Davis Bragg and Davis

[atlantis]

Interesting analogy. Bragg had a temporary manpower advantage at Chickumungua. Of course General Hooker changed that.
Leftyhunter

Lefty don't forget the outstanding work by the rock of Chickumunga .

 

[Bruce Vail]

The question gets the nub of the problem with Davis: He had a fatal lack of imagination.

He was the leader of a revolution, but he was a very conservative man. He seems to have always done what was expected. You can't lead a successful revolution unless you are able "to think outside the box." He was never able to do that.

 

[Hoseman]

Why did Jefferson Davis hold on to Braxton Bragg as long as he did ? I know they were friends but couldn't he see what an incompetent boob he was in the field ? The man didn't get along with anybody. He might have been a good administrator but as far as running an army he was terrible. Surely there were better field commanders than him in the western armies. I could name a few. Somebody please enlighten me.

I think this question is one of the most important factors as to why the south lost the war. Davis's inability to find a commander in the west and his stubbornness to keep Bragg in command was extremely detrimental to the south's ability to succeed. It was so bad that Bragg's top commanders were ready to mutiny. Bragg never appreciated the ability of Forrest and actually undercut him at every opportunity. I am not sure who would have been the best choice to replace Bragg (certainly not Hood) but I think one of the up and coming younger officers from the ANV would have been an option. The most obvious choice may have been Longstreet but he didn't shine with independent command either. Davis made his choices of holding on to Bragg for way too long and then appointing Hood based on his personal relationships whereas he should have made his decisions based on what was best for the country and these two decisions cost the south dearly. The south needed two Lees, one for the east and one for the west.

 

[Barnesville Blues]

I always believed that Edmund Kirby Smith should have been given a chance to command the army of Tennessee. His talents went mostly waisted.

 

[jackt62]

Never quite understood how all the animosity between Davis, Johnston and Beauregard started anyway. I know that Johnston and Davis had a problem over seniority and rank but was there more ?

Outside of the quarrel over rank that really got on Davis' nerves, Johnston refused to divulge military plans to Davis and the government (partly because he was afraid of "leaks" and partly because his planning was always very tentative and responsive to events). Furthermore, Johnston's military philosophy of withdrawing in the face of heavy enemy resistance to what he perceived as more favorable positions, was anathema to Davis. Plus Johnston was constantly conspiring with Davis' political enemies such as Senator Louis Wigfall. So Johnston was not a favorite of Davis, to say the least.

 

[Leftyhunter1962]

The question gets the nub of the problem with Davis: He had a fatal lack of imagination.

He was the leader of a revolution, but he was a very conservative man. He seems to have always done what was expected. You can't lead a successful revolution unless you are able "to think outside the box." He was never able to do that.

To be fair to Davis how os Davis supposed to think outside the box?
Davis has an army that is outnumbered roughly 1.86 to one on the battlefield if we average all the battles together.
The Confederacy lacks the industrial might and manpower to create a navy sufficiently powerful enough to break the Union blockade and safeguard Confederate commercial shiping to Europe.
Davis very much realized it was vital for the survival of the Confederacy to achieve diplomatic recognition. The problem was how?
The Colonial Rebels had the advantage of being the enemy of the enemy of France, Spain and the Netherlands.
Unfortunately for the Confederacy the U.S. was on more or less good terms with the world's nations.
Also of course 40 percent of the Confederacy population is of dubious loyalty since they are enslaved or heavily discriminated against.
That's quite a few obstacles that creative thinking would have to overcome.
Leftyhunter

 

[Bruce Vail]

To be fair to Davis how os Davis supposed to think outside the box?
Davis has an army that is outnumbered roughly 1.86 to one on the battlefield if we average all the battles together.
The Confederacy lacks the industrial might and manpower to create a navy sufficiently powerful enough to break the Union blockade and safeguard Confederate commercial shiping to Europe.
Davis very much realized it was vital for the survival of the Confederacy to achieve diplomatic recognition. The problem was how?
The Colonial Rebels had the advantage of being the enemy of the enemy of France, Spain and the Netherlands.
Unfortunately for the Confederacy the U.S. was on more or less good terms with the world's nations.
Also of course 40 percent of the Confederacy population is of dubious loyalty since they are enslaved or heavily discriminated against.
That's quite a few obstacles that creative thinking would have to overcome.
Leftyhunter

Yes, and that is why the Confederacy needed an inspired, ferocious and innovative leader to be successful. Such leaders come along very, very rarely -- think Lenin -- and Davis just didn't measure up to that high standard.

