Two Great Rebel Armies: An Essay in Confederate Military History

Civil War America

by Richard M. McMurry

Richard McMurry compares the two largest Confederate armies, assessing why Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was more successful than the Army of Tennessee. His bold conclusion is that Lee's army was a better army--not just one with a better high command.

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

222 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

Reviews

[Sean Chick · Rating 2 out of 5]

The inherent argument is sound, and the chapter on logistics is quite good. Trouble is there are some gaping holes. His description of military commanders in the various armies is mostly one-sided. As to his contention that the Army of Northern Virgina had better junior officers, it is sound but he does not account for why the Army of the Potomac, which enjoyed a similar situation, did worse then its western counterparts. It is mostly because of McClellan but also Lincoln's interference. Too bad historians today are too invested in Lincoln worship to follow the logic of the situation.

[Schoppie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any student of the Civil War is aware of the fact that the Army of Northern Virginia was far more successful than the Army of Tennessee. The reasons for the split fortunes of the Confederacy between the East and the West are varied, and McMurry's book details them well.

The author argues that the Army of Northern Virginia had the proverbial deck stacked in its favor in many ways. It possessed better leadership, higher morale, a greater population from which to draw soldiers, military schools to train officers, greater access to railroads, more advantageous topography, and better military organization prior to the war in the form of organized, equipped, and trained state militias.

Of the Army of Tennessee, the author maintains that it suffered from poor leadership from the outset of the conflict, lack of trained officers, no military schools to train officers, and disadvantageous topography, among other issues.

Of these, McMurry devotes the greatest portion of the book to issues of leadership. The Army of Tennessee's leaders were quarrelsome amongst each other and with Confederate President Jefferson Davis. They were too often incompetent on the battlefield, and seemed unable to act in concert with each other. Part of the latter was due to the greater area in which they operated (seven states as opposed to only two in the East). The author, on no uncertain terms, argues that the enlisted ranks of both armies were skilled and brave troops, and that failure in the West was not the responsibility of the rank and file, but largely due to the generals who led them.

Finally, McMurry details how the Confederacy's two principle armies have been treated by historians. While the author acknowledges that history has been more generous to the Army of Northern Virginia and General Robert E. Lee, he also demonstrates that it is deserved. If history has not been as kind to the Army of Tennessee, it stands to reason, because nations tend to focus on military successes.

With that said, I think that the author might have addressed at least one issue in more detail. There is more to be said about the reasons for the second-rate leadership in the West than what McMurry details. It is true that General Robert E. Lee was a better manager of his Army and its leaders, and he did not tolerate failure or incompetence among his subordinates; however, when those subordinates failed, he sent them (or arranged for them to be sent) to the West, which undoubtedly exacerbated the leadership problems in that region. To my knowledge, failed leaders in the West were seldom sent to the East. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Beauregard in 1864, but by-and-large, the best leaders remained in the East. Of course the Army of Tennessee boasted some fine commanders, such as Cleburne and Forrest, but those were the exception rather than the usual.

Overall, if you want to know why the Confederacy's two main armies had such different experiences in the war, McMurry's book is the best place to start.

[John Reas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good study comparing the Army of Northern Virginia with the Army of Tennessee in the Confederacy during the American Civil War. The differences between the Armies, their leadership, the opposition faced from the North, the logistical support, and the massive area that the Army of Tennessee was responsible for in the western area of the Confederacy compared with the area that Lee was responsible for in the east all contributed to the reasons why the Confederacy started to lose control from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi River early in the war. It is interesting to note, as well, the rapid succession of generals that lead the Army of Tennessee throughout the American Civil War, which was similar to the experience faced in the east with the Army of the Potomac fighting for the North.

[EJ Daniels · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this dense little book, Richard McMurry attempts to discern why the Army of Northern Virginia enjoyed so much greater success than the Army of Tennessee in Confederate service. Strongly situated in primary sources, deeply familiar with secondary sources, and generally well-argued, Two Great Rebel Armies presents thorough evidence and persuasive points which serve to foster arguments as much as to assert conclusions.

