Army of the Potomac.

Strength: Anywhere between 170,000 and 90,000.

Commanders: McClellan, McDowell, Hooker, Burnside and Meade.

Defeats: Gaines Mill, Savage Station, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Bull Run, Bull Run II, Cold Harbor.

Victories: Gettysburg, Five Forks, Seven Pines, 5 of the 7 Days Battles, Petersburg, Sayler's Creek.

Draws: Antietam, Spotslyvania, Wilderness.

There's the statistics.

The AoP appeared to be a hard-luck army--it took really bad generalship to lose Chancellorsville, for instance, BUT

It's hard luck was a result of McClellan's cautiousness, Mac's sense of we are outnumbered and have to be careful imbued the entire army virtually from top to bottom and the army never really overcame that caution.

Examples include Burnside and Hooker starting well then "freezing", Warren as Corps commander, Wright at Cedar Creek, etc.
Hancock was the notable exception--perhaps the only exception, at least until he got worn down.

Caution even affected the rank and file, they didn't show the self-reliance or confidence that soldiers of the Army of the Tennessee showed in the west. The AoT troops beieved they never lost and would never lose--despite their record to the contrary; and they often fought well without waiting for orders.

In the case of Chancellorsville, if you read Couchs' report on it, he says that Hooker had timed abstaning(sorry, I don't remember how the word is spelled) from alchol, right before the battle, which led to his inability to act like Fighting Joe. Which, makes obvious sense.

He didn't fortify himself with alchol, which means he wasn't as brash. He was actually thinking on a sober level, and thats how things went wrong. Afterwords, he returned to the bottle, in time to take Lookout Mountain.

Yes, I've heard that lack of alcohol could have been the problem. Ironic, isn't it? A sober general couldn't beat Lee, but a drunk might have!

Well, Grant was a drinker.

Grant also knew when to refrain, which any time on active campaigning. The only verified cases of him drinking during the war were very few and only when his superiors forced him into inactivity.

Yeah, I know about that. I was just saying he was a drinker too.

Most of the generals on both sides were drinkers--teetotalers wwere few and far between.
Cheatham comes to mind for one.

I don't think Custer drank. I have to check my resources though.

Custer wasn't known for it. Sources I've seen say drinking was so common that the exceptions, at least among generals, were noted in the letters and memiors of the lower ranking officers and enlisted men.

Unfortunately, I can't trasck that source down at the moment and wonder how anyone can prove a negative.

Ahem, Grant never beat Lee. Btw, IBG, you listed the Wilderness and Spotsylvania as draws... Wilderness was as much of a draw as Chancellorsville was. Technically, it was more of a victory for the South than Chancellorsville, since that battle ended with half the Union force never having seen any action.

And yes, I know Spotsylvania had that unfortunate ending at the Mule's Shoe, but in the end, Grant found that he couldn't budge Lee's position; he gave it up as lost, and sought to move around him again. A technical victory for Lee.


EDIT: About the "drunkards" among generals, Lee and Jackson were a couple of teatotalers of the South. I'm not positive about Stuart...

Wilderness was a tatical loss for the north, but a stratigic victory. That is why it was a draw.

BTW: We meant Northern Generals, not southern ones, seeing as this is a northern thread.

Grant never beat Lee? Then Meade must have beat Lee and forced ther surrender at Appomatox, or was that Sheridan?

I really don't know. And, I don't care if Lee said, "You didn't beat my army, just circumstances."

Who caused those circumstances? Grant. Sheridan. Sherman. Meade. They burned the crops the Confederacy grew, killed tens of thousands of soldiers, destroyed the infostructure of the South, and broke the backbone and will to the resistance.

I daresay Grant beat Lee.