- Joined
- Nov 8, 2018
- Location
- Palm Coast, Florida
Many say that Patrick Cleburne was blocked from a rightfully-earned Corps command after his infamous proposition to arm slaves, and his rise was stunted with this action.
As much of an admirer of Cleburne and his actions in the war, I do not feel that Cleburne would have lived up to the moniker "Stonewall of the West". Reading Symonds' biography on the man, Cleburne himself lacked skills in terms of administration; he usually leave everything up to his staff, who for the most part did their jobs quite proficiently in his 2 years as a division commander. Cleburne's administrative responsibilities would have increased, as well as his staff, which may not be as reliable as his divisional staff (he would carry over some of his old staff, of course). Cleburne might have turned out like Hood: one of the best division commanders of the war, but a mediocre Corps commander.
What are y'all's thought on this? Would he have done a better job than Hood had in II Corps, AoT?
As much of an admirer of Cleburne and his actions in the war, I do not feel that Cleburne would have lived up to the moniker "Stonewall of the West". Reading Symonds' biography on the man, Cleburne himself lacked skills in terms of administration; he usually leave everything up to his staff, who for the most part did their jobs quite proficiently in his 2 years as a division commander. Cleburne's administrative responsibilities would have increased, as well as his staff, which may not be as reliable as his divisional staff (he would carry over some of his old staff, of course). Cleburne might have turned out like Hood: one of the best division commanders of the war, but a mediocre Corps commander.
What are y'all's thought on this? Would he have done a better job than Hood had in II Corps, AoT?