Point counterpoint. But i expect that to happen. At any moment. So i have all the questions here. Theyre really good ones. And not surprisingly, there are about four of them that are basically the same, but with a little bit of a twist. And it was a question that i was planning to ask anyway. So what i would like to do is just start over here and one at a time tell me who you think was the most hated general of the war. I think we all pretty much know this answer already. But and well go down the panel with that, and then start back here and say who do you think was the most loved general of the war. Okay . So lets start over here. The most hated general of the war. I get not only that question, but i getting to first. [ laughter ] can you start on that end . So i can kind of deal with the rest of us . Youre on the spot. Okay. Im not seriously i am not dodging when i answer this. I dont hate any of them. I really dont. Anybody of any rank from private to general, any of these guys who put on a uniform and got in harms way, to me, they deserve respect and admiration. Now, some more than others, possibly. [ applause ] but you all can tell, im not the you know, im not the politician type. So im not saying that, you know, just be evasive. But i really dont. Now, if i have to answer the question, the one that i am most puzzled, if you will, about some of the decisions he made during the war in fact, almost all of them, would be joe johnston. But im sitting right here, you know [ laughter ] but i dont hate him. I really dont. I have a lot of respect for him. Its just i you know, i dont understand. And you know, ill just say im not saying i disagree, because i wasnt there. And i dont know what information he had. But from 150 years away, 1 million miles away, ive always kind of wondered, you know, why did he do this and why did he not do that. But i really i mean, there really isnt a general on either side that i necessarily dislike. Very good. How was that . Thats good. [ laughter ] i think in terms of who was most hated, it depends on the constituency. I think ben butler was most hated in new orleans. By a lot of people, to for a variety of reasons. I think joe johnson was most hated by people in richmond. And so it really depends on who is doing the hating. If i had to say the one who came out of the war with the most problematical reputation, it would probably be ben butler. But as weve heard, that depends very much on the criteria you use to evaluate him. And if youre looking at him as a general, well, maybe thats deserved. If youre looking at him as a contributor to American History, theres a different evaluation we can make. Well, theres obviously no way to be precise about a question like this. Im not even sure i like the question. But ill answer it anyway. And i agree with craig. I think its butler. Certainly, hes the most vilified in the south. I think far more than any other Union General and for less reason in many ways. And i also oh, i think far more than sherman. During the war itself. I think in the north, butler is going to have plenty of enemies. And during reconstruction, he has plenty of enemies north and south. So ill vote for butler all the way. Well, again, i would agree with craig. Its the criteria of who is doing the evaluating. But if you want to take the perspective of the common soldier, i would say its braxton bragg, who by the end of his tenure in tennessee, he had very few friends amongst the command structure of that army or the common soldiers. Again, perhaps unjustly in some cases. He was accused of executing his soldiers and doing all sorts of horrible things to them, which was not true. And many of you have had the chance to read earl hess new book on braxton bragg, which is not an entire revision of the man, but gives you a better perspective, a more i think a more balanced perspective of braxton bragg. But from the soldiers standpoint, it would have to be bragg. I admire very much wills affection for the loveable losers weve been talking about. In fact, i suggest that the next conference after next year i know next Years Program is planned, you should do a loverable losers program and have will do all the talks. All seven. [ cheers and applause ]able lose will do all the talks. All seven. [ cheers and applause ] thats cold. I would have to lock at this through the lens of policy reason popularity. And i think the man who perhaps most dispointed those in professional positions who expected much of him or more of him was henry alec. His role as the generalinchief of union armys devolved into something very different. I think many of us who have jobs we dont like wish we could transform them into something else. And hallek succeeded. He didnt want to be a generalinchief in the traditional form, and instead he slowly evolved his job into being essentially a chief of staff. And in the process, i think he frustrated many of the men who came under his command and expected him to exercise command. And when he opted not to, left behind a legacy that is was not always a net positive impact on the union war effort. Well, were running out of candidates here. Brag obviously comes to mind. Butler and ive done some work with butlers papers so i can attest to the animosity people felt for butler after the war as well as during the war. I think will raises a great question. Among the soldiers, bragg. But i think also think bu. And i think another candidate, who im going to throw into this, and i do this because ive done the biography, is a person, franz segal, who was vilified by the public. Even germans during the war. And he was a person whose career long after the war was vilified by a lot of germans and nongermans for his maddeningly frustrating campaigns. So i have some real creditability being part of that conference you just mentioned, losers and generals in defeat, perhaps. So maybe that could be a theme. But in any case, those are the ones i would say. I think you know what im going to say. Ben butler gets my vote. Not only during the war, but after. And in the north and in the south. Nobody illicits the animosity that butler does. Of course, no other general than jefferson davis, and order calling for his execution. And if you read some