 

[Leftyhunter1962]

Yes, and that is why the Confederacy needed an inspired, ferocious and innovative leader to be successful. Such leaders come along very, very rarely -- think Lenin -- and Davis just didn't measure up to that high standard.

Its a bit difficult to compare Lenin and Davis. Way to many differences. By the time Lenin took over the Russian Army and Navy were badly demoralized by defeats suffered in WW1. The Union Army had high moral in 1861 vs the Russian Army in 1917.
I don't know how much the Mods would allow for a discussion of semi modern politics.
Interesting comparison though.
Also although Czarist Russia had extensive poverty in 1917 the Russians did not have slaves vs the Confederacy had 40% of it's population enslaved forming a hugw 5th column.
Leftyhunter

 

[Bruce Vail]

Its a bit difficult to compare Lenin and Davis. Way to many differences. By the time Lenin took over the Russian Army and Navy were badly demoralized by defeats suffered in WW1. The Union Army had high moral in 1861 vs the Russian Army in 1917.
I don't know how much the Mods would allow for a discussion of semi modern politics.
Interesting comparison though.
Also although Czarist Russia had extensive poverty in 1917 the Russians did not have slaves vs the Confederacy had 40% of it's population enslaved forming a hugw 5th column.
Leftyhunter

I do not mean to compare America 1861 and Russia 1917, but rather to cite Lenin as an example of a revolutionary leader who was able to exploit the moment to succeed against tremendous odds. The obvious and most relevant difference is that Lenin intended to overthrow the Czarist regime and to re-make Russian society, while Davis merely sought to split the Confederacy off from the USA and guarantee the survival of the South's slave society.

 

[Leftyhunter1962]

I do not mean to compare America 1861 and Russia 1917, but rather to cite Lenin as an example of a revolutionary leader who was able to exploit the moment to succeed against tremendous odds. The obvious and most relevant difference is that Lenin intended to overthrow the Czarist regime and to re-make Russian society, while Davis merely awwsought to split the Confederacy off from the USA and guarantee the survival of the South's slave society.

Lenin unlike Davis did have to deal with the threat of foreign forces unlike Davis.However Lenin had the advantage of public opinion in the United States and Great Britain being against having their troops fighting alongside the White Russians.
I would argue with a smaller and highly divided South it was Davis who had a higher obstacles to overcome.
Leftyhunter

 

[Leftyhunter1962]

I think this question is one of the most important factors as to why the south lost the war. Davis's inability to find a commander in the west and his stubbornness to keep Bragg in command was extremely detrimental to the south's ability to succeed. It was so bad that Bragg's top commanders were ready to mutiny. Bragg never appreciated the ability of Forrest and actually undercut him at every opportunity. I am not sure who would have been the best choice to replace Bragg (certainly not Hood) but I think one of the up and coming younger officers from the ANV would have been an option. The most obvious choice may have been Longstreet but he didn't shine with independent command either. Davis made his choices of holding on to Bragg for way too long and then appointing Hood based on his personal relationships whereas he should have made his decisions based on what was best for the country and these two decisions cost the south dearly. The south needed two Lees, one for the east and one for the west.

One counter argument to having two Lee's is that arguably Western Union genreals were just better such has Grant, Curtis,Rosecrans and Thomas.
Another counter argument is that Lee basically enjoyed one good year of Success from the Peninsula Campaign to Chanslorsville. (Sp).
Even then Lee lost quite a few troops. Arguably no Confederate general could of won the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[speedylee]

Why did Jefferson Davis hold on to Braxton Bragg as long as he did ? I know they were friends but couldn't he see what an incompetent boob he was in the field ? The man didn't get along with anybody. He might have been a good administrator but as far as running an army he was terrible. Surely there were better field commanders than him in the western armies. I could name a few. Somebody please enlighten me.

Bragg was an excellent administrator. His battle plans were typically sound. His biggest problem with the Army of Tennessee was commanders who refused to follow direct orders. Prior to Chickamauga and during the battle itself there were instances where Bragg's orders were ignored or the foot-dragging was good enough to make the orders useless. Was Bragg a great leader of men? No. But he would have been more effective with Wing and Division commanders who followed orders.

