Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 9:20 pm
Hum... A General in chief for a theater is rated on much much much more than one operation. Sure the whoe Shiloh operation wasn't bad, the CSA concentrated forces quite efficiently and surprised the Union to begin with, but there are many buts : they still lost much time marching to Pittsburgh's landing allowing Grant's forces to be bigger and better installed than they could have been : The CSA could have had its Friedland there and failed to do so.
But beyond Shiloh the main problem with AS Johnston was his passivit and lack of foresight in planning the whole theater's defensive disposition, allowing for Grant to cut through his line of defense unhindered in the Fort Henry and Fort Donelson campaign. There were just so so so so many ways he could have managed that better.
So sure the south had enormous hopes for him (a bit like McClellan for the north) but because he died early and during his campaigning months showed if not ineptitude a limited sense of initiative, reacting only when in the ropes with the Shiloh operation, his average rating (not bad mind you, just average) is a pretty good compromise.
But beyond Shiloh the main problem with AS Johnston was his passivit and lack of foresight in planning the whole theater's defensive disposition, allowing for Grant to cut through his line of defense unhindered in the Fort Henry and Fort Donelson campaign. There were just so so so so many ways he could have managed that better.
So sure the south had enormous hopes for him (a bit like McClellan for the north) but because he died early and during his campaigning months showed if not ineptitude a limited sense of initiative, reacting only when in the ropes with the Shiloh operation, his average rating (not bad mind you, just average) is a pretty good compromise.