of his hate mail and his papers, the library of congress, i think its pretty clear that its ben butler. Well, were going to kind of turn this around a little bit. And well start over on this end, and this was a great question. And i think steve talked about it a little bit. Which of the generals are not hated enough . [ laughter ] not hated enough. Not hated enough. Youre going to start with me . Are yes. Starting over there. Not hated enough. Ill go with Nathan Bedford forest. Shelby foot declared to be one of the two great geniuses of the war. Weve had work on him that celebrated him as a tactical genius and what he does at ft. Pill and other places. The racial atrocities is utterly despicable. So ill go with forest. I dont know how to follow that. Thats a great, great beginning. But i think theres also something to be said for hallek. Hallek is a frustrating, maddeningly individual who on both in the east and the west perhaps deserves a little more criticism than and of course, maybe john will disagree. But i would vote maybe hallek. So i struggle with these questions, only the nature of the questions, because, again, it gets us back to kind of the realm that george was mentioning this morning, where we look at this as an exercise, as if its a sunday afternoon football game. In which team do we like most and which team do we like least. I would only say, rather than answering specifically, and maybe im dodging the question. That in almost all of these cases, these individuals found themselves in complex situations that our Cultural Heritage has discouraged us from fully understanding. And so in this age, i think, you know, kind of doing this bright side and dark side division, just kind of feeds into a simplistic view of history that we need to move away from. And so maybe on that rather unpleasant basis, i refuse to answer the question. [ laughter ] [ applause ] thats good. Thats kind of a Sidney Crosby type of an answer. [ laughter ] ooh i will directly answer the question. I think that winning tends to cover lots of sins. And one of the great winners of the civil war, who i think is one of the great sinners of the civil war is phil sheridan, who is undoubtedly was undoubtedly a very talented cavalry officer. Not maybe at first, but he became a very good cavalry officer. And is almost always represented in the trium fer ant of sherman, grant and sheridan are usually given credit for winning the civil war. But on a personal level, sheridan is a rather unlikable fellow. The way he would relieve people of command right on the field, whether its torbert in the Shenandoah Valley or warren out here at five forks, and the way he dealt with some of his s subordinates was not something to be admired. But you rarely see sheridan portrayed in a negative way. Good point. George. Im tempted to follow John Hennesseys example, because for one thing, i agree with it. Having written one book on hatred and now studying hatred from the northern side, im not sure i want to contribute to it. But ill give a contrarian answer, just to give a contrarian answer. Im going to say mcclellin was not hated enough during the war, and hes been hated too much after the war. Typical professorial answer, george. Thank you. I think what the question implies, i think what its intended to imply is someone whose reputation is pretty good these days, that we tend to think back and think, oh, im impressed with victories that this individual managed to craft. But perhaps may not be deserving of that. And im going to go with where we started. I think Nathan Bedford forest falls into that category. He has gotten a pass. Not only from popular media, but even forrest gump gives him a pass. And i think that we give him all together too much credit. Now, whether he deserves to be hated for that, but i do think hes an inflated character in the war. Sam. And now for the unprofessorial response. Again, i agree. This its a difficult question. And especially for me, since ive spent, you know, 10 or 15 years trying to redeem the honor of somebody. To then to then criticize im always loathe to do that. But since the question has been asked, and i have already criticized joe johnston, i think ill just keep it at one. And [ laughter ] and even though you all didnt see it, but craig stomped on my right toe. [ laughter ] in the middle of no. And ill also and ill just say one thing. I think joe johnston did one thing that is was extremely disappointing, as i studied. And that is, in his memoirs, he stated that he accepted command of the army of tennessee, the third time in 1865. Knowing that the war had been lost, and his words were and this is almost verbatim, which is kind of an oxymoron, i guess. He said that he accepted command, knowing that there was nothing more to accomplish than to accept terms surrender terms that might, you know might be acceptable to the southern people. But at bentonville, he attacked he actually initiated an attack, and there were 3,000 confederate casualties, including 800 killed. And then also in his memoirs, he says of John Bell Hood, that the attack at franklin was useless butchery. Well, if franklin was useless butchery in november of 1864, what was bentonville in 1865 . Especially when he said, were just trying to get better surrender terms. And i thought that was pretty costly for the 800 the 800 troops. But, again, i after criticizing johnson, ill say i dont want to criticize johnson. [ laughter ] too late. Anyway. That it would be one it would be one particular instance or incident that i think deserves a little more scorn than its received in history. Well, there were several other along the same vein, of course. You also have to consider what the soldiers felt about all of these guys. And which ones they enjoyed or hated or loved so much. I think weve exhausted that topic. The rest of these i just leave open to the panelists, if they want to answer or not. And well get your opinions on these things. This one i found kind of interesting. Its a speculation, really. But which one of the generals mentioned in our seminar this weekend would have risen to high rank in todays army . Anybody want to tackle that one . Weve got several guys here that are west point graduates. And