Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1865-04-12
Military Talent In the War.

N@ ASoSA NSASIaLb WIN uoNe puL-
ticipated in the present war, is from the
Army and Navy Journal. The compare
sons between the different Generals are in
teresting at this time:
The Confederate cause, once so proud
and defiant. now so sadly humbled, seeks
to escape total destruction. The great
cause of this change in the aspect Of af-
fairs we do not consider to be, as is often
alleged, the exhaustion of the military re-
sources Of the South. We do not even
trace it to the numerical superiority of the
Northern armies. We believe it arises
chiefly from the development on our part
OF military talent which was in q DOR
mant, or, at all events, in subordinate
position, at the commencement of the war.
A comparison between the characteristics
of the leading Generals who have appear.
ed on either side will illustrate, perhaps,
the correctness of this opinion, and will
show that it does not rest on mere asser-
ton.
Lee, the Confederate Commander-in-
Chief, and Grant, our own Lieutenant.
General, afford ample material for our
first parallel. Neither of these Generals
is as remarkable for his brilliant as for his
sound and trustworthy qualities. Both
Of them have evidently great faith in the
Napoleonic doctrine that victory rests
with the strongest battalions. Both of
them have great endurance and uncon-
querable determination, and they owe to
these qualities much of their respective
successes. An intelligent criticism of the
present Richmond campaign will illustrate
this fact. There is no doubt that Grants
original intention was to turn Lees right
flank and cut him off from Richmond !;
and then to pass round the city on the
west, connecting with base to be estab.
lished by General Butler at Bermuda
Hundred. Lees determined attack at the
Wilderness frustrated this plan. On the
other hand, there can be no doubt that
Lee confidently expected to drive Grant
back across the Rapidan in three days.
and so stated to some of his Generals who
subsequently, fell into our hands. Here
he was equally foiled.
After the first Bull Run. the positions
now occupied by Grant and Lee were held
BY Mcclellan and Joe Johnston respec-
lively. Between these men. also, great
parallel exists. No two men in the ranks
of the old regular army were consid-
cred to have exhibited more military
talent than these. In organizing and dis
ciplining troops, and in the great attribute
of inspiring confidence in their followers,
they were both unequaled. If they have
comparatively failed as Generals, it is
rather from knowing too much than from
knowing too little-from being too desir-
Gus to accomplish by maneuver what
others have accomplished by force-and
too anxious never to give or receive battle
except with such strong probabilities Of
success as the great equality, not only OF
numbers and organization, but Of race and
morale, between our contending forces,
has rarely permitted commanders to count
on. When these distinguished tacticians
failed, the one in Virginia, the other in
Georgia, TO accomplish all that the clamors
of the people demanded, they were sue
ceeded-the one directly, the other after
an intervening commander-by two So.
called fighting Generals, Hooker and
Hood. No better corps commanders could
possibly be found, no more determined
men in assault or defense, no men more
thoroughly characterized by personal
bravery approaching to recklessness. Both
possessed good capacities for maneuvering
troops, as shown by Hood in his late in
vasion of Tennessee, and by Hooker in his
maneuvers before Charlottesville, and in
his march from Fredericksburg to Gettys-
burg. Yet both failed where they were
least expected to fail-in not being able to
handle large army as they had handled
a corps. If Johnston and Mcclellan
fought too little, assuredly Hooker and
Hood have fought too much.
The South looked upon Stonewall
Jackson with more veneration and respect
than any other Of their commanders, ex-
cept Lee. His great merits were his exec
utive ability, his determined fighting, and
his admirable handling of isolated forces
on the small scale which was assigned to
him. In all these respects, however, we
think either Sheridan, Hancock or War
rem very much his parallel. The compari-
son could be traced in some curious par
ticulars between these three Union officers
and the famous Confederate General.
Warren, for example has often evinced a
combination of dash and sound judgment,
and careful attention to details, which
remind one of Jackson.
To Sherman we can afford no parallel
in the history of this or any other mod
ern war. An ADLER tactician than Joe
Johnston, whom he outmaneuyered from
field to field; as determined fighter when
the necessity arises, as either Hooker or
Hood; as good an executive officer, when
under Grant as Jackson. Meade or War
rem, he has shown, in the combinations OF
his last campaign, strategical ability un-
paralieled since the days Of Napoleon. His
able government of Savannah exhibits a
sound judgment and prudence which,
combined with his other unequaled excel
lences, make him the greatest soldier
the American people have yet produced.