Most people in the forum agree that the removal of Bragg was needed.For the exterior commander there was 2 choice : Beauregard or Johnson.
Beauregard : Was a very good defensive soldier especially when he fight behind strong work.(Charleston Petersburg).For the offensive he was a average commander , but he had 2 weak point : His natal language was French (He seems to had difficulty to write clear order) , and he was dislike by the Davis administration and by Lee.He command the army before Bragg and im unsure that Davis will offer him the command again.
J.E. Johnson , like Beauregard he seems a defensive mind soldier.He's loved by the soldier who served under his command and are very good at retreating , but he had no offensive spirit , the attack he planned almost fell into complete confusion.And like Beauregard Davis hate him.
Both of the commander seem's not able to lead the Army of Tenessee at this moment , they need a officer who can make good offensive and can fight on the defensive.So if no Full general can do the work a corp commander can maybe do it.
Polk , like i say before polk was maybe one of the worst corps commander at this moment of the war.He often misinterpreted the order , and when he dont misinterpreted the order he follow them.Costing the live of thousand of soldier under his command.
Hardee : Little better than Polk , but he seems to be too slow , hes a good theorician and in field command he perform like a average commander , no bad work , but no incredible work , but better than Bragg
Longstreet : I think it was the best option even if he didnt prove himself in independant command(knoxville , carolina) he perform incredibly well in the East.His warfare theory could have change the war far earlier and if lee has listen to him in the pensylvania campaign , maybe the war would have been very different.Longstreet would have probably follow Rosecran and set up strong position around chatanooga , and unlike Bragg he would have place well his soldier.But Lee need him in the East Theater and it seems that lee had the first choice to select who will be under his command.
D.H. Hill : A other reasonable choice, hes very outspoken but he's not a ambitious soldier , of course he would accept the command of a army but he didnt critisize his commander in the hope for a promotion.He share longstreet enthusiast for defensive tactic and perform very well in the East theater under Lee.I consider him the 3rd best officer that serve in the East after Longstreet and Jackson.Lee dont like him , so i dont think he see the need to go East.A creative soldier , if polk and bragg have allowed him to attack thomas flank instead of making a frontal assault .Good tactician and Strategist able to fight on the offensive and on the defensive , a very good choice to command the AOT.
I will not say that DH Hill are the best general who fought in gray but i will not deny the work he did and i will not agreed to make him a scagepoat
Davis did actually ask Lee to consider leaving the ANV taking the AOT prior to appointing Johnston to the job. Lee didn't take much time thinking about it but his reply gives some insight into the South's pool of available talent at the time.
Lee declined simply on the basis that for him to move to take the AOT would simply result in transferring the vacancy to the ANV and would therefore accomplish little.
So neither Davis or Lee saw a "natural", viable candidate available to take the AOT, or even to take the ANV should Lee move to the AOT.
Although I cannot pretend to know what type of General that Davis was seeking (mindset, experience/qualifications, reputation, etc.; i.e. what the needs were) there were a couple of Generals on the lower tier with many accomplishments, good reputations and no major failures that I personally like. - Cleburne and Bate; Cleburne probably the better choice of the two.
Bate could be depended on to follow orders and execute efficiently and effectively but never showed a lot of initiative. But he was an excellent #2 man, probably the best out there, and could always be depended on.
Cleburne also had proved himself to be just as dependable and responsible. But additionally, Cleburne, on many occassions exhibited brilliance, initiative and most importantly, passion and intent. His men loved him as much as Johnston was loved by the men, but Cleburne was equally comfortable and resourceful on both offense and defense.
Neither of these Generals, in my opinion, would have "done worse" than Johnston. Could they have done better? Probably not, unless one would consider just further delaying the fall of Atlanta to have done better (which case in point might really have been a victory in that if Atlanta had been able to hold on beyond the presidential elections in November, the re-election of Lincoln - some espouse - would not have occurred and the direction of the War would have radically changed). I cannot think of any way the eventual outcome would have changed because Sherman had far superior troop strength and resources available.
One other scenario comes to mind:
What if the AOT had been commanded by Hood post-Chattanooga, pre-Atlanta and then at Atlanta and afterward by Johnston (opposite of what actually occurred). Although I do not believe Hood would have been physically able to do the job at the time, the concept is interesting in that I think the processes, if not the outcome would have been radically different. Hood would have been far more effective holding Sherman off from Atlanta, Johnston would have been far more effective defending the city during the siege (that is if Hood had left him any troops to work with!).
I'm glad that I wasn't Jeff Davis in 1864. He had run through his good friends and had to choose from only people he didn't like and the unqualified.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