one guy who wasnt. Anybody . No comment. Okay. Well move on. All right. This one is for john, especially. But others can elaborate. If they wish. Could you elaborate on your opinion of Phillip Kearney . Why is there no modern scholarly biography of the man . Well, because no one shows the right one, i suspect. Someone will. There is a fellow, bill sotooipl in new jersey, who has done tremendous work in preserving and uncovering documentary material related to carney. Carney to me is a very interesting interesting fellow. He is intolerant of those who he sees as inferior to him, which is to say almost everybody. He is highly critical, both privately and at times publicly, of those around him. But he also exhibited and the reason i call him perhaps the best Division Commander of the army the potomac ever had, hes one of the few who had a not only unbroken, but largely positive record of aggressiveness. Which is really characteristic, contrary to the culture of the army of the potomac, which was not only politically generally conservative. It was also kind of conservative in its approach to the art of war, as well. You can probably count on two hands the number of times a subordinate commander in the army of the potomac showed initiative in a way that mattered in a great fashion on a Civil War Battlefield in virginia. Or in maryland or in pennsylvania. So i think carney is interesting for those reasons. There are all sorts of cultural reasons. His service in the old army. His connections overseas. Hes a very interesting man. His status is i mean, his his instinct to seek out conflicts and combat and to serve the military art not just nations, but military art at the same time, he begs a little bit more investigation. Which, you know, that may revise my view of him, as well. I mean, you get someone like brian to work on someone like ben butler, and i think i mean, that was one of the finest talks ive heard at one of these sessions in my life, actually. And that kind of work can really shine new light on people. So i would say, you know, carney is right for investigation and discussion. He was often named as a potential army commander. Its hard to imagine that, given his personality. But he was highly effective and anomalous on the battle field for the army of the potomac. Anybody else want to comment on that . George. Carney reminds me of the quotation attributed to Teddy Roosevelts daughter, Alice Roosevelt longworth. That is, if you cant say anything nice, sit by me. And carney if you dislike george mcclellin, read carneys letters. He hates mcclellin in spades. They are delightfully critical, negative, colorful. I think carney is worth a great deal of study, and he certainly provides a lot of fodder on many issues. One littleknown footnote to phillip carney. His death place at chantilly is really the origin of the Civil War Preservation movement. Because back in 1986 and 87, when there was a proposal to develop that land at chantilly where carney and stevens were killed on september 1st, 1862, some local folks got together and said weve got to do something about that. And we all got together in my living room in july of 1987, and out of that was born the association for the preservation of civil war sites, which then gave way to whats now the civil war trust. So carney made another contribution in death 100 and some years later to the Civil War Preservation movement. Anybody else on that one . I think this is a great question. That somebody gave us. And its actually about probably more about how these each one of your generals reacted with the press. But the actual question is, could the positive things said of mcclellin by grant and sherman have been out of empathy, since they had their own careers saab tojed by military intrigues and had personally been ripped in the press. So maybe you can comment, each one of you, on how your guy reacted with the press, and then well talk about the press, i guess. Anybody want to start that one . [ laughter ] ill say something. I think one of the things that almost all of these individuals did after the war, and ill be happy to hear exceptions, is try to preserve their reputations by lining up testimonials, if you would, not only from the people they fought with, but the people they fought against. It was very important, for example, for joe johnston, sams best friend, to have sherman tell the press how joe johnson was such a difficult foe. And they actually became quite close after the war. There are interesting photographs of sherman and johnson down on the floor of the living room going over old maps of north georgia saying i did this, why did you do that sort of thing. And if each can make the other be accepted as a military genius, think how much better that makes them look. I mean, sherman, because he beat a military genius, and johnsons excusal i stood up. And they also went out and found testimonials from friends and allies. Well, dont you agree i was right at this location, and the other guy was wrong, and they collected these things. Sam showed us some letters yesterday that are samples of those kinds of things that hood not just hood, of course, but virtually all of these people, sought to find support for the public resurrection the Public Protection of their names. Their such in their honor whatever in the 19th century they would have found important there. And these played out not just in newspapers and popular literature but where buhl and johnson got together and asked each of them to provide some information. Well, they didnt just provide information. They didnt do what grant did in his memoirs and simply give a sort of narrative recitation from the view of the headquarters. They instead point by point showed why their critics were wrong. And theres a lot of that in the post civil war literature. And it infects still some of the Research Materials we all rely on to do our work. Okay. Anybody else . Yeah. Is there any public major public figure in American History who has liked the press that they got . Especially a president or a general. They almost never do. Joseph hooker railed against the press. Mcclellin did. I think the reason, perhaps, is positive la active for why grant might have been sympathetic to m