 

[speedylee]

One counter argument to having two Lee's is that arguably Western Union genreals were just better such has Grant, Curtis,Rosecrans and Thomas.
Another counter argument is that Lee basically enjoyed one good year of Success from the Peninsula Campaign to Chanslorsville. (Sp).
Even then Lee lost quite a few troops. Arguably no Confederate general could of won the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

I would make the point that the US had a deeper pool of officers to sort through in order to get the job done. The Confederates had a smaller pool to choose from and less time to spend looking. Given the list of malcontents in Bragg's Army, I doubt anyone could have done much better than Bragg did. Also, I am not sure I'd list Rosecrans among the better commanders in the US Army; others performed better.

 

[rbasin]

I'd argue that retaining Bragg was an example of why the CSA really needed a General-in-Chief, instead of Davis, making day to day decisions. Could Joe Johnston have filled that roll after he recovered from his wounds?

Davis to me did not do the Southern cause any favors by not having a General in Chief.

 

[leftyhunter]

I'd argue that retaining Bragg was an example of why the CSA really needed a General-in-Chief, instead of Davis, making day to day decisions. Could Joe Johnston have filled that roll after he recovered from his wounds?

Davis to me did not do the Southern cause any favors by not having a General in Chief.

Delegating authority was not Davis's strong suit. Davis did twice to personally to the AoT to investigate Bragg's subordinates complaints about him.
Didn't Davis appoint Lee has commander in chief but late in the war when it was to little to late?
Of course we will never know if Bragg's replacement prior to when Bragg was replaced would of made a difference.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I would make the point that the US had a deeper pool of officers to sort through in order to get the job done. The Confederates had a smaller pool to choose from and less time to spend looking. Given the list of malcontents in Bragg's Army, I doubt anyone could have done much better than Bragg did. Also, I am not sure I'd list Rosecrans among the better commanders in the US Army; others performed better.

We have had a lot of Rosecrans threads in the past. Other then Chickumungua Rosecrans did rather well.Of course Chickumungua is a big hit to Rosecrans reputation. Even after Chickumungua Rosecrans had the military commander of Missouri did defeat General Prices raid in Missouri.
Yes the Union had a deeper pool but still had significant leadership issues.
Leftyhunter

 

[speedylee]

We have had a lot of Rosecrans threads in the past. Other then Chickumungua Rosecrans did rather well.Of course Chickumungua is a big hit to Rosecrans reputation. Even after Chickumungua Rosecrans had the military commander of Missouri did defeat General Prices raid in Missouri.
Yes the Union had a deeper pool but still had significant leadership issues.
Leftyhunter

No argument that the US had leadership issues, especially early in the war.

 

[leftyhunter]

No argument that the US had leadership issues, especially early in the war.

To be fair neither side thought the Civil War would last a long time other then a few prescient individuals Sam Houston and William Sherman being the most famous individuals to correctly foresee how long the war would last.
Leftyhunter

 

[OpnCoronet]

Why did Jefferson Davis hold on to Braxton Bragg as long as he did ? I know they were friends but couldn't he see what an incompetent boob he was in the field ? The man didn't get along with anybody. He might have been a good administrator but as far as running an army he was terrible. Surely there were better field commanders than him in the western armies. I could name a few. Somebody please enlighten me.

I think, as alluded too by other posters on this thread. It was not a question of how bad was Bragg, but, how good would bed his replacement.

Even today, it is far from clear, who was actually better than Bragg., to command in the West. How much clearer could it have been for Davis?

Lincoln faced the same problem. When urged to replace General's, like McClellan or Meade, by claims of 'Anybody, would be better", Lincoln impatiently argue, that while anybody might do for some people, He had to have somebody. He made mistakes, as did Davis, but, Union resources, allowed him to recover from his mistakes better than Davis could afford.

 

[leftyhunter]

Why did Jefferson Davis hold on to Braxton Bragg as long as he did ? I know they were friends but couldn't he see what an incompetent boob he was in the field ? The man didn't get along with anybody. He might have been a good administrator but as far as running an army he was terrible. Surely there were better field commanders than him in the western armies. I could name a few. Somebody please enlighten me.

To be fair to Bragg, based on the manpower available to Bragg could another commander of the AoT do any better?
In the Battle of Stones River both sides are close to the same side and the result is a stalemate. Bragg does not have the resources to expell the AoC from Tennessee.
Bragg performed as well as can be expected at Chickumungua.
The problem is that Longstreet can not commit to keeping his troops long enough to prevent General Hooker from breaking the Confederate encirlment of Chattanooga. Not sure where the fault lies about that.
Bragg does not have sufficient cavalry to destroy the Union railroad lines in Alabama that will supply vital troops and supplies to the AoC. Not sure if another commander would of been better.
Leftyhunter