The Army of Tennessee throughout the remainder of the war following Johnston's dismissal?
Although all of the following would not have been in consideration for the position - who might have succeeded in a successful operation against Sherman's forces around Atlanta?
None of these generals would have followed Johnston with any experience in commanding a large army, a great disadvantage against Sherman.
Some were in disfavor with Jefferson Davis, and some would never get the slot.
By the time the Confederate army reached Atlanta, it was not going to destroy any army.
Hood attacked because he knew that once the seige took hold, the Confederate army was doomed. That is why he attacked. In the end, attacking destroyed Hood's army in Georgia and Tennessee.
The Army of Tennessee throughout the remainder of the war following Johnston's dismissal?
Although all of the following would not have been in consideration for the position - who might have succeeded in a successful operation against Sherman's forces around Atlanta?
If other, please state whom and why.
Of all the people named, Johnston is the only one who seems to have the ability needed in the situation.
Hood clearly failed, and never understood his situation as he should have. Hardee never showed the qualities to make one believe in him at that level.
Cleburne was too junior and inexperienced at large command, with no record of independent command.
Forrest, whatever his ability, had no record to place him in such a position and was far too junior.
S. D. Lee, IMHO, would have been a worse disaster than Hood.
The only western general I would really consider capable enough for the situation was Taylor, and I believe he was completely out of touch and West of the Mississippi at the time.
My first choice would have been Cleburne had he survived Franklin. I've read too many good things about him, his judgement, spirit, the respect and admiration given to him from the men who served under him.
Next choice would have been Joe Johnston. He would have handled the Spring Hill and Franklin affairs differently. Both Cleburne and Johnston were smarter tacticians than Hood. Things could have worked out quite differently had either been in charge.
That's another thing I fault Jeff Davis with. His personal dislike for Cleburne because of Cleburne's advocation of using black troops to fight for the confederacy, caused him to write Cleburne off completely for a command position, even though Cleburne could easily have done a better job than Hood, who was put in command on the advice of Bragg, who hardly had anything close to competent judgment, considering his past military failures. But Davis liked Bragg, so ....there you go. Utter defeat in the west.
And guess who else Davis didn't like. Joe Johnston.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Last edited by william42 : 04-27-2007 at 08:28 AM.
Hardee seems the most viable option. A talented corps commander who had seen long service with the AOT and was trusted by the men. Averasboro hints at what Hardee could do with an independent command but who knows how he would have handled an entire army.
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
__________________ 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
I'll agree that Hardee had the most experience in managing a corps-size unit, but I don't think he had the fire in him. My vote is for A.P. Stewart simply because I can't think of anybody who isn't on the list. By this time, not enough Davis cronies left.
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
That's my one reservation about Hardee...I don't think he would have been agressive enough with an army. Being solid and dependable are great virtues for a corps commander to have but I'm not sure he had the make up the South needed in an army commander. But I think he was pretty much the best available. Stewart was a solid corps commander (and perhaps one of the most unfairly neglected) but I think a lot of the same could be said about him.
__________________ Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Who should have commanded... 
Linear Mode