Attempting to at least consider all points of interest, McMurry delves into the geographic, political, cultural, and economic situations which distinguished the men who served in the Army of Northern Virginia from the Army of Tennessee, as well as the circumstances in which they fought and the foes with whom they engaged. The result is a thorough, yet pithy, recounting of the entire War Between the States which emphasizes the unique factors relating to both armies. By fully examining these unique factors, McMurry goes a long way towards proving his thesis, that the Army of Northern Virginia, in all practical metrics, exceeded the Army of Tennessee.

Which is not to say that McMurry is not unanswerable. In some regards he exaggerates his points, especially when considering the degree to which personal self-identity influenced military prowess. He also tends to gloss over some points, especially when considering the martial abilities of Albert Sidney Johnston and Joseph E. Johnston. One notes that McMurry is perfectly willing to defer, for instance, to Thomas Connelly's assessments of these officers while arguing strenuously over his assessment of Robert E. Lee.

These oversights are saved, however, by the fact that McMurry frames his arguments as though part of a dialogue, inviting the reader to consider and ruminate, rather than accept as Gospel. I therefore recommend Two Great Rebel Armies to both amateurs and professionals interested in a well-researched and well-written summation of the careers of the Armies of Northern Virginia and Tennessee and the men who fought for and led them.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic little work on a pivotal yet generally neglected point of Civil War history: the two main southern armies and their respective performance on the battlefield. I really enjoyed how the author was able to dig into the historical information in true scholarly fashion and yet come out with a clear synthesis of the data without getting lost in the weeds. Well worth your time if you’re at all interested in the American Civil War. My great great grandfather fought with Lee in the Army of North Virginia - but I don’t buy the Lost Cause theory. This book was a refreshing look at the details of those armies which help reveal a more reasonable explanation of the situation than is generally put forth by proponents of that worn out theory.

[William Olenick · Rating 4 out of 5]

As it says, The Two Great Rebel Armies, as in the Army of Northern Virginia and Army of Tennessee.
The author writes comparing the two armies, the area of operations, their generals and lastly their commanders. As in any book on the rebellion one cannot leave out its president and his interactions with his commanders and administration. Book gives an interesting thought provoking theory as to the armies discussed.

[Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good and succinct argument but otherwise boring and not something I would read outside of my grad class.

[Tony 08 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Petit essai qui explore les différences structurelles entre les deux grandes armées de la Confédération, à savoir l'Armée de Virginie du nord et l'Armée du Tennessee.
La première se couvre de gloire et aligne les victoires alors qu'elle se bat la plupart du temps contre une armée de l'Union en supériorité numérique ; la seconde aligne les défaites alors qu'elle est le plus souvent opposée à des armées de l'Union en situation d'égalité numérique.
L'ensemble est particulièrement intéressant.
Facteurs humains, facteurs socio-économiques et facteurs géographiques nous livrent des pistes très stimulantes sur les racines de ce fossé entre le front de l'Est et le front de l'Ouest.

[JerryDeanHalleck · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a relatively short, dense analysis of the ANV under R.E. Lee and the Army of Tennessee. McMurry explains the success of one and failure of the other. He makes a fairly persuasive case that the ANV's superiority wasn't just due to Robert E Lee, it had a superior officer corps from Top to bottom and benefitted from having rivers that were barriers - rather than highways = to the Union advance.

But he doesn't emphasize Lee's biggest advantage, namely Halleck, Stanton, and Lincoln. Their micro management of the Army of the potomac, disasterous appointments, and hysteria over the defense of Washingon DC, hobbled the Union commanders and helped Lee immersurably.

But really it all came down to Lee and his Corps comannders being very, very good and the AoT Army/Corps commanders being very mediocre. For example, Hood would have never been selected to command the ANV or even a Corps, but he was given the AoT top spot. And Lee never had to work with duds like Polk or Hardee.

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history addresses the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. The Army of Northern Virginia has been widely publicized while the obscure Army of Tennessee lost almost every battle. At some point both armies fought against U.S. Grant.

[Avis Black · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considered to be one of the classic early studies.

[Steven Raszewski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative