranted retreats by incompetent American generals (i.e. McClellan in the Peninsular campaign, Burnside after Fredericksburg). He never seemed to ever take responsibility - for Lee, his plans were perfect, and but for god’s will and conditions outside of his control, he would have succeeded. Meanwhile, any military commander worth their salt would know that ever-changing conditions are simply a part of war, and you must succeed in the reality you are given, not the idealized dream world that your plans require.

His flaws were legion and, after reading this book, alongside my other recent forays into the ‘real’ Bobby Lee, I cannot help but be glad that it was Lee (and Jeff Davis) in charge of the Confederate war effort. Without Lee, we might not have won so easily once Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan (and Thomas) took control of the United States forces.

Six stars (if I could).

[Davy Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book and loved it.
I thought Buell was probably related to the Union General Buell at first. but he is not.

One vignette that really stuck with me is of Gordon, the Rebel Calvaryman on his way up to Gettysburg , and his description of running into a Pennsylvania Dutchman (Mennonite) and the awestruck look of the guy. .. who was left unharmed. I came away with high respect for John Gordon. Used to know a guy with that name, a Shriner...but that's another story.

This vignette was around York PA, and I traced one portion of my ancestry to a German that was there in the 1700s. My wife and I were on vacation in this country a few months ago, and I thought about this some.

Honestly, I've read Killer Angel's and all, but we liked Shiloh better than Gettysburg. I do realize Gettysburg was the turning point and deserves first place in battle ratings. We did the bus tour at Gettysburg and it was interesting to put some things in perspective. I was 8 on my last trip, which was July 1963 (centennial of the battle). They are working on the Round Top areas, so that was only seen from a distance, so no 20th Maine stories on this Tour.

I had heard good things about General Thomas before, but he is made to look here like he should be on the Fifty dollar bill.

I did like to see some criticism of the great General Lee. I think he is over glorified. He was human. Only wore a size 5 shoe, which tripped me out ... if this is indeed true. Still a great man, I do not forget that.

Also, it was good to see some criticism of the great General U.S. Grant (and crappy 2 term President).
I read his Autobiography-Memoirs and they were fantastic. Mark Twain helped him, then Grant died of lung cancer just as he finished. His family got some needed proceeds. Those around Grant were often crooked, don't think he himself raked that much.

Hood was a Kentuckian but fought for his adopted state of Texas. He had a good record and lost a leg, and had a dead arm from his injuries, but he carried on.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good, thought provoking

In The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War , Buell analyzes three Confederate and three Union generals with six very different leadership styles.

Buell gives a title to each of the six different men and they are:

The Yeoman: Ulysses S. Grant
The Aristocrat: Robert E. Lee
The Knight-Errant: John Bell Hood
The Roman: George H. Thomas
The Cavalier: John B . Gordon
The Puritan: Francis C. Barlow

Buell researched this book heavily, including delving into the National Archives to the point that he actually found boxes of papers from the Civil War that had not even been opened since they were packaged and delivered after the war, a fact that I find amazing given the vast number of books written on the war every year.


Buell is quite clear in his book that Robert E. Lee was vastly overrated and quite possibly incompetent (he never says it outright but he infers it). I agree that Lee has been overrated by some, but his incompetence is refuted, in my mind, by his track record against a much larger, better equipped army over the course of the war. To his credit, Buell does not lay the blame for the vast number of casualties in the Seven Days Battles in the Peninsular Campaign on Lee - which I consider fair considering that he was forced to take charge during the battles due to the wounding of Confederate General Joseph Johnston. Lee can't really take the blame for a situation he did not create.

Buell also is extremely critical of Grant, sometimes in a contradictory manner...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...

[Kurt Fasulo Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very intriguing for me as a novice when it comes to civil war knowledge. Most of my familiarity with the civil war has been through school textbooks, a few books, and movies/shows. I admit that I was wholly unfamiliar with George Thomas and his role in this war. His personal history and experiences as a youngster made his position and choices even more fascinating. Buell does a nice job dispelling some common beliefs with regard to the civil war and forced me to reflect on my own limited understanding. As I read the text, I could not help but question whether Buell was being hypocritical in providing opinion-based information while condemning others for doing the same. While there are some aspects of the text which exhibit these concerns (and admitted to by the author as trusting his own intuition to pass judgment on conflicting information), his explanation of sources and research in the bibliography did a great deal to relieve most of my concerns. This is a well-written account of leadership styles from some of the most influential and effective leaders of the civil war. I really enjoyed it.

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 2 out of 5]

As someone who has read numerous books on the American Civil War, I feel competent to review this. Found it at a local Goodwill and I hopefully anyone reading it did not pay more than I did ($1). It purports to be a book on 'Combat Leadership in the ACW'. It is hardly that but it focuses on the war through the prism of six generals--Lee, Hood and Gordon from the CSA and Grant, Thomas and Barlow from the USA. It is an interesting premise, almost six mini-biographies meant to elucidate--something. Each one gets his personal moniker, which might be the most innovative aspect of the whole enterprise. Lee, the Aristocrat; Hood, the Knight-Errant, Gordon, the Cavalier, Grant, the Yeoman, Thomas, the Roman and Barlow, the Puritan. Occasionally they are referred to with these 'handles' and you might be checking the portraits wherein they are labeled. But mostly this winds up being a slap-dash history of the Civil War with these men meant to illustrate something, not entirely sure what. Combat leadership is not the primary focus. It is not badly written and there are some interesting insights, mostly with regard to the utter superiority of the northern military enterprise. You might wonder how the South lasted a year given the superior technological gifts of the North. But the book suffers from so many other defects that it is hard to know where to start. Number one is maps, a few front-piece theater maps is all there is. If you have read a half-dozen books on Antietam or Gettysburg you might not need them but the rest will be checking the internet, frequently. Two is the lack of footnoting, very general and vague. Three is the unmitigated bias and almost personal animus of the author toward those he disdains. Lee, Grant and to a lesser extent Hood would fall under that heading. Four is hero-worship, Thomas, Barlow and to a much lesser extent Gordon are in this category. He should just write a biography of Thomas and be done with it.

