Donelson vs Vicksburg

[MikeyB]

Which of these Confederate army group losses was more outrageous? At Donelson, they had a chance to breakout, so this seems pretty bad. At Vicksburg there was a larger group, and perhaps more time and options to avoid the final outcome? (I don't really know enough about the campaign).

So my question to you - which one represents the worst mismanagement?

 

[leftyhunter]

Which of these Confederate army group losses was more outrageous? At Donelson, they had a chance to breakout, so this seems pretty bad. At Vicksburg there was a larger group, and perhaps more time and options to avoid the final outcome? (I don't really know enough about the campaign).

So my question to you - which one represents the worst mismanagement?

Arguably Vicksburg was far worse. As a poster pointed out in the thread about Johnston vs Lee ; Johnston stripped all the cavalry from Mississippi so in a sense Pemperton was blind. Pemperton was as discussed in several threads given contradictory orders by both Davis and Johnston. With better Intel and clearer orders Pemperton arguably could of broken out of Vicksburg .
Leftyhunter

 

[Andy Cardinal]

In my opinion, both were terribly mismanaged and neither should have resulted in a whole-sale surrender. Since Vicksburg resulted in more casualties, it may be considered the worst mismanagement. However, I would personally go with Donelson -- given the early date, a different result would have dramatically changed Confederate fortunes in the west as well as perhaps keeping Grant more in the background. His victory at Donelson put him on the road to the top.

 

[DixieRifles]

That is a good question. When someone mentions "Vicksburg battles", I think of the campaign and the siege. There were a lot of mistakes made during all the battles that lead up to the siege of Vicksburg. Likewise the Confederate commanders made mistakes of spreading their forces too thin. There were men in Nashville who were needed at Donelson. I found a journal of a soldier who said he could hear the guns at Donelson while camped outside Nashville.

Maybe you intention was to compare the Siege of Vicksburg with that of Donelson. I don't know all the details of the command decisions to really answer that. I have read Gott's "Where the South Lost the War" that covered Donelson. The Siege of Vicksburg was on a much large scale in every way so I would expect there would be more chance or errors.

BTW, someone mentioned the lack of cavalry. I don't see much of a need for cavalry once you are forced into a defensive position behind breastworks.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

So my question to you - which one represents the worst mismanagement?

My answer to you would be the Fort Donelson debacle.

No comparison to Vicksburg in the least.

Vicksburg was a regional campaign involving vast areas, thousands of men on both sides, and almost two years to capture.

IMHO, Fort Donelson was more like a bone-headed play call from an idiot coach during an American football game.

 

[Tin cup]

A.S. Johnston mismanaged (with the help of Jeff Davis) the whole Tennessee situation in 1860-61! A lot of bumbling, and stumbling took place in Tennessee.

Kevin Dally

 

[gary]

Donelson was more fatal as it made Kentucky and Western and Middle Tennessee untenable. The men should broken out but leadership lost its nerve.

Vicksburg kept Grant at bay for over a year until he landed at Bruinsburg. Davis should not have ordered Gardner to hold Port Hudson. Gardner would have, if possible, reinforced Johnston. Here's the kicker. Johnston would not have relieved Pemberton but Banks could march up to join Grant and take command of the besieging army and the credit for both Port Hudson and Vicksburg. Grant could have been shuffled off to the sidelines and the war would have been prolonged if Banks was given command to relieve Chattanooga.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Donelson was more fatal as it made Kentucky and Western and Middle Tennessee untenable.

True, but it was also a very long shot that Kentucky and Middle Tennessee would have joined the Confederacy en masse anyway.

It was great pipe dream for the CSA officials, but without any prior strategic analysis . . . this plan was doomed from the start.

Again, only one man's opinion.

 

[Georgia Sixth]

Which of these Confederate army group losses was more outrageous? At Donelson, they had a chance to breakout, so this seems pretty bad. At Vicksburg there was a larger group, and perhaps more time and options to avoid the final outcome? (I don't really know enough about the campaign).

So my question to you - which one represents the worst mismanagement?

In terms of horrible management, Vicksburg was the ultimate nightmare. From the defending general getting contradictory orders, to the theater commander seemingly doing nothing to help, to the president failing to set up a theater command structure where resources could be coordinated and mutually supported, it's hard to imagine what else could be bungled. The CSA thoroughly earned their disaster. (And then you add the Union's boldest, most determined field commander was the opponent....a perfect storm.)

In terms of sheer idiotic battlefield management, that would be the clown circus that passed for army command at Donelson. Every time I read about it, I still have difficulty believing it happened.

And taken altogether, the Donelson/Shiloh/Vicksburg trifecta effectively ended CSA possibility of winning the war outright. They would be fighting on their heels. They still had a chance of not losing, but certainly not of winning. The collapse of the Tennessee line at Donelson prompted the stripping of New Orleans of its defense forces for the Shiloh effort. The resultant loss of that city is little discussed, I guess because its fall was quick and undramatic, but it was an enormous blow and the city was impossible to replace.

 

[Carronade]

In my opinion, both were terribly mismanaged and neither should have resulted in a whole-sale surrender. Since Vicksburg resulted in more casualties, it may be considered the worst mismanagement. However, I would personally go with Donelson -- given the early date, a different result would have dramatically changed Confederate fortunes in the west as well as perhaps keeping Grant more in the background. His victory at Donelson put him on the road to the top.

Heartily agree. Donelson started the Confederates on the downward slope. We could call it the turning point of the war, if we consider that they had a reasonable chance of success previously.