Was Braxton Bragg Really That Bad?

[nbforrest]

Bragg was far from the worst general produced during the war, but he was just unable to control the situation in front of him. It didn't even have to be a changing situation. The Chattanooga campaign...a total disaster. Bragg just sat there, waiting to be defeated. Tullahoma...the AOT's deployment was totally inadequate in preparation for the inevitable spring campaign.

Respectfully

[civilwarbuglertn]

Overall Bragg’s large plans and initial battle plans were sound. However, a big part of problem was that he was unable to be flexible in his battle plans after things got rolling. One such plan was at the beginning of the Battle of Stones River. His initial battle plan literally rolled up the Union line and moved them back several miles. His problem began when he had driven Rosecrans back and he was able reform his line. Bragg was not a hands on general in the time of battle; he was usually several miles back from the front. This was not an excuse but it does help to explain why as battles progressed he was unable to be flexible and change his battle plan.

One other problem was his interpersonal relationships with other people. To put it mildly, he was not a people person. Again at Stones River Bragg had angered many of his subordinates like Breckenridge, who he blamed for his lose in the Kentucky campaign. General Hanson, I believe, threatened to go duel Bragg and kill him right before the charge of the Orphan Brigade at Stones River. Then there is famous run in with Forrest at Chattanooga. Part of Bragg’s problem in this area was that he was that he was suffering from dyspepsia and was constantly in pain.

And, finally was his total reliance on following regulations made him inflexible and unapproachable.

These three factors combined to create Braggs command problems.

[ole]

Said it before; say it again. Bragg was certainly a singular figure. He was personally inflexible, highly motivated, perhaps highly intelligent, and totally lacking in social graces. In another time, in another situation, his peculiar characteristics might have served him well. Leading an army was not one of those situations or times.

In today's perspective, he might be a very successful CEO, if his company's competitors did not shift to an advantage he hadn't foreseen. He was a leader -- at least initially -- who men followed and learned from. But his singularity was his downfall -- he had never learned to play nice. What Bragg wanted, Bragg expected. He hadn't the capacity to ask nicely. In the earlier years, he could demand and managed to get what he thought his command required. You can see that coming, can't you? Eventually, that wears thin. Resentment builds. He's begun alienating superiors and equals. This cannot continue. So it ends up where it ended up: few would work with him or willingly serve under him. He becomes ineffective and therefore a liability.

His personality derailed his possibilities. Anyone want to compare him to Jack Welch?

Ole

[larry_cockerham]

I just read a rather detailed and probably not too biased? account of Bragg's inaction at Chickamauga written in the 1866 book Campaigns of Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest by Jordon and Pryor. Forrest had plenty of reason to be perturbed by Bragg's lack of command.

[richard]

Let us not forget how Bragg could not control Kirby Smith in his illfated march into eastern Kentucky and the resultant Perryville battle. It seems that almost everything Bragg touched in the way of a field commander, turned sour with costly results.

Larry mentioned the action in the Chattanooga area. Look at him sending Longstreet north to Knoxville and east Tennessee. Look at the long time he spent on Lookout Mt., and sitting on Missionary ridge. All this time allowing Grant to open the back door and open the gateway to Atlanta.

I read somewhere that Braggs wife offered him advice. He surely must have not listened to her too.