[Roger Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a unique one volume study of the American Civil War featuring five armies, three of them in the west and two in the east. In the western theater, Buell focuses on the Army of the Tennessee ( Federal ), the Army of Tennessee ( Confederate ) and the Army of the Cumberland. In the east, the two major armed forces were the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. In examining the history of these five armies and the four year conflict, the author spotlights six officers, Lee, Gordon and Hood for the Confederacy and Grant, Thomas and Barlow for the Union. All of these leaders had strengths but also weaknesses which are often not brought out as clearly in other books. Relying largely on the Official Records as well as a large bibliography, Buell tells the story of the Civil War from its beginnings in 1861 to the downfall of the Confederacy in 1865. He notes the missed opportunities, the mistakes that prolonged the war as well as the factors that ultimately doomed the Confederacy. Well worth reading.

[Bob Holland · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a solid book written in a interesting format of comparing three pairs of one each of Union and Confederate generals at division, corps, and army command levels. The author does give ample credit where it is due but is overly critical of Lee (especially) and Grant, very objective with Barlow, Hood, and Gordon, and over exuberant in praise of the Thomas. This is a book worth reading, but not one I would recommend to someone that is not already well-read on the Civil War.

[William Olenick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not your average version of the Civil War. The author chose to highlight the records of six officers, three each from the Union and Confederate. Lee and Grant, Thomas and Hood, and lastly Gordon and Barlow.
The author definitely differs from most on the telling of Lee and Thomas.
There are a few maps, photos and illustrations are all through the book. Good read.

[Adelbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding! One of the best and well researched books on Civil War leadership I've read. And I've read many!

[Landon W · Rating 3 out of 5]

A strange book that seems to have been largely ignored by scholars of the war, possibly with good reason. The author's particular approach - comparison of a Confederate and a Union general at each of three levels of command - is an interesting one, and it allows him to say a great deal about the command culture of each of the armies. Likewise, the diligence of his research, which in some cases involved uncovering primary sources that have been forgotten since the war, cannot be faulted. That said, one is forced to wonder how much he is entitled to the psychological claims he makes - seemingly without qualm - about his six subjects. To be sure, many of his points are persuasive, and a reader can easily be swept up in the author's narrative, but his analysis sometimes seems to lack either humility or objectivity. In particular, he seems blind to the faults of George Thomas, though this is perhaps a small sin, if only because Thomas has been so underestimated elsewhere. His other claims are, in the modern era of Civil War scholarship, largely uncontroversial, such as his less-than-flattering assessment of Lee's generalship, though they may strike traditionalists as wild-eyed and radical. If the book has any substantial scholarly value, it is in the attention paid to Francis Barlow, clearly the center-piece of Buell's narrative and a figure who has received little attention in other scholarship on the war. All-in-all, a good read with an interesting "hook," founded on adequate scholarship that, for the most part, does not challenge what has already been argued in other, more scholarly, sources.

[Vincent Darlage · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading the leadership qualities of these six generals - and it sounds like it would have been better for all if Gen. Thomas had been in charge of the Union and Hood in charge of the Confederate army. It was a blunderful war - the number of blunders on both sides was staggering. Still it was an informative book. It would have earned five stars if there had been more graphics - the arrays of names were difficult to follow (and remember whose side was whom for this Civil War novice), so command charts would have been nice whenever commanders were reasigned - and more maps to illustrate the battles, too. (It seems like both armies had an Army of Tennessee, which was REALLY confusing; about half way through I realized one was called The Army of Tennessee and the other was The Army of the Tennessee - that distinction could have been made clearer earlier on). It would be a neat project in the future for some Leadership scholar to join forces with a Civil War scholar to reference actual leadership theories to what was going on and make something like this not just a scholarly Civil War book but also a scholarly leadership book.

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of my first reads of a civil war book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. My prior information came mostly from TV specials (love Ken Burns) and visiting Gettysburg. His analysis of generals and their decisions was very interesting. I also liked how he painted conditions of the war including weather and the scarcity of supplies for the confederacy. His admiration for Thomas is very high, as others have noted. I am not schooled enough in the Civil War to comment on the scholarly level of this book, but for a historical account, it was a page turner.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

If history was taught in schools with the interest that this book installs in the reading, we would be better off. Unfortunately, that requires making observations - true or no - that will polarize one's audience.

[Hugo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insight into a tragic period in our history, a must read if your a military buff.

[David Hensley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Limited amount of reference for such a particular take on famous Civil War generals. A narrative that is easy to follow, but academically questionable.

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my all time top picks.

[Lee Scoresby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative, but the guy's love affair with George Henry Thomas is a little irritating.