Did north or south have better trained generals?

Answer 1

Although the Union forces had some fine commanders, it is generally conceded the Confederacy had the most talent among its general officers. This is often overlooked because the Union was victorious in the war and most importantly, many Union generals appeared better than they were due to the fact that in most battles the Union had a larger army.

Answer 2

Not at the start.

They had lost many of their best leaders to the Confederacy, and they were also saddled with many politicians-in-uniform who had awarded themselves Colonel or Brigadier rank, and who had no military experience or aptitude.

That is why the Confederates expected to cut through the enemy like a knife through butter, and win a short, glorious war.

The second half was all different. But that is another story...

Answer 3

Of the 1080 officers in the Regular Army in early 1861, 313 resigned to join the Confederate Army. However the better generals and colonels tended to be from the South and therefore joined the Confederate Army. Also the North, relying on State Militias, tended to have Political Generals, men of high rank and responsibility who had no military training whatsoever. Ben Butler of Massachusetts is an excellent example of this key flaw in Union generalship and lack of military competence. To answer the question the North had more military leaders. The South had fewer but far better ones. It was not until US Grant took command of all Union Armies in the Spring of 1864 did the North display a coherent overall strategy.

Answer 4

Yes, for the whole war the south had great Generals like Lee and Longstreet. Although the north had Grant and Sherman, they came in later in the war.

Answer 5

No, the north had better military leaders not the south

Answer 6

The South had better Generals at the start, but lost some in combat, and the Northern Generals began to improve their policies.

Answer 7

The north was more industrialized but the south knew their land.

Answer 8

false.